The Washington Post (thanks to JE) says that "it's easy to see the potential advantage to Iran of opening negotiations with the United States on Iraq." And that is undeniably true. What is more difficult to see is the potential advantage to the United States of opening such negotiations with Iran. It seems to me to be nothing more than a concession that our Shi'ite-leaning policy in Iraq (inspired not by a predilection for Shi'ites but by an unshakeable attachment to the one-man-one-vote idea of democracy, which inevitably favored the Shi'a majority) has played into the hands of the Iranians, and now we have no choice but to acknowledge them as a player in Iraq.
IT'S EASY to see the potential advantage to Iran of opening negotiations with the United States on Iraq. The sudden announcement by Iran's national security chief Thursday that Tehran would accept an offer of dialogue made months ago by the U.S. ambassador in Baghdad came as members of the U.N. Security Council were meeting to discuss a council statement about the Iranian nuclear program.That statement could be the first in an escalating series of steps to force Tehran to give up the enrichment of uranium and fully cooperate with international inspectors. Preventing such diplomatic action has been Iran's main aim since its illegal nuclear program was discovered in 2004; the failure to stop the issue from reaching the Security Council has prompted some visible handwringing and backbiting among the mullahs.
By drawing the Bush administration into talks about Iraq, the Iranians give themselves a shot at splintering or distracting the fragile coalition that may be forming in New York. Already Iranian officials are speaking openly about the possibility that any discussions would expand into the broader security dialogue that Tehran has long coveted with the United States. In Iraq -- where American soldiers are dying from Iranian-supplied roadside bombs and sectarian violence by Iranian-supported militias is steadily mounting -- the Islamic regime has a tacit and sinister offer to make: Back down in New York, and the carnage in Baghdad might just drop off. Even the appearance that the Bush administration might be considering such a trade-off would worsen the situation in Iraq and wreck a year of careful and mostly effective anti-proliferation diplomacy.
This was what Islam has done for millenia and what the communists (Marx or Lenin must have read the Koran) did for decades: hold "talks" with your enemy with peace as the pretence while you use the breathing space to re-arm, resupply etc.
Seeing as the US is Kufir the talks can have no meaning whatsoever as no Muslim has to abide by an agreement with an infidel, and expecially a reactionary islamic regime like Iran's.
Diplomacy is no replacement for gonads in this situation. Thank god!! the Israelis have some idea about just how to deal with islamic scum!! But will the US & the UK have the courage to support israel if they act?
It is easy to tell when a mooslem is lying...his lips are moving.
The koran states for them to deceive and manipulate all situations so mooslems get the better deal.
We should boycott this request as sanctions for its nuclear improprieties, hold them accountable for their actions or inactions.
On this matter the U.S. should refuse to talk with the government in Terhan and refer them to the Iraqi government re any discussion concerning Iran's efforts to undermine the Iraqi government. The government of Iraq should be the only party to any talks with Iran. Meantime the U.S. should continue to address the nuke issue as a separate issue.
Remembering Condi's speach to the congress (remember ".. diplomacy, diplomacy, dilomacy?"), Wanna bet on Condi setting USA up for another foolish failure?
This is a surprisingly well reasoned editorial from the liberal Washington Post. I have always considered the Washington Post to be run by adults rather than by a child, the New York Times
l dont think Condi is that stupid, she has be so PC, and if Iran wants to think American fools let them think that way. Bush regarded Arafat a terrorist, when Clinton had Arafat in the White House it seems every other week. Iran is being set up, let them think the US will talk to them. they know the winds of war is not far around the corner.
"they know the winds of war is not far around the corner."
So true. This regime should be treated with extreme prejudice. If they don't like that-tough.
I thought the key sentence was the next paragraph down where the Wapo says:
"In theory, the United States and Iran share an interest in preventing an all-out Iraqi civil war"
This is an assumption we must challenge. There is a way out of Iraq that will leave us in a much stronger position and Islamic powers in a much weaker position than either is in presently.
At present, we only further weaken our position by remaining in Iraq. We must instead seek to strengthen our position and weaken theirs at every juncture. But to do this, we must view the Islamic powers as a bloc, a whole. Without this crucial insight, (provided by Jihad Watch, I might add) we are lost.
Rebecca JW ;
Agreed. If the focus is on Islam first, then the actions taken next can produce the goal , and find ways to get there.
I wonder if Iran suddenly wants to talk because it's now feeling the heat from the fact that the U.S. has recently been ramping up covert aid to the Iranian opposition working for regime change. Recently the administration got tens of millions of dollars, did it not, appropriated from Congress, in order to support the secular Iranian opposition in various ways. Apart from those funds sending a signal that must be resonating among Iranian resistance groups, causing them to become more active, confident, and dangerous, one could imagine that U.S. special ops are perhaps themselves becoming active to undermine the Iranian regime. The Iranian regime knows it is hated by large portions of the Iranian population, and may suddenly be getting jittery about signs the dangerously effective U.S. military and special ops have plans to get lethally active inside Iran. Just a lot of guessing here, I admit, but it seems likely the U.S. government has a developing regime change program already underway. Though one sees virtually no chance of a U.S. ground invasion of Iran, the U.S. might be able to overthrow the regime without visible ground forces, and at the very least might be inspiring nightmares and daymares in any Iranian officials who prefer to live long.
Robert Spencer is on target. A deal between the US and Iran would most likely benefit Iran, but not the US. Unfortunately, given the Bush administration's preference for using their hold on government to engage in perpetual campaigning rather than responsible governing, I can easily see the Bush crew once again sacrificing long-term national interest for short-term political gain in an election year. Unfortunately, I don't see any Democrat of prominence prepared to act differently.
As a long-time fiscal and political conservative, and not a Neo-con, the situation really scares me. The Islamists know what they want and are prepared to sacrifice themselves for their long-term goals. When they make a short term deal, a hudna for example, it is always for the sake of a long term objective. Almost of our pols act only upon short-term personal or political advantage, no matter what the long-term costs to the country. And, to repeat, that is very scary.