This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0188_01C75B03.4478DEB0
Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed;
charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Last Updated: Wednesday, 28 February 2007, 11:59 GMT
US switch on Iran adds 'missing link'
Analysis
By Paul Reynolds
World Affairs correspondent, BBC News website
The decision by the United States to attend a conference in Baghdad
with Iran and Syria adds what many observers have felt was a "missing
link" in US policy in the region.
The US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that as well as the
official level Baghdad meeting, foreign ministers from the same countries
would also meet "as early as the first half of April".
She did not say where this meeting would be held but the talk is of
Istanbul.
Nor did she say whether she would be meeting the Iranian Foreign
Minister Manouchehr Mottaki one-on-one.
The result, though, is that, having initially and forcefully
rejected the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group that the US should
engage with Syria and Iran, the Bush administration is now doing just
that.
These will be the highest-level contacts between the US and Iran for
two years.
And they might be a little more fruitful than the one in 2004
between the then US Secretary of State Colin Powell and his Iranian
counterpart Kamal Kharrazi. They were put side by side at a dinner in
Egypt and confined their talk to innocuous chitchat.
Questions
Two questions arise immediately: why is the US doing this and what
impact will it have on the issue of Iran's nuclear activities?
Part of the answer to the first came from Ms Rice in her Senate
statement. Basically she said that the administration had changed its
mind.
She acknowledged both the Iraq Study Group by name and pressure from
the Congress. "I've had very fruitful discussions," she said.
But another reason was outlined by White House officials who
explained the recent American strategy of building up its pressure points
on Iran. These, in Washington's view, were needed because at the end of
last year, the US was in a very weak position.
Since then, it has got its diplomatic ducks in a row and now feels
that it can afford to make this gesture from a stronger position, not as a
supplicant. Washington will be demanding that Iran be more helpful to the
Iraqi government.
The US pressure on Iran has grown in several ways: it has planned
and begun to implement the surge of troops in Baghdad; it has ratcheted up
the campaign by producing evidence against Iran linking it to explosive
devices used against US forces; it has moved a second aircraft carrier
into the Gulf.
It is taking advantage of a ruling by the International Atomic
Energy Agency that Iran has defied a deadline from the Security Council to
suspend uranium enrichment and has began discussions to tighten sanctions
on Iran.
It has also developed its aim of boosting the Iraqi government
itself by urging it to put its own house in order.
For example, a new law on getting foreign oil companies to work in
Iraq and on the sharing of revenue within Iraq has been agreed in
framework.
So the US can present this change in policy over Iran as something
that will bolster the Iraqi government further.
Iran on the other hand might regard the move as a sign of US
weakness and another stage in the growth of its own influence in Iraq and
the region.
There is another element at work as well - the influence of Ms Rice
herself. At the very moment when Vice-President ***** Cheney was making
threatening noises against Iran on a world tour, this initiative is
announced.
Nuclear
As for nuclear issue, that remains unresolved and could yet derail
any attempt to forge some kind of US-Iran rapprochement over Iraq.
Whatever talks take place between the US and Iran, the planned
meetings are not expected to deal with the nuclear problem.
The administration hopes that the drip-drip of pressure on Iran will
eventually produce either a change of policy on uranium enrichment, though
that is unlikely, or a change of government.
At the same time, the threat of military action remains "on the
table" as Mr Cheney put it.
In the new twin track American diplomacy towards Iran, tension is
being reduced on one track but remains on the other.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6403633.stm
Something for everybody -- the neocon war-mongers can get tingles of
excitement over the naval and ground build-ups, and various intrigues
blaming 'evil Iran' -- and, now, peaceniks can look forward to what
appears to be the first serious high-level talks between Iran and the US
since the 'nuke crisis' developed.
Ostensibly, what we have is an embattled administration and its
unpopular political party attempting to 'save its face' and change its
foreign policy while simultaneously militarily posturing -- its 'bring it
on' touch stance it's become so notorious for is being tempered by
political reality, and strategic concerns.
