News Beneath the dignity of the Office of the President

[seycyrus]

By Poland it was too late. Talk doesn't always work. However, if the French and Germans had talked 25 years earlier (before WW I), we might had avoided the whole mess.

Is that mean to be funny?

They talked PLENTY.

That is the problem with this *talk* argument. If the outcome is different than you wanted, then you didn't talk *enough*.

That argument could be made forever and thus it loses its credibility.

 

[Art]

I don't think anyone could accuse Winston Churchill of being an appeaser who famously said

To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.

International relations are managed through diplomacy. Talking is the cornerstone of diplomacy and war is the final diplomatic solution to be used only when all other avenues of diplomacy are exhausted. To jump from A straight to Z because everything in the middle might not work is hardly an intelligent way (or civilised way for that matter) to resolve a dispute. Unless of course you doubt your negotiating skills to such an extent you feel failure is inevitable. In which case train better negotiators

 

[seycyrus]

Talking is the cornerstone of diplomacy and war is the final diplomatic solution to be used only when all other avenues of diplomacy are exhausted. To jump from A straight to Z because everything in the middle might not work is hardly an intelligent way (or civilised way for that matter) to resolve a dispute.

It is a good thing that we do not jump straight from A to Z! Why the creation of the obvious straman?

 

[Art]

It is a good thing that we do not jump straight from A to Z! Why the creation of the obvious straman?

So presumably you do support talking to one's enemies and so agree with Obama's strategy. That's good!

 

[chemisttree]

Obama's statement:

QUESTION: Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"...
OBAMA: "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration - is ridiculous."

Hillary's response is actually quite good.

Obama's latest explanation of this statement:

Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

and

There has been no confusion. I have been absolutely clear on this. I will meet not just with our friends but with our enemies. I will meet without preconditions. That does not mean I will meet without preparation. It is very important before any meeting to make sure that there is a list of agenda items that we are going to be talking about. But the difference is with me, for example, meeting with Iran, I would not expect that they would give in on critical issues like nuclear weapons before the meeting. The objective of the meeting would be to ensure that they stand down and that we've offered them carrots and sticks."

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/05-19-2008/0004816986&EDATE=

Without preparation? Without precondition? This is a typical politician/lawer doubletalk... and we've seen it all before. This isn't change. It is the Bush policy.

Engel's immediate follow-up question was, "Repeatedly you've talked about Iran and that you don't want to see Iran develop a nuclear weapon. How far away do you think Iran is from developing a nuclear capability?"

The President replied, "You know, Richard, I don't want to speculate – and there's a lot of speculation. But one thing is for certain – we need to prevent them from learning how to enrich uranium. And I have made it clear to the Iranians that there is a seat at the table for them if they would verifiably suspend their enrichment. And if not, we'll continue to rally the world to isolate them."

Not talking to Iran until they give up the uranium enrichment is the diplomatic tool (yes, diplomatic) the Bush Administration is currently using to pressure Iran.

 

[seycyrus]

So presumably you do support talking to one's enemies and so agree with Obama's strategy. That's good!

Not necessarily. There are other steps between A and Z that do not include direct legitimizing of a radical government.

 

[BobG]

International relations are managed through diplomacy. Talking is the cornerstone of diplomacy and war is the final diplomatic solution to be used only when all other avenues of diplomacy are exhausted. To jump from A straight to Z because everything in the middle might not work is hardly an intelligent way (or civilised way for that matter) to resolve a dispute. Unless of course you doubt your negotiating skills to such an extent you feel failure is inevitable. In which case train better negotiators

I don't think jumping "from A straight to Z" is the case in US-Iran relationships. The two have been enemies for nearly 30 years, but the amount of talking between the two countries has varied over the years.

Obviously, there were some talks in order for the Iran-Contra controversy to occur.

There were also some communications between the US-Iran even during Bush's term:

US-Iran post 9/11

US-Iran post Iraq

As the remarks from a spectrum of individuals show, there's a lot of disagreement about both topics. However, when the situations change, the possibility of changing a relationship also change.

There's some real economic benefits to Iran in having better relations with Europe and the US, so it's not unthinkable that Iran would see 9/11 as an opportunity. It's also not unthinkable that the invasion of Iraq changed the scenario as seen from Iran's point of view: first giving them the idea that they didn't want to be next and eventually giving them the idea they had at least a limited time of safety.

I think there probably was an opportunity for Bush to improve US-Iran relationships at some point, but I think it's probably true that any attempts for further negotiation at this time would be pretty disappointing. The US isn't dealing from nearly as strong a position as we were in 2003.

