Allah is reporting that Condi Rice is announcing that the Administration will deal with Iran regarding their nuclear program:
The long and short of it is that the ball’s back in Iran’s court: if, as suspected, they refuse to stop enriching uranium then we’re off the hook for not talking to them directly. We offered, they declined. But here’s the thing: why on earth would she acknowledge Iran’s right to nuclear energy? Presumably that’s a concession to the Iranian people, who have had propaganda to that effect drummed into them for months. But what happens if Iran calls our bluff, suspends enrichment temporarily in order to get us to the table, and then starts enriching uranium again for its “energy†program? She’s already conceded they have the right to do so. On what grounds does she object next time?
Allah asks the correct questions and the answers to all of them is an unsatisfactory “I don’t know.” But the idea that this changes the strategic situation in any way is incorrect. We still have the full range of military options on the table if this Administration or the next feels it necessary to slow down the Iranian bomb program. We still have the option to invade if we’re of a mind to, although God knows what kind of a hornets nest that would stir up in the region.
The only thing that changes, as Allah correctly points out, is that the diplomatic ball is back in the Iranian court. Given the extremely troubling news that Ahmadinejad is not being reined in by the conservative mullahs who actually run the country but is, in fact consolidating his power by continuing his purging of what passes for “moderates” in Iran, it will come as no surprise if talks that would stop the lunatic’s bomb making program go nowhere.
What all this maneuvering comes down to is a very simple, straightforward question: Can we allow the current regime in Iran to arm itself with nuclear weapons? If we cannot, then the rope we allow Mr. Ahmadinejad to hang himself with must be very short indeed. In other words, we should not stand for any tomfoolery about stopping and starting an enrichment program that could very well be proceeding along two tracks anyway – a civilian component that is verifiable by the UN and a secret military program that the CIA doesn’t believe exists but that troubling indications have surfaced of such a possibility.
I understand why many would look upon any talks with Iran as a fruitless exercise. But given the perception of the United States around the world – a perception eagerly promoted by left wingers in this country and abroad – that the US is hell bent on blood and conquest, it would assist our efforts, however feebly, to garner some support from states where our friends need the political cover of negotiations in order to support us.
We may end up going it alone if we take action against the Iranian nuclear program. But it would be prudent and wise to do everything we can to prevent such a development by negotiations even if there be a small chance of success. Events themselves might overtake the mullahs and Ahmadinejad which would make any military action unnecessary.
A small chance indeed. But one that we owe to those we will be sending into harms way to protect us.
UPDATE: NOTE TO MOONBATS
In contrast to the rambling, insulting, laughably ignorant letter sent by President Ahmadinejad to President Bush that didn’t contain anything resembling a diplomatic proposal, this short statement by Condi Rice shows the DUmmies and KosKids how it’s done:
“To underscore our commitment to a diplomatic solution and to enhance prospects for success, as soon as Iran fully and verifiably suspends its enrichment and reprocessing activities, the United States will come to the table,” Rice says in her prepared text. “We hope that in the coming days, the Iranian government will thoroughly consider this proposal.”
Now would you please shut your yaps about how the Administration “spurned” or “rejected” or “turned down” that lunatic’s offer for peace? That piece of fluff had about as much to do with a diplomatic overture as Barry Bonds legitimately breaking Babe Ruth’s home run record.
11:09 am
[...] Update: Rick Moran says we owe it to world public opinion to at least float this offer. Geraghty says they’ll just blame us anyway. [...]
11:34 am
Dr. Rice: “To underscore our commitment to a diplomatic solution and to enhance prospects for success, as soon as Iran fully and verifiably suspends its enrichment and reprocessing activities, the United States will come to the table,†Rice says in her prepared text. “We hope that in the coming days, the Iranian government will thoroughly consider this proposal.â€
Real world parallel offer:
“I would like to sell you a car and hereby make a commitment to honest negotiation. As soon as you give me $35,000, we will begin negotiations on the purchase of the car.”
