Exactly. He wants to bomb Iran for a multitude of reasons, some mad, some less so, and nothing is going to stand in his way.

Obviously, the Bush-Cheney-Rice hard line on Iran isn't going to change; so they'll do exactly as Kevin said they would: make some unacceptable demand as a precondition to talks with Iranian leaders. I don't exactly what benefit the troika thinks they're gaining from such a hard-line approach but I'm willing to bet that Americans are ultimately going to pay a very high price for their stubborness.

Excellent, more free toilet paper for the White House to use.

As a bonus, this will help the budget deficit too.

I guess all the Churchill-worshipers in the White House have biographies that crap out before 22 June 1953:

'Jaw-jaw' is always better than 'war-war'.

They are using every diplomatic means at their disposal.

Except, you know, the talking.

Hey, it's not like using the American military to overthrow the Iranian government and prop up a new leader of our choice ever backfired before. What's there to worry about?

If Bush refuses to talk and the letter from Iran has no totally unacceptable pre-conditions, the democrats should jump on the right with both feet and keep on stomping.

Oh and by the way, they shouldnt offer quarter to repentant Republicans positioning themselves for electoral advantage in the post-Bush era(or in 06).

I bet the letter says:

Dear Mr. President -

We in Iran will abandon our attempts to create nuclear weapons, if you will go on live television and pronounce the word "nuclear" correctly.

This is our final offer.

Yours in peace,
M. Ahmadinejad

Two things have reliably jacked up Bush's poll numbers: (1) failing to prevent a terrorist attack on US soil, and (2) invading other countries.
Invading Iran is not an option Bush would want to take off the table.

Besides, an invasion of Iran would serve Bush's clients in the oil and defense industries, regardless of it effect on the US national interest.
Bush may not have much regard for the national interest, but he is obsequious in his service to his clients.

But I guess the interesting question is whether the Bush administration wants to talk with Iran. We know they didn't want to three years ago, and we also know that the recently proposed talks about Iraq haven't gotten anywhere, but maybe it's different this time.

Kevin, the only reason why Ahmadinejad is begging for talks is because he's afraid Bush will launch a military attack (including the use of tactical nuclear weapons) against him. If we had done what you wanted to do from the beginning, Ahmadinejad would never have desperately begged for talks as he's doing now. Staying our resolve by not talking to Ahmadinejad will only force more compromises by Ahmadinejad because he's afraid of Bush.

Staying our resolve by not talking to Ahmadinejad will only force more compromises by Ahmadinejad because he's afraid of Bush.

There's some sense in this, since I too am afraid of Bush.

"plans to bomb Iran"

Yep, it's in the works. The best sign is that Blair replaced Jack Straw when he didn't have to, for saying that bombing Iran would be loony. Straw has been one of the strongest members of Blair's government and there was no other reason to get rid of him. Blair just doesn't want any high-profile resignations when the bombing happens.

Al,
Yeah, that sure worked with Saddam Hussein.

The Iran-Contra "arrangement" continues to fuel this public dance

Look deeper, ever deeper

"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact....Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." - newshog@gmail.com

"Staying our resolve..."

Yes, that's really been working out well for us, hasn't it? These schmoes are incapable of realpolitik; they see everything through a Halliburton filter, and that's all that matters. Holding onto power through the midterms is far more important to them than protecting the planet from destruction. Their idea of family values is to doom the grandchildren to a war-torn, environmentally degraded world in which America is a shadow of its former self. Good luck with that.

Oh yes, All those talks with the cool headed, diplomatically sophisticated Western Europeans & U.N. consortium simply didn’t do the trick. This latest overture from Iran is the sincere olive branch we have all been waiting for.
But Bush, the Big Bad Wolf, will undoubtedly strong arm this peace offer and insist on a immediate bombing campaign.

Got it Kevin….all the way.

Maybe they'll decide that a diplomatic solution might help their chances in November? I know, that is hopelessly naive and they've almost completely backed themselves into a corner with their rhetoric, but one can hope.

Great. Another sixty posts on how that lunatic Bush refuses to deal with that sterling example of a reasonable statesman, Ahmadinejad.

I don't recall Churchill fighting the Battle of Britain with "jaw jaw." Anyway, the actual quote was "better to talk jaw to jaw than have war," which sounds a lot more like Churchill than the Teletubby version.