A change in leadership is a change in the scenario and it's certainly worth looking at negotiations with Iran after the President changes, but I wouldn't be expecting a huge breakthrough regardlesss of who's elected.

 

[Gokul43201]

I don't think jumping "from A straight to Z" is the case in US-Iran relationships. The two have been enemies for nearly 30 years, but the amount of talking between the two countries has varied over the years.

It may be worth recalling that there was similarly no talking between the US and China for over 20 years before Nixon visited Mao.

 

[mheslep]

US-Iran post 9/11

US-Iran post Iraq

These Frontline pieces would be great if they'd just stick to the well done interviews with the principals, and just drop the oh so ominous narration loaded with non-sequitors and mis-characterizations.

 

[BobG]

These Frontline pieces would be great if they'd just stick to the well done interviews with the principals, and just drop the oh so ominous narration loaded with non-sequitors and mis-characterizations.

Yeah, I wouldn't give all of the comments equal weight.

Still, a lot changed in a rapid amount of time.

Libya and Pakistan made abrupt changes in their attitudes, although neither made quite as drastic a change as one would have liked and the results in interactions with them have been pretty mixed. Libya was dropped from the state sponsored terrorist list by the US and is a member of the UN Security Council while Pakistan became an ally against the Taliban, but Libya still has a poor human rights record and Pakistan has turned out to be a very weak ally against the Taliban at best.

To be honest, I would have expected some pretty mixed results on Iran if the US had taken the opportunity to improve US-Iran relations.

But why the difference in attitude towards Libya and Pakistan vs the "Axis of Evil"?

Pakistan having a nuclear weapon probably explains their exception, but Libya falls right in there with Iraq and Iran. (Personally, if I were going to invade a country after Afghanistan, Pakistan would have been at the top of my list even in spite of them having a nuclear weapon. It would have directly supported a goal of wiping out Al-Qaeda.)

 

[mheslep]

Yeah, I wouldn't give all of the comments equal weight.

Still, a lot changed in a rapid amount of time.

Libya and Pakistan made abrupt changes in their attitudes, although neither made quite as drastic a change as one would have liked and the results in interactions with them have been pretty mixed. Libya was dropped from the state sponsored terrorist list by the US and is a member of the UN Security Council while Pakistan became an ally against the Taliban, but Libya still has a poor human rights record and Pakistan has turned out to be a very weak ally against the Taliban at best.

To be honest, I would have expected some pretty mixed results on Iran if the US had taken the opportunity to improve US-Iran relations.

But why the difference in attitude towards Libya and Pakistan vs the "Axis of Evil"?

Pakistan having a nuclear weapon probably explains their exception, but Libya falls right in there with Iraq and Iran.

Capability. I don't know that the two have the same intentions by Libya lacks the capability. Iran $850B GDP/ 70 M people, Libya $80B GDP / 6 M or 10:1. So its maybe 10x harder for the Libyans to have an entirely indigenous nuclear weapons program, and they can be seriously hurt by sanctions if they continued to flaunt guerilla training camps out in the desert. If I recall the sanctions against Libya in the 90s had largely slowed (stopped?) Libyan terrorist play, while Iran can afford to continue handsomely fund and equip Hezbollah in spite of sanctions and Hussein could still give cash rewards to West Bank suicide bombers even under severe sanctions.

 

[Art]

I don't think jumping "from A straight to Z" is the case in US-Iran relationships. The two have been enemies for nearly 30 years, but the amount of talking between the two countries has varied over the years.

I wasn't referring to Iran specifically, more generically challenging the notion that to talk to one's enemies or potential enemies is somehow a sign of weakness / appeasement.

In the case of Iran I still suspect if the military planners and his legal advisers give the green light an attack will be made by Israel with US support before Bush leaves office as I think he believes in his delusional mind he is the only one 'strong' enough to make the decision.

 

[turbo]

I wasn't referring to Iran specifically, more generically challenging the notion that to talk to one's enemies or potential enemies is somehow a sign of weakness / appeasement.

In the case of Iran I still suspect if the military planners and his legal advisers give the green light an attack will be made by Israel with US support before Bush leaves office as I think he believes in his delusional mind he is the only one 'strong' enough to make the decision.

Yes, this is the Frank Sinatra option. Sinatra was a coward, but he gained a reputation for mixing it up, tellingly only in company of an overwhelming entourage. He'd sucker-punch somebody at a club on some pretense, and then his heavies would jump into prevent retaliation and would pound his victim, or at the very least, eject him. Israel could very well draw the US into another war with just such a strategy, since we are "blessed" with a neo-con administration that loves the economic leverage that accompanies international conflict.

