U.S. To Talk To Iran, Syria: "Better Late Than Never"

By: Lowell
Published On: 2/28/2007 8:32:03 AM

In what the Washington Post calls "an abrupt shift in policy," the Bush Administration is now "open[ing] the door to diplomatic dealings" with Iran and Syria, as urged by the Iraq Study Group (ISG) and leaders like our own Jim Webb.  The question is, why on earth did it take this long?  Also, is this just a temporary shift in tactics, with the military option still fully "on the table," or is it a more long-lasting change in strategy towards diplomacy and away from a military option? 

Time will tell, I suppose, but I've got to say I'm a bit skeptical.  Still, it's a hopeful sign, and I commend Condoleezza Rice for taking charge of this Administration's foreign policy away from the hard-line "dead enders" like Dick Cheney and Elliot Abrams.

Meanwhile, former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, who served on the ISG, says that the shift in strategy is "better late than never."  Panetta adds that "the administration is finally recognizing that part of its arsenal is strong diplomacy."  Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) says that "[t]he administration is right to reverse itself and engage Iran and Syria on Iraq."

Forgive me if I don't trust this Administration as far as I can throw it, but perhaps the results of this past November's anti-GOP drubbing at the polls are finally sinking into stubborn White House heads?  Let's hope, but let's also keep the pressure on.  Apparently, that's all some of these people (Dick Cheney) understand.

Comments



Maybe the failure or their anti-Iran PR campaign (Hugo Estrada - 2/28/2007 9:06:14 AM)
Bush and his team have been confident of their capacity to sway the population to his camp. Until 2006, the trademark of the administration was to state their objective, launch a PR campaign, discredit the opposition, and get their will.

When this stop being useful, Bush's team seems to believe that all what they need a a little more time for his strategy to work. Look at his Social Security reform. Most people would have given up way before, to avoid political damage. Yet he kept at it, and there are still rumors today that he will try  it again.

It seems that the war escalation and the run-up against Iran was supposed to rekindle the patriotic/blind support for Bush, but it didn't happen.

If it were another president, I would see this move as a welcomed change in policy. But Bush's track record of lies and deceit makes it hard to believe the sincerity of this gesture. It could be a stalling tactic to win time before an attack. But I believe that the Iranian government may be also stalling. The Iranian and U.S. government truly deserve each other when it comes to credibility.

In any case, this is a positive move, and I wish that it marks a break with the past.



Well said, Hugh (Teddy - 2/28/2007 12:55:07 PM)
The difficulty here is that negotiations must be done in good faith, and therein lies the problem. No one trusts Bush any more, no one in the world. And the Iranians do not trust their own guy (they think he's crazy, but would of course support him patriotically if Bushnut attacks their country). So we have two phony nutcases talking to each other. Should be entertaining if nothing else.

As I recall Hitler was talking to Chamberlain even as he planned aggression. And the Japanese were in Washington negotiating at the very time their aicraft carriers launched bombers against Pearl Harbor, Tora! Tora! Do you suppose...



The Talk Shows (Gordie - 2/28/2007 4:51:01 PM)
keep saying the Democrats are not doing anything to end the War, I have to disagree with that assessment.

The push they are doing is, Bush is starting to change course and do what he sould have been doing all along. This President has never changed course unless the Democrats push back.

And I for one say the pushing is changing the course.