I don't recall Churchill fighting the Battle of Britain with "jaw jaw."

No, he fought it with competence, hard work, dedication, planning, attention to detail, and by rallying the nation around him with a call for shared sacrifice. That sound much like Bush to anyone?

Stefan: Nice dodge. But that wasn't really relevant to the "negotiations versus military action" premise of the quote, was it?

Anyway, the actual quote was "better to talk jaw to jaw than have war," which sounds a lot more like Churchill than the Teletubby version.

No. The quote comes from remarks Churchill made at a White House luncheon with President Eishenhower on June 26, 1954. The lunch was not attended by reporters, so the exact phrasing is unknown, but the next day the New York Times reported it as both “It is ‘better to jaw-jaw than to war-war,’” (on the page 1 subhead) and as “To jaw-jaw always is better than to war-war” (on p. 3).

That sound much like Bush to anyone?

Not even to tbrosz.

"But Bush, the Big Bad Wolf, will undoubtedly strong arm this peace offer and insist on a immediate bombing campaign."

Wow, you really got it!

craigie, talk about unacceptable terms! that's a nonstarter if i ever saw one....!

Bush probably won't talk, if this analysis of him by John Dean is correct.

Bush probably won't talk, if this analysis of him by John Dean is correct.

It has come do the only card the Bush and company have left to play is the card of concession.

The talk at the UN is that the Bush administration needs to hold direct talks with Iran - something that Bush can't understand let alone relate too. Bush has left talks to the "irrelevant" members of the UN but UN needed US back but can't get it.

China and Russia simply aren't helping and we all know that the Bushies don't do meetings because that is what the Bushie's call appeasement. Unlike poppy Bush, little Bushie has no humility, only his arrogance and his arrogance says use nukes.

Congressional Republicans think its okay not offer any control over this administration, hence the party has lost any meaning of what conservatism really is or was.

Flanders: Stefan: Nice dodge. But that wasn't really relevant to the "negotiations versus military action" premise of the quote, was it?

I can't really believe Flanders wants to get into a battle of World War II history with me, given his past flaming blunders on the subject, but I'll be happy to oblige....

As to "negotiations versus military action," it is important to remember that the Churchill quote was made in 1953, after World War II. That is, Churchill had gone through the long years of the war, had seen the chaos, death, and the hideous unintended consequences that war resulted in, and had come to the conclusion that talk was preferable to war unless absolutely necessary.

Churchill was a pragmatist, a man who saw it as his duty to preserve and protect Britain by any means necessary. If it meant negotiations, he would do that; if war, then so be it. Churchill was quite willing to cut any sort of deal when necessary; that is why he allied himself with the Communist Tito in Yugoslavia, and with the monster Stalin. But he had seen that once war was set in motion, it was like riding a bucking tiger -- you were no longer in control, as you were relatively able to be during negotiations. Churchill was not afraid of fighting if necessary, but neither was he the frothing warmonger revisionist right-wingers are now attempting to make him out to be.

Bush, by contrast, is not a pragmatist but a delusional messianic who will sacrifice all good sense in pursuit of his unattainable goals.

Any normal person, particularly one who has served, knows that talk is better than war.

The Washington Post reported it in its June 27 issue as "better to talk jaw to jaw than have war." The Star had it as "It is better to talk jaw to jaw than to have war."

The point, and there was one before an attempt to show that Bush isn't Churchill (who is?), is that the quote is fielded out of context in places like this to show that negotiations are always a better choice than fighting, something that Churchill's entire life refutes.

If you want, Neville Chamberlain has a whole list of quotes you can use. Run down the list and see if any of them sound familiar.

I don't recall Churchill fighting the Battle of Britain with "jaw jaw."

And let's not forget that Churchill fought a great deal of WWII with "jaw jaw," that is through constant negotiation with both friends, allies, and current and former enemies -- he made deals with the Americans for Lend-Lease and to enter the war on Britain's side, he made deals with the Vichy French, with the Communists, with Stalin, and even had secret back-channel negotiations with some in the Nazi government. Anyone who thinks that Churchill didn't indulge in frequent negotiation, bargaining, compromise, and double-and-triple dealing to win the war doesn't have a shadow of a clue of what they're talking about.

I would be willing to bet that in the time Bush has left, the GOP will soon be saying that Bush was NOT a conservative like Reagan or even poppy Bush.