 

[seycyrus]

... Israel could very well draw the US into another war with just such a strategy, since we are "blessed" with a neo-con administration that loves the economic leverage that accompanies international conflict.

It's amazing the amount of speculative biased strawmen that you guys throw in virtually every post.

 

[Gokul43201]

Let's also not forget that this thread is based on a strawman the the President threw out in his speech.

Of course there is reason to think long and hard about negotiating with our "enemies". Historically, we have seen both good and poor outcomes from such negotiations, and we must learn from these examples. Likewise, deciding to engage certain groups only militarily or not at all is also foolish, and has also shown to produce mixed results.

The assertion that someone proposing to negotiate with enemies is an appeaser or a traitor is itself the worst kind dirty politicking. Where are all those Republicans who called the Dixie Chicks cowardly traitors for criticizing the President on foreign soil? Where are the Republicans who were outraged by Clinton protesting Vietnam while he was on scholarship in the UK? How cool would it be for Obama to make a speech in Baghdad telling them that some senators think we should have a 100-year occupation in Iraq (which would at least be completely truthful)?

The simple truth about the Bush speech is that it is at the very least downright dishonest. It intentionally conflates diplomacy with appeasement. It turns a hypocritically blinded eye to the fact that both the Sec State and Sec Def have supported negotiations with Iran (as well as the Sec States for Nixon, Reagan and Bush Sr., who sat on the Baker-Hamilton commission). It conveniently ignores the long and continuing history that the US has of supporting and enriching dictators, radicals and extremists. It ignores that fact that Bush hurried into negotiations with Kim Jong Il as soon as he started acting up...and it produced positive results. It ignores the fact the Bush continues to have talks with Abdullah and al-Bashir, among the worst dictators alive today...and there is probably good reason for such engagement.

 

[seycyrus]

Let's also not forget that this thread is based on a strawman the the President threw out in his speech...

...

How cool would it be for Obama to make a speech in Baghdad telling them that some senators think we should have a 100-year occupation in Iraq (which would at least be completely truthful)?.

I'm not sure of the point you are making here. Are you providing another example of a misstated position? If so, you succeeded.

I think we owe it to ourselves on PF to steer away from such obvious intentional misinterpretations of what people have said.

 

[chemisttree]

I'm not sure of the point you are making here. Are you providing another example of a misstated position? If so, you succeeded.

I think we owe it to ourselves on PF to steer away from such obvious intentional misinterpretations of what people have said.

Hear, hear! The misstatement that McCain said we should have a 100 year occupation is the worst, most cynically false thing to come out of the Obama camp so far. Completely untruthful.

 

[mheslep]

...The simple truth about the Bush speech is that it is at the very least downright dishonest. It intentionally conflates diplomacy with appeasement. It turns a hypocritically blinded eye to the fact that both the Sec State and Sec Def have supported negotiations with Iran (as well as the Sec States for Nixon, Reagan and Bush Sr., who sat on the Baker-Hamilton commission)...

Then there must have been another Presidential speech given we have not seen here, because that's not a 'simple truth' that can be drawn from the Israeli speech. Bush did not say don't talk any hostile states, nor does he necessarily equate diplomacy with appeasement. Talk may be, or may not be, appeasement, it depends on the context. It is fair to call the intentions of the '39 US Senator appeasement, based on naiveté. The US position on Iran is clear across State and DoD: US will talk to them one on one about anything if they kill their nuclear program, as I've seen Sec Rice say in the same room with the Iranians.

 

[Art]

It's amazing the amount of speculative biased strawmen that you guys throw in virtually every post.

When Bush makes comments such as this to the Knesset

For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.

it is hardly a strawman to speculate on how exactly he intends to achieve his stated aim especially when he also stated he doesn't intend achieving his goal by talking to them. Again he demonstrates just how out of touch with reality he is as his own intelligence service said Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program.

 

[Art]

The US position on Iran is clear across State and DoD: US will talk to them one on one about anything if they kill their nuclear program, as I've seen Sec Rice say in the same room with the Iranians.

lol So give us what we want and then we'll negotiate with you?

How many negotiations have you been involved in that successfully used that strategy??

 

[mheslep]

When Bush makes comments such as this to the Knesset it is hardly a strawman to speculate on how exactly he intends to achieve his stated aim especially when he also stated he doesn't intend achieving his goal by talking to them.

The US communicates to Iran all the time via the UN, through the EU members negotiating nuclear policy and other indirect means including some EU meetings w/ Sec. Rice and the Iranians in the same room. There are no one on one negotiations, certainly not President to President. The US is a strong backer of the UN sanctions imposed on Iran for NPT violations, that being the current 'how' policy.