11:56 am
A Bloody Fight For The Integrity Of Iran Ignored By The Media
Obviously conditions are appropriate, although it seems rather irrelevant as they have absolutely no intention of stopping the uranium enrichment. I guess some sort of communication is necessary, if for no other reason but to show that at least we are …
12:02 pm
U.S. Sets Conditions for Talks With Iran
The United States is prepared to join other nations in holding direct talks with Iran on its nuclear
12:16 pm
U.S. Will Talk To Iran If…
Click to Download (.wmv) In a press conference this morning, Secretary of State Condi Rice said the U.S. would be willing to enter into direct talks with Iran if it suspends its enrichment of uranium. I’m in total agreement…
1:14 pm
U.S. Sets Conditions for Talks With Iran
Via Washington Post:
The United States is prepared to join other nations in holding direct talks with Iran on its nuclear program if Iran first agrees to stop disputed nuclear activities that the West fears could lead to a bomb, Secretary of State Co…
1:18 pm
Hello to the 32% dumb enough to still come here! I’m thrilled to be back myself! Congratulations rick, this essay is even dumber than the ones I read last month. You never dissapoint! How about that attorney general of ours? He is doing a heckuva job as they say. Is our progress in Iraq going well for you guys? Looks like george has to talk to Iran now in an attempt to save face. What an idiot! May his impeachment be swift! It will be fun watching John Conyers head the proceedings. I look forward to it. So long men!
1:21 pm
Indeed. So long Ed.
And I warned you last month what would happen if you posted off topic again.
SEEYA!
1:43 pm
All this will do is give the rest of the world a chance to blame us if and when the shit hits the fan. All the fruitlessness and humiliation of the EU’s negotiations will be forgotten. Just like the current situation in Iraq, where we are blamed for all ills by simply being present, whatever “catastrophes” that occur will be laid squarely at our feet. The rest of the world will bask in their self-righteousness that the U.S. failed at diplomacy and fell back on the only tool we have, the hammer.
Get used to this, because that’s the way it’s going to be for quite a while. No matter what the crisis, no matter who gets involved, the United States will get all of the blame possible, and none of the credit.
2:13 pm
U.S. Agrees To Direct Talks With Iran
The AP is reporting:In a major policy shift, the United States said Wednesday it will join other nations in holding direct talks with Iran on its nuclear program if Tehran first agrees to stop disputed nuclear activities that the West
2:21 pm
Rice: Nuclear Weapons Represents a Direct Threat
The United States has had no official direct talks with the Iranians since the two countries cut diplomatic ties following the occupation of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran by radicals in 1979. Fox NewsAP-Breitbart reports: U.S. Says It’s Prepared t …
2:25 pm
What is so hard to figure out, Rick? Of course Iran has a right to nuclear technology. Not only are they are soverign nation – thus not in need of permission from some other country to pursue their own energy policy, but they are also signatories to the non-proliferation treaty that makes explicit their right to nuclear technology.
Trying to prevent them from peaceful nuclear technology is laughable, and a non-starter. There may well be reason for concern as to what it may lead to, and thus there may be reason for us to negotiate an agreement with them that entails having them voluntarily forgo that track, but there is no way we can force them to do so.
We can, however, force them not to develop nuclear weapons. That is the only valid red line that we are in any legal or practical position to enforce. And it has been rather foolish of us to try to hold the line on the no-enrichment red line.
2:27 pm
Can we afford to assume the best as far as Iranian intentions are concerned.
You say yes. I say no. Therein lies the difference.
3:27 pm
Breaking: U.S. Agrees to Talks with Iran
These talks are multilateral and not bilateral, which may make a difference in how Iran interacts with the U.S., and how the rest of the world perceives the proceedings. Basically, it boils down to this: Iran insults American and the world cheers. I…
3:44 pm
Rick,
You talking to me?
What is with this “assume the best”? Who the hell said anything about assuming anything?
I was trying to discuss the issue seriously. If the only intent here is to facilitate a rant, then sure, lets assume the worse, move directly to an advocacy of pre-emptive bombing, and feel all warm and fuzzy about our manliness.
To be serious though, we need to confront reality. The reality is that Iran has every right to pursue nuclear power, and will probably do so. The Iranian people are probably fully onboard with that, and would not respect their own government if it were scared off of that by a belligerent superpower. Every other country in the world would also resent the notion that their own domestic political programs should be held hostage to the fears that the superpower might have. The US telling soverign nations that they cannot do something because we are afraid of the consequences is not a viable foreign policy.