Three more years is just too long for Bush.

What's with the Churchill fantasy. Manly man or tele-tubby he was clearly a wacked out rapture-phile with no understanding concerning the clear benefits of unilateral pre-emtive military invasions.

Unless some effective world supergovernment for the purpose of preventing war can be set up… the prospects for peace and human progress are dark… If… it is found possible to build a world organization of irresistible force and inviolable authority for the purpose of securing peace, there are no limits to the blessings which all men enjoy and share.

They'll find a pretext for no talks. Look at the fact that Bush has deliberately insulted China and Russia in the last few weeks. It would suit Bush to have Russia and China in no mood to cooperate against Iran in the UN, thereby straightening the road to war. It is clear to the international community that with China, Russia and Iran all in the Shanghai Cooperative Orginization, the cooperation of China and Russia is critical to progress with Iran. Insults (even if true) are not helpful in this issue.

I would be willing to bet that in the time Bush has left, the GOP will soon be saying that Bush was NOT a conservative like Reagan or even poppy Bush.

Some are already saying it. Digby at www.hullabaloo.com quotes a commenter at Parapundit saying that

It would still be possible to win if Junior was willing to brutally prosecute the war, as Roosevelt or Truman would have done. It is clear now that Shrub is way too liberal for that. It is not clear if he could have gotten away with it even if he was not a modern liberal. It is not clear if US Army is capable of prosecuting a brutal war now (but Marines probably could do it), way too many officers are squishy liberals in various stages.

The point, and there was one before an attempt to show that Bush isn't Churchill (who is?), is that the quote is fielded out of context in places like this to show that negotiations are always a better choice than fighting, something that Churchill's entire life refutes.

Christ, the man's an idiot. I hardly have time to educate Flanders on the Churchill's life and history, but those interested I'd recommend William Manchester's wonderful two-volume (which he did not, sadly, complete, leaving out WWII and the post-war years) biography.

This is the problem of trying to communicate with Flanders in blog format: one has to try to use words and phrases and difficult to understand concepts such as logic, whereas what's really needed is bright shiny colored pictures.

"I don't recall Churchill fighting the Battle of Britain with "jaw jaw.""

And I don't recall Iran raining bombs on New York City, either. You are a real tool, tough guy. Back it up. Enlist. Otherwise, you should maybe stop advocating that other Americans die in unnecessary wars to preserve your fragile masculinity.

tbrosz:

I don't recall Churchill fighting the Battle of Britain with "jaw jaw."

WOW!!! I've thought so many times tbrosz had reached the absolute summit of idiocy and can't climb any higher... and then he pulls out something like this. Very impressive.

You simply should never, ever assume tbrosz has peaked. He's always got further moronic tricks up his sleeve.

Back to Iran: the reason Ahmadinejad wants to 'talk' is because that's been their strategy all along: they'll talk with the West while working feverishly to build a) a working nuclear weapon and b) a reliable missile delivery system.

The whole minuet with the EU-3 and the IAEA has been perfect -- lots of talk, lots of hard work by Iranian nuke scientists. Every time it looked as if the EU-3 would grow a spine, the Iranians offered to talk a little more, or offered to make a concession. The EU-3 came back and the offer would be withdrawan. It's the Lucy-with-the-football trick, and the EU-3, being Charlie Brown, fell for it every time.

Then the U.S. started to growl and make threatening noises about getting the UNSC involved. That wouldn't do, so the Mad Mullahs™ have been talking about that -- alternately with bombastic threats and with offers to 'talk'. They've gotten their pals Russia and China to help on this.

But Bush and Bolton haven't been fooled, and now have made statements about how, if the UNSC won't act, perhaps we'll act indepedently.

And it's in that context that one should see Ahmadinejad's latest offer to 'talk'. If accepted, you can count on months and months of talk about different issues going all the way back to the CIA and the 1950s, and precious little talk about nukes. Meantime, the Iranian nuke and rocket scientists would continue to work. Iran continues down the road to getting nukes, all the while getting the West to put off a response.

The offer to talk contains a further trap for Bush: were he to accept the offer (he won't), if at some point later on he decided that the talks were fruitless and wanted to break them off, there would be new opportunities for Iran to delay. And let's face it, if Bush did threaten to break off 'talks' with Iran, what would the progressive Left say in response? We all know the answer to that, and we know how the MSM would play it.