 

[chemisttree]

lol So give us what we want and then we'll negotiate with you?

How many negotiations have you been involved in that successfully used that strategy??

What would be gained from a negotiation with Iran if, in the end, Iran still retained the right to ignore it as it has the non-proliferation treaty?

 

[turbo]

That's a good one! Saddam, prove that you don't have WMDs and we won't have to attack you. Prove that you didn't procure yellowcake from Niger and we won't have to attack you. Prove that you're not going to use that aluminum tubing for centrifuges and we won't have to attack you. Prove that you don't have mobile biological labs and we won't have to attack you. Flimsy pretexts for starting a war that they had already decided to start. Bush/Cheney "diplomacy" at work.

Edit: this is a response to Art's post. got leap-frogged.

 

[Art]

The US communicates to Iran all the time via the UN, through the EU members negotiating nuclear policy and other indirect means including some EU meetings w/ Sec. Rice and the Iranians in the same room. There are no one on one negotiations, certainly not President to President. The US is a strong backer of the UN sanctions imposed on Iran for NPT violations, that being the current 'how' policy.

You might not be aware of this but the current bout of sanctions are not working so now what??

It's all a little reminiscent of Iraq and it's WMD. It's hard to give up something you don't have.

 

[quadraphonics]

What would be gained from a negotiation with Iran if, in the end, Iran still retained the right to ignore it as it has the non-proliferation treaty?

Even if negotations with Iran go absolutely nowhere (which is unlikely; there are a surprising number of areas in which the interests of Iran and the United States coincide), the fact of having negotiated in good faith is a prerequisite for international support for tougher measures against Iran.

 

[Art]

What would be gained from a negotiation with Iran if, in the end, Iran still retained the right to ignore it as it has the non-proliferation treaty?

That the same treaty Iran is in compliance with but was criticised for not signing the additional protocol? The same one Israel wouldn't sign at all? The same one under which America signed up to scrap all of it's nuclear arsenal??

 

[chemisttree]

Even if negotations with Iran go absolutely nowhere (which is unlikely; there are a surprising number of areas in which the interests of Iran and the United States coincide), the fact of having negotiated in good faith is a prerequisite for international support for tougher measures against Iran.

Interesting... So we should negotiate with Iran so that we can be seen as having negotiated in good faith so we can get tougher on them.
When was the last time we negotiated with Iran in good faith? Should we continue to negotiate and then, at some point, cash in all our good faith chips in exchange for a good old fashioned military strike? What is the exchange rate these days on good faith chips?

 

[mheslep]

lol So give us what we want and then we'll negotiate with you?

How many negotiations have you been involved in that successfully used that strategy??

Its not, , 'give us what we want' . Its more 'put down that gun and we'll talk', and in that sense such a condition is completely common. There are many issues Iran and the US need to discuss: Iranian Shia in Iraq, MEK, Iranian influence/funding of Hezbollah, Afghanistan, UN sanctions, terrorism, esp. AQ, that both the US and Iran have condemmed. All that is on the table if Iran will offer up its nuclear weapons efforts. oh, and

 

[BobG]

Then there must have been another Presidential speech given we have not seen here, because that's not a 'simple truth' that can be drawn from the Israeli speech. Bush did not say don't talk any hostile states, nor does he necessarily equate diplomacy with appeasement. Talk may be, or may not be, appeasement, it depends on the context. It is fair to call the intentions of the '39 US Senator appeasement, based on naiveté. The US position on Iran is clear across State and DoD: US will talk to them one on one about anything if they kill their nuclear program, as I've seen Sec Rice say in the same room with the Iranians.

Are you sure it's fair to call Borah's intentions appeasement?

Here's a Borah quote from 1938, after Hitler was given the Sudetenland of Czechoslavakia:

Gad, what a chance Hitler has! If he only moderates his religious and racial intolerance, he would take his place beside Charlemagne. He has taken Europe without firing a shot.

I think it's more fair to say Borah felt Hitler made a tactical error, not that the US should be negotiating with Hitler to stop his aggression.

Borah was old (mid-70's) and nearing the end of his life (in fact, he died about a year later), so he was becoming pretty erratic and unreasonable. He came to deplore Roosevelt for being a near dictator, but admired Hitler, remarking, "There are so many great sides to him."

From: A Lion Among the Liberals

 

[Art]

Its not, , 'give us what we want' . Its more 'put down that gun and we'll talk', and in that sense such a condition is completely common. There are many issues Iran and the US need to discuss: Iranian Shia in Iraq, MEK, Iranian influence/funding of Hezbollah, Afghanistan, UN sanctions, terrorism, esp. AQ, that both the US and Iran have condemmed. All that is on the table if Iran will offer up its nuclear weapons efforts. oh, and

I take it then the answer to my question is none.