Most of the world, on the other hand, could fully understand our concerns about nuclear weapons in Iran, and perhaps the Iranian people as well would prefer not to see their own government with such weapons. Holding a firm line against WEAPONS is a rational policy. Building a red line against enrichment is foolish, and self-defeating.
Finding a way in which to allow the latter while foreclosing the possibility of the former is precisely what we pay the big bucks to our political leaders for.
I realize that what I am asking is that the Bush administration do the hard work of effective and wise policy formulation and implementation – a pretty absurd dream. But for the next two and half years, they are the only administration we got.
3:53 pm
I know you read this site so you’ve got to know that I have been opposed to bombing from the start.
And I say it is a question of intent. Can the US live with a nuclear Iran? And is there anything that will stop them from building a bomb?
I don’t give a crap about their civilian program. They’ve been trying to build, buy, or steal an atomic weapon for more than 15 years if the Pakistani Chief of Staff can be believed (can we afford not to believe him?). I would love to find a solution short of war. But what has Iran done in the last two years to convince anyone they’re serious about giving up enhanced enrichment? You don’t build a facility to house 50,000 centrifuges to manufacture reactor grade uranium. There’s no need for that many. To presuppose that their intentions are anything but extraordinarily hostile to Israel, the west, and the United States is ridiculous.
4:03 pm
Tano is correct that Iran has the right to master the nuclear fuel cycle for civilian purposes under the NPT. As we all know, it’s a relatively small step from mastering the fuel cycle to making a bomb – perhaps 3 months to a year depending on a variety of factors. That’s the crux of the issue for us. It’s not reactors that are the problem, it’s fuel enrichment. They have the right to do it under the NPT, but the reason they are able to exercise that right currently is because they gained the technology by violating the NPT. That is the legal issue we can press, among others.
So Condi stating that is not “giving” Iran anything.
I think the change in strategy is good. Iran has never buckled under pressure from threats, which is all we’ve brought to the table to this point. Talks with Iran (which are different than negotiations) will help us determine what the true Iranian intentions are – making policy based largely on the whacky Iranian President’s public rhetoric is not wise. Talks also afford us an opportunity to sit down, look them in the eye and make clear our position and views. It’s pretty clear that much of our message isn’t getting through to the leadership.
4:11 pm
Andy:
Do you seriously believe our message about the unnacceptabilty of the regime acquiring nukes hasn’t gotten through?
I know as a pro, you probably don’t take the apocalypse scenario very seriously, but what if you’re wrong? Can we afford the possibility that these guys intend to make good on their wacky rhetoric?
I don’t think its a question of them not understanding our intentions. I honestly think they don’t care. They see the strategic situation heavily in their favor and are thumbing their noses at us. Yeah we can level them but at what cost to us? This is why I oppose bombing and invasion. It may be worth a serious look to see if a nuked up Iran is something we can live with which talks may or may not give us the answer. If they are semi-rational, then we may have little choice in accepting a nuclear fait accompli. But if they are as wacked out as their rhetoric indicates, then almost nothing should be off the table militarily – save using our own nukes.
4:37 pm
Apologies Rick, for not understanding your position on bombing. I do read your site, but not exhaustivly, and I read many other sites, so that point escaped me.
I think too much is made of Amahdinejad’s craziness. Of course his rhetoric is loony, but I don’t really see him acting irrationally so far. He is aggressivly pushing Iranian interests on this issue – which is a highly rational thing to do, from the perspective of an Iranian government. If he had been pliable, and “rational”, he would simply have acceeded to our concerns and abandonded his nuclear program. What would be the benefit to Iran of that? Hell, he wouldnt even get a “safe” reactor out of the deal if he didn’t play tough to some extent.
A rational actor will seek to maximize the benefit for his country. That is what he is doing so far. By drawing a red line over enrichment, we have constructed a paper tiger front, and he probably realizes it. There is little we can practically do to prevent further enrichment, especially since other nations would not support sanctions over an issue where Iran is acting within its rights. The danger for us is that when we draw lines that we cannot defend, it reduces our ability to mobilize support for defending lines that we really should defend. (nuclear weapon acquisition).
I agree with Andy regarding them understanding our intentions. We have communicated to them a firm position that we probably cannot and will not defend, and they know it. So no, I dont think they have a clear understanding of what our real red line is (I mean really real). That is the problem that arises when you conduct diplomacy through tough sounding public pronouncements rather than through face to face discusssion. To put it crudely, we have been bullshitting, and they sense it.