The offer to talk is a trap, designed to continue freezing the West in its current, inactive posture while Iran works to build the bomb. I'm surprised Kevin and the rest of you are this gullible. I hope you don't end up conducting our foreign policy.

Steve White:

The offer to talk is a trap, designed to continue freezing the West in its current, inactive posture while Iran works to build the bomb.

Ah, yes—like all wogs, they're wily.

Thank god we have people like Steve White who won't let the sneaky brown people pull the wool over our eyes.

Everyone involved is using every diplomatic means they can dispose of.

Great. Another sixty posts on how that lunatic Bush refuses to deal with that sterling example of a reasonable statesman, Ahmadinejad.

Styefan has already demolished tbrosz' historical ignorance, but what I'm loving about the guy right now is that tbrosz -- tbrosz, of all people! -- pretends he's the lone voice of reason on these threads, as if he weren't haunted by the ghosts of a million straw men.

Refusing to acknowledge -- much less be appropriately embarrassed by -- your long, steady track record of intellectual dishonesty in the service of carrying water for the Republicans is yet more dishonesty on your part, tbrosz. Shame on you.

Thank God the Democrats have a genius like Kevin Drum prodding them to call for talks with a reckless madman like Iran's president.

Al,
Yeah, that sure worked with Saddam Hussein.

Posted by: DR on May 8, 2006 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

Whatever else one can say about Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq, it did remove the regime of Saddam Hussein from power. From a realpolitik perspective, one could argue that any subsequent Iraqi regime would be better from the U.S. point of view than the continuation of Saddam's rule.

Perhaps, this forms the basis of Bush's policy toward Iran. If he concludes that it is better to simply destroy the existing regime, without worrying about the need to occupy the country, then it might be a gamble worth taking that the subsequent regime would not be headed by the mullahs or be as hostile to the US.

Why doesn't the guy get his own blog?

I hardly have time to educate Flanders on the Churchill's life and history, but those interested I'd recommend William Manchester's wonderful two-volume (which he did not, sadly, complete, leaving out WWII and the post-war years) biography.

Yeah, a biography leaving out WWII and the post-war years will make your point for you.

Jason gets extra points for using Churchill's military and intelligence communications as an example of someone who advocated negotation with his enemies.

I can always tell when I've hit a nerve when the Insult Chorus starts in.

tbrosz:

I can always tell when I've hit a nerve when the Insult Chorus starts in.

The 'brosz could be right here. Perhaps he's rendered everyone speechless with the magnificence of his powerful reasoning skills.

On the other hand, there's also the possibility that he's unbelievably fucking stupid.

The offer to talk is a trap, designed to continue freezing the West in its current, inactive posture while Iran works to build the bomb. I'm surprised Kevin and the rest of you are this gullible. I hope you don't end up conducting our foreign policy.

Our current inactive posture involves arming and training terrorist militias to attack Iran. Like PKK and MEK. Even our NATO ally Turkey is involved in joint ventures with Iran to stamp out PKK's bases in Iraq. We could stamp them out, but it is more politically desirable to fund deathsquads in Iraq and fund private terrorist armies. Why else did the administration hire so many Iran-Contra alumni?

To force bush to the table, all Iran would have to do is suspend oil exports for a few months. The last time their oil went off the market, oil prices only doubled. Back then, Saudi could take up almost all of the drop in production. Today, maybe 1/4. $200/barrel oil, and $10/gallon gasolene? I think that will be our "October surprise."

I can always tell when I've hit a nerve when the Insult Chorus starts in.

don't worry tom, we'll defend you.

Chico,

From a realpolitik perspective, one could argue that any subsequent Iraqi regime would be better from the U.S. point of view than the continuation of Saddam's rule.

Really.

Incredible.

This sounds so much like the lame warblogger chants before the war - "*Anything* will be better than what we have now!"

What naivete. What ignorance. It takes your breath away.

I can always tell when I've hit a nerve when the Insult Chorus starts in.

Personally I watch for when you use sarcasm. And insults. They are truly your last refuge. Usually your progression is: Straw man - quibbling - sarcasm - insult. Rinse and repeat.

I can always tell when I've hit a nerve when the Insult Chorus starts in.

Personally, I can always tell when he complains about being insulted that the insults have hit a nerve.

grh writes: Thank god we have people like Steve White who won't let the sneaky brown people pull the wool over our eyes.