 

[mheslep]

You might not be aware of this but the current bout of sanctions are not working so now what??

No so far. What do you suggest?

It's all a little reminiscent of Iraq and it's WMD. It's hard to give up something you don't have.

What do they not have? You might not be aware of this but the Iranians have a rather active enrichment program and have bragged about it.

 

[mheslep]

I take it then the answer to my question is none.

Quite a few, not that it has any bearing.

 

[turbo]

Its not, , 'give us what we want' . Its more 'put down that gun and we'll talk', and in that sense such a condition is completely common.

You are posing the Iran "threat" as if it it is an immediate threat and is somehow actionable based on some sort of urgency. This is not the viewpoint of Gates, Rice, or Petraeus, but of war-mongering neocons who are using Bush and Cheney to drum up support for yet another war. It is beyond unnecessary - it is criminal.

 

[Art]

Quite a few, not that it has any bearing.

Examples please. I've worked in negotiations for years and have never, ever seen that strategy employed much less used successfully and so would love to have some real life examples.

 

[mheslep]

Are you sure it's fair to call Borah's intentions appeasement?

Here's a Borah quote from 1938, after Hitler was given the Sudetenland of Czechoslavakia: I think it's more fair to say Borah felt Hitler made a tactical error, not that the US should be negotiating with Hitler to stop his aggression.

Borah was old (mid-70's) and nearing the end of his life (in fact, he died about a year later), so he was becoming pretty erratic and unreasonable. He came to deplore Roosevelt for being a near dictator, but admired Hitler, remarking, "There are so many great sides to him."

From: A Lion Among the Liberals

I think they should have thrown him in the same cage with Ezra Pound.

 

[mheslep]

Examples please. I've worked in negotiations for years and have never, ever seen that strategy employed much less used successfully and so would love to have some real life examples.

Plenty of the 'put down the gun first' type, none of the 'give me what I want first' strawman you suggest. On projects or conferences I've run:
-Stop yelling / shouting and then we'll hear you out.
-Agreements to non-disclosure of proprietary information before the discussion can even begin.
-Agreement on time schedules, topics of conversation. As a third party chair I've shut down speakers for deliberately indulging in personal, off topic, agendas.

In general I suggest predetermined boundary conditions are required for any successful communication.

 

[seycyrus]

You might not be aware of this but the current bout of sanctions are not working so now what??

Either they are working, and Iran has not been able to develop nuclear weapons, or they are not working and Iran is in the process of creating said weapons.

You claim that they are not working? Certainly a wake up call!

 

[Art]

Plenty of the 'put down the gun first' type, none of the 'give me what I want first' strawman you suggest. On projects or conferences I've run:
-Stop yelling / shouting and then we'll hear you out.
-Agreements to non-disclosure of proprietary information before the discussion can even begin.
-Agreement on time schedules, topics of conversation. As a third party chair I've shut down speakers for deliberately indulging in personal, off topic, agendas.

In general I suggest predetermined boundary conditions are required for any successful communication.

Pre-agreement on the form and agenda for negotiations is somewhat different than one side insisting the other concede the main point to be negotiated before the negotiations begin

 

[Art]

Either they are working, and Iran has not been able to develop nuclear weapons, or they are not working and Iran is in the process of creating said weapons.

You claim that they are not working? Certainly a wake up call!

You're just being silly now.

 

[seycyrus]

When Bush makes comments such as this to the Knesset it is hardly a strawman to speculate on how exactly he intends

First off, Iran has made it's intentions about Israel clear. Allowing Iran to have Nuclear weapons *would* be a threat to world peace.

Secondly, if misapropriated speculation isn't a strawman, then what is?

Again he demonstrates just how out of touch with reality he is as his own intelligence service said Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program.

They said that the one program was stopped. Nothing was said about other programs. Furthermore, Iran has boasted about it's enrichment programs.

 

[seycyrus]

You're just being silly now.

Am I? Just following the logical path.

What is the current aim of the sanctions? You claim that they are not working, which means that aims are not being addressed.

 

[seycyrus]

That the same treaty Iran is in compliance with but was criticised for not signing the additional protocol?

Claiming that Iran is in compliance directly contradicts recent statements by the IAEA.

The same one Israel wouldn't sign at all?

Are we casting stones for not signing? or for not following the obligations of being a signatory?

The same one under which America signed up to scrap all of it's nuclear arsenal??

