5:03AM
U.S. offer to Iran was just "propaganda"
Thursday, June 1, 2006 at 5:03AM Rice's offer to start F2F talks with Iran once they suspend nuclear activities was purposely designed for automatic rejection, telling me that this administration has no intention of negotiating seriously with Tehran. Whole dynamic of needing talks is driven by Iran's drive for nukes, so expecting them to fork over their biggest chip before even sitting down to the poker table is either supremely naive or just plain cynical.
With the Iraq tie-down and the Bush post-presidency in full swing, Bush simply abdicates global leadership on this one.
The only interesting question left is, Who picks up the ball between now and Jan 09?
Reader Comments (7)
Bush wants to start another war, this time with Iran. So he'll continue to make demands that cannot be met by the other side while claiming to his "base" that he's just being reasonable. It is the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, but with Qs turned into Ns. If one wasn't feeling too depressed and/or cynical, one could draw up a list comparing the stated reasons for invading Iraq that were uttered in 2002/2003 with the stated reasons for invading Iran that are being uttered this year.
One has to admire the Iranians for fooling the US into winning the Iran-Iraq war permanently on behalf of Iran, using American money and installing a pro-Iranian government in Iraq. Perhaps our leader's petulance with Iran has something to do with anger about being decieved and manipulated in such a fashion.
I think people are - perhaps deliberately - confusing "suspend" with "permanently terminate". Also they are forgetting recent history when they claim this is somehow an unreasonable expectation.
It's the same one the European negotiators got from Iran at several points when they were at the negotiating table.
Now all the sudden the same thing that Iran did several times during the last several years of negotiations - suspend nuclear activities (then at the European's request) is being portrayed as completely unrealistic.
So who's engaging in propaganda? To me it becomes increasingly clear that this whole thing is being used by some people at least as a tool for partisan advantage in the U.S. Goal-post moving usually is.
I'm thus becoming increasingly skeptical of about half of what I read here on the subject. When it comes to Iran, the content here is about 50% sound strategic advice and 50% partisan point-scoring in the run-up to the increasingly mentioned elections.
US: We wont attack you if you stop building nukes...
Iran: But we're building nukes so you wont attack us...
US: So stop building nukes and we can talk...
Iran: No, we'll keep building nukes, and then we'll talk...
E3: Please, stop building nukes, we've got all these prizes behind door number 3...
Iran: We don't want your stinkin' prizes unless we can have nukes...
IAEA: Please, stop building nukes...
Iran: We aren't building nukes, we are engaged in peacefull nuclear power research... And we have the right to nukes anyway...
I must respectfully disagree with your sentiments on this Tom. While you're correct that the overture was made with the full knowledge that Iran would turn down the offer, it demonstrates quite clearly to the rest of the world Iran has absolutely no intentions to negotiate in good faith.
We called their bluff, and Iran blinked.
Tom, I've been a huge fan of the blog over the past years, but I start to agree with the person above that on Iran you seem to just repeat the same thing over and over again, despite the many events unfolding. You may still be right, but I'm wondering if you go back an re-analize your whole position on the issue from time to time, or just try to come with persuasive arguments for your already defined stance?
I'm just wondering, I don't quite recall any time you changed your mind over something important, and I'm sure this is a characterisitc of grand strategists, but nevertheless all great succesfull statesmen through history admited mistakes at different times...
I hope you won't fall into the same trap as Tom Friedman who, as you eloquently refered to, fell in love with the flawed idea that "we're financing both sides in the war on terror and therefore we need green energy to win GWOT" and over the past year has been repeating it in every other op-ed.
Sean Meade - I think that you are deeply mistaken. I think that the US is prepared to negotiate with Tehran and to grant them security guarantees and all the rest. They just won't do it with this regime. We should not confuse the government with the country. Maybe I'm being too cute by half but the distinction needs to be made. Mullah rule is not a permanent state of affairs and we earn great gratitude in Najaf with every gesture designed to disloge Khomeinism from Tehran.
The firm kill is shaping up. Maybe those 10k azeris made it to Tehran after all. Now the Turkmen are exercised, the same ethnics that were supposed to draw Turkey into Kurdistan. Does Turkey only care for Iraqi and not Iranian Turkmen? That would be absurd. So what do the turks of Turkey think about their cousins in Iran? Don't wait for the western MSM to ask.
A Shia run N. Gulf changes everything. The aftershocks are just starting to come into view.
no problem, TM. it's Tom's post. i just posted it for him. maybe i need to distinguish such situations better...