Not good news for the war-mongers in the US and elsewhere, but
hopeful news for those who are sick and tired of warfare and threats, hate
and fear-mongering.
Docrodile ;))
------=_NextPart_000_0188_01C75B03.4478DEB0
Content-Type: image/gif;
name="o.gif"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Location: http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gif
R0lGODlhAQABAID/AMDAwAAAACH5BAEAAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==
------=_NextPart_000_0188_01C75B03.4478DEB0
Content-Type: image/gif;
name="dot_629.gif"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Location: http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/dot_629.gif
R0lGODlhdQIBAIAAAJmZmf///yH5BAAAAAAALAAAAAB1AgEAAAIiRIynyesNn4x02oqvznz7Dn5i
SI5miZ5qyq5uC79yTM9LAQA7
------=_NextPart_000_0188_01C75B03.4478DEB0--
.
|
|
| User: "Brian" |
|
| Title: Re: US Switch On Iran Adds 'Missing Link' -- !!! |
01 Mar 2007 09:05:04 AM |
|
|
* Docrodile:
Something for everybody -- the neocon war-mongers can get tingles
of excitement over the naval and ground build-ups, and various intrigues
blaming 'evil Iran' -- and, now, peaceniks can look forward to what
appears to be the first serious high-level talks between Iran and the US
since the 'nuke crisis' developed.
Ostensibly, what we have is an embattled administration and its
unpopular political party attempting to 'save its face' and change its
foreign policy while simultaneously militarily posturing -- its 'bring
it on' touch stance it's become so notorious for is being tempered by
political reality, and strategic concerns.
Not good news for the war-mongers in the US and elsewhere, but
hopeful news for those who are sick and tired of warfare and threats,
hate and fear-mongering.
Docrodile ;))
Or it could be something like "See, we negotiated, we tried, but it's
not working so now we can justify force". Just a thought.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Docrodile" |
|
| Title: Re: US Switch On Iran Adds 'Missing Link' -- !!! |
01 Mar 2007 09:37:55 AM |
|
|
"Brian" <my@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:12udqt0e3e3t36b@corp.supernews.com...
* Docrodile:
Something for everybody -- the neocon war-mongers can get tingles
of excitement over the naval and ground build-ups, and various
intrigues blaming 'evil Iran' -- and, now, peaceniks can look forward
to what appears to be the first serious high-level talks between Iran
and the US since the 'nuke crisis' developed.
Ostensibly, what we have is an embattled administration and its
unpopular political party attempting to 'save its face' and change its
foreign policy while simultaneously militarily posturing -- its 'bring
it on' touch stance it's become so notorious for is being tempered by
political reality, and strategic concerns.
Not good news for the war-mongers in the US and elsewhere, but
hopeful news for those who are sick and tired of warfare and threats,
hate and fear-mongering.
Docrodile ;))
Or it could be something like "See, we negotiated, we tried, but it's
not working so now we can justify force". Just a thought.
If they want to look painfully transparent again as they did when the US
went to the UNSC and attempted to get a majority vote to authorize
military action against Iraq, yes.
If they want to think there's another military solution for a region
already deeply mired in conflict and going nowhere beneficial, yes.
But, if they truly want peace, they'll sit down earnestly and work their
differences into compromise with Iran, Syria, and Iraq.
Anyone can take a cursory look at human history and see that the only
viable method to attain a more peaceful coexistence is NOT more warfare.
It doesn't take more than an average intelligence to understand the
illogic of confrontation over negotiation, violence over peace, death over
life.
It's a wonder that, as easy as it is to understand, and practical, and
workable, that so many keep preferring to live in an environment of
hatred, fear, and violence.
Would you want your and your children to live in your neighborhood forever
in conflict? Because if you can't bring yourself to see the benefit of
talking out our problems, then we need to abolish democracy, the court
system, civic groups, churches, etc.
And just choose...confrontation and warfare.
You decide for yourself what kind of world is preferable and attainable,
one that you want to work toward achieving...
Docrodile
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