That condition is not so easily stated.

Please cite any statements and/or resolutions by IAEA directed against the US for it's noncompliance with its obligations.

 

[Gokul43201]

I'm not sure of the point you are making here. Are you providing another example of a misstated position? If so, you succeeded.

I think we owe it to ourselves on PF to steer away from such obvious intentional misinterpretations of what people have said.

There's not a shred of misrepresentation there, intentional or not. McCain was talking about a peacetime occupation along the lines of South Korea and Japan, and has explained this position repeatedly. Obama can make this perfectly clear - it would still not make the Iraqis any less pissed off. But the point I was making is that such a speech in foreign land (where he need have done nothing more than replay the audio from the town hall meeting where McCain made the statement) would surely incense Republican sensitivities, as events in the past have. That's a double standard.

Then there must have been another Presidential speech given we have not seen here, because that's not a 'simple truth' that can be drawn from the Israeli speech. Bush did not say don't talk any hostile states, nor does he necessarily equate diplomacy with appeasement.

Bush: "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

Ergo, in Bush's own words, negotiating with terrorists and radicals is nothing more than providing the false comfort of appeasement.

So does that mean that Ahmedinejad is a radical but Kim Jong Il isn't?

The US position on Iran is clear across State and DoD: US will talk to them one on one about anything if they kill their nuclear program, as I've seen Sec Rice say in the same room with the Iranians.

And I quote Gates from an interview he gave last week:

I think that the one area where the Iraq Study Group recommendations have not been followed up is in terms of reaching out the Iranians. And I would just tell you I've gone through kind of an evolution on this myself. I co-chaired with Zbig a Council on Foreign Relations study on U.S. policy toward Iran, in 2004. But we were looking at a different Iran in many respects. We were looking at an Iran where Khatami was the president. We were looking at an Iran where their behavior in Iraq actually was fairly ambivalent in 2004. They were doing some things that were not helpful, but they were also doing some things that were helpful.

And one of the questions that I think historians will have to take a look at is whether there was a missed opportunity at that time. But with the election of Ahmadinejad and the very unambiguous role that Iran is playing in a negative sense in Iraq today, you know, I sort of sign up with Tom Friedman's column today. We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage with respect to the Iranians and then sit down and talk with them. If there's going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander with them not feeling that they need anything from us.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4230

It would be so easy for Bush to label Gates an appeaser, were it not for the fact that he hasn't yet fired him for this appeasement.

 

[Art]

Am I? Just following the logical path.

What is the current aim of the sanctions? You claim that they are not working, which means that aims are not being addressed.

sigh... Okay I'll explain it to you.

Iran's nuclear program began under the Shah in 1967 with American help. IIRC the plan was to build something like 23 reactors by 2000. Now the US argue why would Iran with it's oil possibly need nuclear reactors unless for weapons. Well I'd say whatever the answer to that question was then is the same now.

In 1976 President Ford offered Iran a reprocessing facility to allow extraction of plutonium to give them the full nuclear cycle which is perfectly within the terms of the NPT which Iran ratified in 1970. All of this despite the fact western intelligence at the time suspected Iran was secretly conducting experiments with weaponising nuclear materials. But as the Shah was 'their' man the US didn't care.

After the revolution Iran's nuclear program fell into disrepair but was revived later with Iran informing the IAEA it intended to develop a full nuclear cycle including the enrichment of nuclear fuel as they were perfectly entitled to do under the terms of the NPT. Initially the IAEA agreed, as they were bound to, to assist Iran but backed off under US pressure and the US refused to supply Iran with the fuel they had contracted for or to return the billions of $s paid for it. The countries contracted to build the reactors which were only partially complete also pulled out under US pressure. This coupled with the Iraq-Iran war led to a shutdown of the program.

In 1992 following media allegations of undeclared nuclear activity the Iranian's invited the IAEA to investigate any site they wished to see following which the DG Blix declared that 'all activities observed were consistent with the peaceful use of atomic energy.'

In 1996 Iran obtained an agreement with Russia to restart it's program.

In 2002 Iran was accused of having secret undeclared facilities which was a trumped up spurious charge as under the terms of the NPT Iran was under no obligation to declare any facility until 6 months before the facility was due to receive a shipment of nuclear fuel.

The only genuine charges against Iran of illegal nuclear activity are related to the period when the US's friend the Shah was in control which did not trouble the US in the slightest at the time so one can understand Iran's frustration now that the new gov't is in effect being punished for what the American puppet leader did before he was deposed.

The situation now is the US are trying to prevent Iran from enriching uranium despite them having a perfect legal right to do so and despite the sanctions imposed Iran has continued to exercise their right.

