Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
[http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=523...]
Click here to search for discussions with Omgili discussions search engine.
 |
Rumors of Diplomacy: US Envoy to meet with Iranians - Mac Forums
Quote: : (AP) WASHINGTON A top U.S.
Diplomat heading to Geneva has no plans to meet separately with Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, but the mere presence of the Bush administration official at talks between the Iranian negotiator and representatives of other world powers will be a sharp break with past administration policy.
William Burns, America's third highest-ranking diplomat, will attend talks with the Iranian envoy, Saeed Jalili, in Switzerland on Saturday.
The talks are aimed at persuading Iran to halt activities that could lead to the development of atomic weapons, a senior U.S.
Official told the Associated Press on Tuesday.
It will be the first time such a high-ranking U.S.
Official has attended such talks.
Official contacts between Iran and the United States are extremely rare and although Washington is part of a six-nation effort to get Iran to stop enriching and reprocessing uranium, the administration has shunned contacts with Tehran on the matter.
The senior U.S.
Official, who spoke on condition of anonymity ahead of a formal announcement of Burns' plans expected on Wednesday, acknowledged a shift in the administration's approach but stressed that Burns would not meet Jalili separately and would not negotiate with him.
"This is a one-time event and he will be there to listen, not negotiate," the official said.
U.S.
Contact with Iran has recently been limited only to discussions about the security situation in Iraq, where Washington accuses Iran of supporting insurgents.
The two countries have not had diplomatic relations since the hostage crisis at the U.S.
Embassy in Tehran after the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran.
Saturday's meeting comes at a time of acutely heightened tensions between the United States and Iran, particularly after Iranian missile tests last week prompted President Bush's top aides to warn that the United States would defend its friends and interests in the Middle East.
Link
Gee, I hope this works out.
|
|
Quote: : The US is planning to establish a diplomatic presence in Tehran for the first time in 30 years, a remarkable turnaround in policy by president George Bush who has pursued a hawkish approach to Iran throughout his time in office.
The Guardian has learned that an announcement will be made in the next month to establish a US interests section in Tehran, a halfway house to setting up a full embassy.
The move will see US diplomats stationed in the country.
The news comes at a critical time in US-Iranian relations.
After weeks that have seen tensions rise with Israel conducting war games aimed at Iran and Tehran carrying out long-range missile tests, a thaw appears to be under way.
The White House announced today that William Burns, a senior state department official, is to be sent to Switzerland on Saturday to hear Tehran's response to a European offer aimed at resolving the nuclear standoff.
Http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/16/usa.iran
|
|
"How will they remember me?", pondered the President.
"As Bush the Criminal Warmonger or Bush the Statesman?"...
|
|
In 50 words or less, is this:
A) Flip-flopping
B) Staying the course
C) Appeasement
D) Being inexperienced and naive
Answers on a postcard please, addressed to:
Republican National Committee
310 First Street
Washington
D.
C. 20003
|
|
All it really shows is what an incredibly counterproductive waste of time the last seven years of fruitless penis-waving have been.
As if it wasn't obvious anyway.
|
|
Finally someone made a smart decision?
I don't see that as option E.
|
|
Quote: : All it really shows is what an incredibly counterproductive waste of time the last seven years of fruitless penis-waving have been.
As if it wasn't obvious anyway.
I think it also reflects that economic realities that would result if Iran were attacked.
Oil would skyrocket and the world economy would be destroyed.
|
|
|
All the cynic inside me hears is "well, we did try deplomatic negotaition"
|
|
Quote: : All the cynic inside me hears is "well, we did try deplomatic negotaition" You mean this is the classic game to "cover the bases" before declaring it a failure?
Hmmm, I hadn't thought of that, I'm getting slow and rusty in recognizing the patterns.
|
|
Quote: : You mean this is the classic game to "cover the bases" before declaring it a failure?
Hmmm, I hadn't thought of that, I'm getting slow and rusty in recognizing the patterns.
Yeah, a to do [before declaring war] list.
I think that's a feature in the new mail.app
1.
Convince people XXXX is dangerous.
2.
Pretend to work it out via negotiation and sanctions.
3.
Declare that negotiations have broken down.
4.
Falsify evidence of an imminent threat to your nation.
5.
Blow the country and it's people to **** in the name of 'security'.
6.
Declare the world a safer place and that you've won the war.
7.
Drag war out long enough to steal wealth.
8.
Say 'OK, we made mistakes'
9.
Repeat with a new country
|
|
Quote: : You mean this is the classic game to "cover the bases" before declaring it a failure?
Hmmm, I hadn't thought of that, I'm getting slow and rusty in recognizing the patterns.
Remember when President Bush told the UN that the U.S.
Military was going to bomb Iraq unless the UN started inspecting for WMDs?
Then when the inspectors were in Iraq and getting their job done, Mr.
Bush told them to get out because the U.S.
Military was about to bomb Iraq.
Caveat: those are the events immediately before the 2003 Iraq war as I remember them.
|
|
Quote: : Finally someone made a smart decision?