Time to get serious and forget the nonsense attitude that talking to people is some kind of honor that you are bestowing upon them (and thus one cannot talk to anyone who doesnt deserve to be so honored). You solve problems through diplomacy or through war. If you wish to avoid the latter, you better be serious about the former.
4:41 pm
To put it crudely, we have been bullshitting, and they sense it.
So Seymour Hirsh was dead wrong? I seem to recall the left going absolutely ballistic last month when Hirsch was telling us all that striking Iran was a done deal.
Wonder if anyone is going to take back what they said, ya think?
5:04 pm
Yes Rick, the “left” was all saying….something or other.
And I am sure that everyone on the “left” will take their cues from their moral superiors on the “right” when it comes to figuring out when it is appropriate to “take back” things that are said.
5:21 pm
Rick: what is the point of even offering to talk? There’s nothing we could/would say to Iran that would make them back down… other than, of course, saying give it up or we start bombing. The ‘world community’ and liberals here at home are opposed to our using military force, and will be so regardless of whether we’ve offered to talk with Iran.
Talking is not an end of itself, it is merely a potential means to a desired end. Unfortunately, this is something that is lost on the hacks at Foggy Bottom… and, perhaps, the proprietor of a certain blog?
5:25 pm
Ouch! You cut me to the quick, sir.
I guess my comeback is why not talk? Better than shooting and a helluva lot cheaper. Not only that, there’s always the outside chance that events will overtake the entire rotten regime and Khamenei would be forced to ditch Ahmadinejad.
A slight chance. But again, better than the alternative unless it becomes absolutely necessary.
5:27 pm
Rick,
Tano pretty much answered your question, but yes, I don’t think the Iranians understand our position completely. They see themselves in a position of strength. High oil revenues and endless media reports about America’s “overstretched” and vulnerable military reinforce that position. They do not seriously believe that we are able, much less willing, to attack them over this issue.
Tano raises an excellent point about the problem of media diplomacy. Messages to Iran delivered through the media must be carefully nuanced to take into account all the audiences that will hear them besides Iran: The US domestic audience, our allies, our enemies, other potential proliferators, and those parts of the Iranian government and population that do not support the mullahs. Private talks will allow use to deliver our message, and hear theirs, without all the muddlement. Private talks will allow us to confirm if Amahdinejad’s crazy statements are truly Iranian policy.
I don’t discount the apocalypse theories completely, but I think the core decision makers in Iran are more rational than the impression provided by the Iranian President. Iran is still a factious society and the government and military is no exception, even with the recent purges of moderates.
I hear a term thrown around frequently in regard to Iran: “Can we afford not to….†Specifically, I read blogs that advocate attacking Iran because “we can’t afford†not to believe Amahdinejad will do the worst. Rather than predicate our policy and course of action (especially in regard to war and peace) on a worst-case assumption we should instead try to discover the truth since the threat is not imminent. Direct talks will help do that.
Seymour Hirsch was making judgments based on his own bias with only a few pieces of the evidence pie. His statement regarding attacking Iran is idiotic on its face. The military planning that he reported is not only necessary but it is a legal requirement as well. I’m sure the military has plans regarding the worst-case apocalypse scenario among many scenarios for and Iranian conflict. Hirsch and others – mainly on the left – make the mistake of equating planning with policy.
Steve Sturm:
“There’s nothing we could/would say to Iran that would make them back down.â€
I assume to have evidence to support that conjecture? You can’t know what will make them back down until you go find out.
5:36 pm
Rick:
I am going to refer to a couple of old post of yours. First, I am going to refer to the “Breitbart article”. It is the one which states the IAEA found traces of highly enriched uranium at an Iranian site. I am just curious as to whether or not there was a follow up story.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/12/D8HI8SPG0.html
The second thing I want to say is that I was under the impression we “legally” can not do anything to Iran even if they sent warhead filled with Dookie at Capitol Hill. I mean how bad were the those concessions that Carter made?
8:51 pm
[...] Right Wing Nuthouse has some words of advice for the moonbats. [...]