If the US want Iran to forgo their legal right to enrich uranium then IMO the way to do it is to talk to them and see if there is something they can offer in return or to see if they can agree safeguards to everyones' satisfaction.

Bullying has certainly not been an effective policy so far.

 

[turbo]

Thanks, Art. You've got a lot more patience than I do. the Bush/Cheney sound-bites take Iran's nuclear program and their rights to pursue this program entirely out of context. They make it sound as though Iran is going to wheel out a functioning bomb later this year and drop it on Tel Aviv. The presence of multiple carrier groups in the region and the constant saber-rattling are disconcerting, at best.

 

[mheslep]

sigh... Okay I'll explain it to you.

Iran's nuclear program began under the Shah in 1967 with American help. IIRC the plan was to build something like 23 reactors by 2000. Now the US argue why would Iran with it's oil possibly need nuclear reactors unless for weapons. Well I'd say whatever the answer to that question was then is the same now.
...
After the revolution Iran's nuclear program fell into disrepair but was revived later with Iran informing the IAEA it intended to develop a full nuclear cycle including the enrichment of nuclear fuel as they were perfectly entitled to do under the terms of the NPT. Initially the IAEA agreed, as they were bound to, to assist Iran but backed off under US pressure and the US refused to supply Iran with the fuel they had contracted for or to return the billions of $s paid for it. The countries contracted to build the reactors which were only partially complete also pulled out under US pressure. This coupled with the Iraq-Iran war led to a shutdown of the program.

In 1992 following media allegations of undeclared nuclear activity the Iranian's invited the IAEA to investigate any site they wished to see following which the DG Blix declared that 'all activities observed were consistent with the peaceful use of atomic energy.'

In 1996 Iran obtained an agreement with Russia to restart it's program.

In 2002 Iran was accused of having secret undeclared facilities which was a trumped up spurious charge as under the terms of the NPT Iran was under no obligation to declare any facility until 6 months before the facility was due to receive a shipment of nuclear fuel.

The only genuine charges against Iran of illegal nuclear activity are related to the period when the US's friend the Shah was in control which did not trouble the US in the slightest at the time so one can understand Iran's frustration now that the new gov't is in effect being punished for what the American puppet leader did before he was deposed.

The situation now is the US are trying to prevent Iran from enriching uranium despite them having a perfect legal right to do so and despite the sanctions imposed Iran has continued to exercise their right.

If the US want Iran to forgo their legal right to enrich uranium then IMO the way to do it is to talk to them and see if there is something they can offer in return or to see if they can agree safeguards to everyones' satisfaction.

Since a good portion of the above contradicts the statements of the IAEA and the United Nations could please provide a source?

 

[Art]

Since a good portion of the above contradicts the statements of the IAEA and the United Nations could please provide a source?

As the above is my own composition gleaned from numerous sources you will need to tell me specifically which point/s you wish to contest and I'll provide a source to support my contention.

For example

Past Arguments Don't Square With Current Iran Policy

By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 27, 2005; Page A15

Lacking direct evidence, Bush administration officials argue that Iran's nuclear program must be a cover for bomb-making. Vice President Cheney recently said, "They're already sitting on an awful lot of oil and gas. Nobody can figure why they need nuclear as well to generate energy."

Yet Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and outgoing Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz held key national security posts when the Ford administration made the opposite argument 30 years ago.
snip
The U.S. offer, details of which appear in declassified documents reviewed by The Washington Post, did not include the uranium enrichment capabilities Iran is seeking today. But the United States tried to accommodate Iranian demands for plutonium reprocessing, which produces the key ingredient of a bomb.

After balking initially, President Gerald R. Ford signed a directive in 1976 offering Tehran the chance to buy and operate a U.S.-built reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel. The deal was for a complete "nuclear fuel cycle" -- reactors powered by and regenerating fissile materials on a self-sustaining basis.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3983-2005Mar26.html

Atomic Team Reports on Iran Probe; No Weapons Research Found by Inspectors

From:
The Washington Post
Date:
February 15, 1992
Author:
Michael Z. Wise | Copyright information Copyright 1992 The Washington Post. This material is published under license from the Washington Post. All inquiries regarding rights should be directed to the Washington Post.

International Atomic Energy Agency officials returning from a seven-day visit to Iran said the country's activities appeared consistent with a peaceful nuclear energy program, a finding that Iranian officials said should clear the way for greater technical assistance from abroad.