I don't see that as option E.
I think you missed my point.
Obama has been criticised, and quite vociferously at times by various factions within the Republican Party, for suggesting that diplomacy may have some merit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMMklhX74_w
|
|
Yeah, I'm confused.
I thought diplomacy was bad.
That we should just blow people up, call it freedom, and they'll greet us with flowers.
I guess IOIYAR.
I wonder if it's because we kinda can't attack them right now, and am wondering if the downside will be this actually will make us appear weak, as the NK thing kinda did, especially since it took so long.
|
|
Quote: : I wonder if it's because we kinda can't attack them right now, and am wondering if the downside will be this actually will make us appear weak, as the NK thing kinda did, especially since it took so long.
How did the "thing with NK" make the US look bad?
Seems to be going pretty well.
|
|
Quote: : How did the "thing with NK" make the US look bad?
Seems to be going pretty well.
We looked bad by strutting around like peacocks saying NK had to follow our directions or else, and then when that totally backfired (in the form of a nuclear test by the North Koreans) we meekly decided that maybe negotiating with them and involving all parties and being up front was a good idea.
On a OP note, just saw an opinion piece on NYT saying that an Israeli convetional or nuclear attack is not only a given in the next 5-7 months, but also the best possible solution to the Iranian problem.
Quote: : Using Bombs to Stave Off War
ISRAEL will almost surely attack Irans nuclear sites in the next four to seven months and the leaders in Washington and even Tehran should hope that the attack will be successful enough to cause at least a significant delay in the Iranian production schedule, if not complete destruction, of that countrys nuclear program.
Because if the attack fails, the Middle East will almost certainly face a nuclear war either through a subsequent pre-emptive Israeli nuclear strike or a nuclear exchange shortly after Iran gets the bomb.
It is in the interest of neither Iran nor the United States (nor, for that matter, the rest of the world) that Iran be savaged by a nuclear strike, or that both Israel and Iran suffer such a fate.
We know what would ensue: a traumatic destabilization of the Middle East with resounding political and military consequences around the globe, serious injury to the Wests oil supply and radioactive pollution of the earths atmosphere and water.
But should Israels conventional assault fail to significantly harm or stall the Iranian program, a ratcheting up of the Iranian-Israeli conflict to a nuclear level will most likely follow.
Every intelligence agency in the world believes the Iranian program is geared toward making weapons, not to the peaceful applications of nuclear power.
And, despite the current talk of additional economic sanctions, everyone knows that such measures have so far led nowhere and are unlikely to be applied with sufficient scope to cause Iran real pain, given Russias and Chinas continued recalcitrance and Western Europes (and Americas) ambivalence in behavior, if not in rhetoric.
Western intelligence agencies agree that Iran will reach the point of no return in acquiring the capacity to produce nuclear weapons in one to four years.
Which leaves the world with only one option if it wishes to halt Irans march toward nuclear weaponry: the military option, meaning an aerial assault by either the United States or Israel.
Clearly, America has the conventional military capacity to do the job, which would involve a protracted air assault against Irans air defenses followed by strikes on the nuclear sites themselves.
But, as a result of the Iraq imbroglio, and what is rapidly turning into the Afghan imbroglio, the American public has little enthusiasm for wars in the Islamic lands.
This curtails the White Houses ability to begin yet another major military campaign in pursuit of a goal that is not seen as a vital national interest by many Americans.
MORE
|
|
Just found this on Yahoo's front page:
Quote: : Iran nuclear talks stall, even with US at table
By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 1 minute ago
GENEVA - A U.S.
Decision to bend policy and sit down with Iran at nuclear talks fizzled Saturday, with Iran stonewalling Washington and five other world powers on their call to freeze uranium enrichment.
ADVERTISEMENT
In response, the six gave Iran two weeks to respond to their demand, setting the stage for a new round of U.N.
Sanctions.
Iran's refusal to consider suspending enrichment was an indirect slap at the United States, which had sent Undersecretary of State William Burns to the talks in hopes the first-time American presence would encourage Tehran into making concessions.
MORE So let me get this straight.
Before this, we said we won't negotiate with Iran to end their uranium enrichment unless they ended their uranium enrichment first.
Now, we said we *will* negotiate with Iran to end their uranium enrichment but only if they end their uranium enrichment first.
In the first case we were setting as a precondition to negotiations the thing we were negotiating for.
That didn't work, though, so *now* we're willing to negotiate for our goal, but only if the goal is met before negotiations begin.
The way this article makes it sound is that something has changed even though the exact same words are being used in both cases.
|
|
What did these journalists expect?
They'd all sit down, put the kettle on and negotiate a settlement before all the Rich Teas were eaten?
Iran knows that the US is not yet in a position - politically and militarily - to attack, so why not play for time and more western aggression?
I would argue that it is in the US, EU and Israeli interest to drag these peaceful talks out for as long as possible.
The less 'willy-waving' they do, the less opportunities there are for President Ahmadinejad - whose populist agenda has failed - to wrap himself in the Iranian flag.
|
|
|
|