12:59 am
No more tough talk, you heard the president the other night, he is trying to talk more sophisticated now. Blair and Bush looked like two beaten dogs repeating their hackneyed position that ‘we did the right thing’ attacking Iraq, which is getting pretty hard to swallow.
One has to keep in mind that this is not the same White House that existed when Sy Hersh wrote his article. Josh Bolton is a realist, he never drank the Kool Aid. I’m sensing a seismic shift in the White House, a humbling of sorts, a realizing that they weren’t as smart as they thought they were. As limited as Bush’s brain might be even he must see what a mess he has made in Iraq and it is causing him to loose his nerve.
There is no realistic military option with Iran and they know it. At least not one that won’t spin the region into war and drive the price of oil though the roof.
“To underscore our commitment to a diplomatic solution and to enhance prospects for success, as soon as Iran fully and verifiably suspends its enrichment and reprocessing activities, the United States will come to the table,†Rice says in her prepared text. “We hope that in the coming days, the Iranian government will thoroughly consider this proposal.â€
What a load of crap that is. “Our commitment to a diplomatic solution?” What the hell is she talking about? The Bush administration up until now wouldn’t give the Iranian government the time of day. “...As soon as Iran fully…suspends its enrichment…activities.” That’s her idea of diplomacy? Do what we want and we’ll negotiate with you. Yeah right.
“No options have been taken of the table.” That sounds like more red meat for the rightwing nut jobs of the supreme “Watchers Council.” What Iran wants is what everybody wants: respect. Until the U.S. shows a little respect their not budging. I predict the U.S. will drop the enrichment condition and begin talks anyway. The future of Iraq depends on it.
11:00 am
Tano says:
While you have shown contradictions or to be generous, lets just say progressions, you stake the Iranian right to pursue its nuclear program because its peaceful but if it be for weapons, you say we hold firm on Weapons.
How about Iran’s violations of its NPT obligations, might this be a clue?
I wonder, is it possible that Iran’s concurrent nuclear-capable missle production and a very rapid program of acquiring and refining missles of ever greater sophistication and target range (Shehab-4, Shehab-5, Shehab-6), might this be a clue?
How about Iran in full view and worldwide proclaiming: “We will crush America under our feet” and “Israel must be wiped off the map,” might this be another clue?
This could go to even more clues, right down the line. They sure have me convinced that your idea of “peaceful” doesn’t exist in either Iranian word or deed.
Besides what Ahmadinejad said in the above sourced links, does also being a Holocaust Denier kind of help along?
How about Ahmadinejad’s mystical experience at the UN? Perhaps a hint of craziness, yet?
How about Ahmadinejad’s Da’wa to President Bush and another to be sent to Pope Benedict?
Then there is Ahmadinejad’s “Divine mission” and the imminent coming of the 12th or Hidden Imam. If not crazy, then certainly an absolute messianic. I prefer crazy.
7:09 pm
The very idea of “talks” is ludicrous. Please read what I wrote about this today.
9:20 pm
Sanctions – Insurgence: Iranian Impasse
Despite the decision of the UN, and IAEA lack of support…Not having open dialogue with Iran, is of considerable cost to us here in US. For instance; quiet US sanctions prep. (in the past few weeks) has also witnessed a deadly increase in insurgence…
9:48 pm
I heard an interesting observation today. It was in an interview with Tom Oliphant and he was complaining about the excessive mischaracterization of Condolezza Rice’s Iran announcement yesterday. He said the offer made to the Iran ‘was not an offer they couldn’t refuse, but rather an offer to refuse.’
I was kind of proud for making a very similar call last night in my last two grafs of post #27, because I think Oliphant has one of the sharpest minds in the business.
10:28 pm
Bolton: ‘This is Put Up or Shut Up Time For Iran,’ Unilateral Military Action Is ‘On The Table’
Yesterday on Fox’s Your World with Neil Cuvuto, U.N. Ambassador John Bolton explicitly said that unilateral military action against Iran was “on the table.†Bolton diplomatically added, “This is put up or shut up time for Iran.”
These guys have no diplomatic skills what so ever, their just a bunch of bullies.
9:51 am
[...] And make no mistake. That “whirlwind” will be the mother of all blowbacks. We’ve been over and over the downside to attacking Iran so repeating the enormous cost to the United States and perhaps the west would be redundant punditry. [...]