But Western delegates to the agency, a United Nations group charged with halting illicit production of nuclear weapons as well as promoting civilian nuclear power, said Iranian nuclear ambitions warrant continued vigilance and Western retention of an informal embargo on shipments of sensitive materials to Iran.

Iran invited the IAEA visit to dispel reports of undeclared nuclear facilities on its territory

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-990775.html

 

[Art]

And to prove my contention that Iran was not in breach of the NPT for not informing the IAEA of it's new facilities under construction

Implementation of the NPT safeguards agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran

snip
15. The Subsidiary Arrangements General Part in force with Iran from 1976 to 26 February 2003
included what was, until 1992, standard text which called for provision to the Agency of design
information on a new facility no later than 180 days before the introduction of nuclear material into the facility,

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2003/gov2003-40.pdf

Iran never signed the Additional Protocol which would have required her to inform the IAEA at the design phase. They did however from 1993 agree to voluntarily accept safeguards over and above those in the Additional Protocol but withdrew their cooperation following the implementation of sanctions since which the IAEA have noted on all of their reports that this has limited their ability to investigate fully. Thus so far the only effect of sanctions has been to reduce the visibility of Iran's program.

This is the sort of tripe the clamor for war with Iran is being built on

BBC NEWS
US Iran report branded dishonest
The UN nuclear watchdog has protested to the US government over a report on Iran's nuclear programme, calling it "erroneous" and "misleading".

In a leaked letter, the IAEA said a congressional report contained serious distortions of the agency's own findings on Iran's nuclear activity.
snip
The letter went on to brand "outrageous and dishonest" a suggestion in the report that he was removed for not adhering "to an unstated IAEA policy barring IAEA officials from telling the whole truth" about Iran.

The letter, sent to Peter Hoekstra, head of the House of Representatives' Select Committee on Intelligence, was aimed at setting "the record straight on the facts", the IAEA said.

"This is a matter of the integrity of the IAEA and its inspectors," spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said in a statement.

A Western diplomat called it "deja vu of the pre-Iraq war period".

The IAEA and the US clashed over intelligence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction in the lead-up to the war in Iraq in March 2003.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5346524.stm

 

[mheslep]

Most specifically this

...In 2002 Iran was accused of having secret undeclared facilities which was a trumped up spurious charge as under the terms of the NPT Iran was under no obligation to declare any facility until 6 months before the facility was due to receive a shipment of nuclear fuel.

The only genuine charges against Iran of illegal nuclear activity are related to the period when the US's friend the Shah was in control...

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2005/gov2005-77.pdf
which states in part

1. Finds that Iran’s many failures and breaches of its obligations to comply with its NPT Safeguards Agreement, as detailed in GOV/2003/75, constitute non compliance in the context of Article XII.C of
the Agency’s Statute;
2. Finds also that the history of concealment of Iran’s nuclear activities referred to in the Director General’s report, the nature of these activities, issues brought to light in the course of the Agency’s verification of declarations made by Iran since September 2002 and the resulting absence of confidence that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes have given rise to questions that are within the competence of the Security Council, as the organ bearing the main responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security;

Iran first signed a safeguards agreement in '92 and an http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2003/iranap20031218.html" which principally specifies the inspections regime used by the IAEA. The IAEA found Iran in violation of the its safeguards agreement in '05, the exact findings of which are linked above. Absent a safeguards agreement an NPT signatory does not have a legal right to enrich. In turn the IAEA referred the matter to the UN security council which required Iran to cease all enrichment activities and imposed some sanctions. Though Iran has cooperated in some regards, it still continues to enrich and hence the latest UN round of sanctions, drafted by France and the UK. The vote was 14-0.

 

[Art]

Most specifically this

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2005/gov2005-77.pdf
which states in partIran first signed a safeguards agreement in '92 and an http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2003/iranap20031218.html" which principally specifies the inspections regime used by the IAEA. The IAEA found Iran in violation of the its safeguards agreement in '05, the exact findings of which are linked above. Absent a safeguards agreement an NPT signatory does not have a legal right to enrich. In turn the IAEA referred the matter to the UN security council which required Iran to cease all enrichment activities and imposed some sanctions. Though Iran has cooperated in some regards, it still continues to enrich and hence the latest UN round of sanctions, drafted by France and the UK. The vote was 14-0.

Your timing is a little out. The sites became an issue in 2002, as I have already pointed out Iran did not sign the new safeguards agreement until 2003.

note They still have not formally ratified the Additional Protocol agreement and so the charge they were in breach of the NPT which they did sign was incorrect. As I said from 2003 they worked to the provisions of the Additional Protocol on a voluntary basis until they were shafted at the UN. They are accused of being in breach of something they never signed up to.