If racist clap-trap is the best you can do ...

Peter writes, ur current inactive posture involves arming and training terrorist militias to attack Iran. Like PKK and MEK.

We do not arm and train the PKK -- it's listed as a terrorist organization, and we've shared intel with Turkey on where the PKK is hiding in northern Iraq. We do not arm and train the MEK -- we penned them in at the end of the first phase of the war, and let them go when they promised to behave (they reneged, of course).

Even our NATO ally Turkey is involved in joint ventures with Iran to stamp out PKK's bases in Iraq. We could stamp them out, but it is more politically desirable to fund deathsquads in Iraq and fund private terrorist armies.

Again, we don't aid the PKK, and we've specifically allowed Turkey to be in Iraq (they have about 5,000 troops in the Kurdish region right now) to hunt the PKK. We've specifically imposed on the Iraqis to let this happen. We haven't hunted the PKK ourselves only because the Turks said they wanted to do it, and they've been doing it.

To force bush to the table, all Iran would have to do is suspend oil exports for a few months.

The day after they do that, we'd bomb their few gasoline refineries. Iran imports most of its refined gasoline, and taking out their few facilities for domestic production, along with blocking their ports, would bring them down long before they'd bring us down. We could survive a year with $200 a barrel oil; Iran cannot survive without gasoline.

You might want to read up on the short naval action we had with Iran in 1987-88. It was brutal for the Iranians, and the smart ones in the Iranian military know that they're not a match for us.

Iran is playing a careful game: they need to stall for time. Once they have a few working nukes and a decent missile system, so that the reliability of delivering a nuke to target is > 95%, it will be enormously more difficult for us (indeed anyone) to deal with them. They know this, and they know they have a certain vulnerability right now. The best option is to bluff and stall, and that's exactly what they're doing. The offer to 'talk' with the U.S. should be seen in that context.

We could survive a year with $200 a barrel oil;

The US coul; the Republicans in Congress and GOP hopes for the 2008 presidential elections couldn't. So it's not something they'll be doing anytime soon.

I can always tell when I've hit a nerve when the Insult Chorus starts in.

See my earlier comments about tbrosz pretending to be the lone voice of reason and truth in these forums. I'm waiting for him to justify his straw men, intellectual dishonesty and general bullshit on the grounds of "breaking up the echo chamber" or some such nonsense. Again. Shame on you, tbrosz.

It was brutal for the Iranians, and the smart ones in the Iranian military know that they're not a match for us.

Yeah, look how easily we're rolling over a few thousand lightly-armed Iraqi guerillas. Why, in just three short years we've managed to reduce the size of the Iraqi resistance from a few thousand to an estimated 20,000 to 40,000!...oh, wait. Never mind.

Stefan writes, Yeah, look how easily we're rolling over a few thousand lightly-armed Iraqi guerillas.

It's nice to see that straw-man building is a bipartisan affair.

Take a look at the history. Lightly-armed Iranian swift boats and small frigates were hammered by the U.S. Navy. It's now considered that this confrontation was one of the factors that caused Iran to agree to a cease-fire and peace with Iraq.

As to the Iraqi guerillas, two years ago they were going to roll over us, a year ago they were going to ignite a civil war, and now they're complaining amongst themselves. That's progress. Guerilla wars are never easy and are seldom quickly dispatched (unless you truly get medieval about it, and sometimes not even then).

Return to the point: Ahmadinejad is using the idea of talking with the U.S. to gain more time for his own plans. That's the point of the post. Don't get suckered.

Tripp:

Prior to his ouster, Saddam was the unchallenged dictator-for-life of Iraq with no constraints on his behavior. Bankrolled by oil and sweat of the Iraqi people, he could make whatever mischief he wanted. He now sits in the dock of an Iraqi court.

Whatever form it takes, the new Iraqi government will not be a producer or possible supplier of WMDs, nor a supporter of Islamic terrromism or threat to its neighbors in the Middle East.

So you tell me, how is this not better for US foreign policy?

Unfortunately, Steve, your arguement could be use as justification for never entering negotiations with anyone: "It's a trap! He's just trying to string us along until X!"

If you think attacking Iraq is so wonderful, please outline for us a total list of the pros and the cons, and what YOU expect we will do when oil indeed hits $200 per barrel of oil.

And please inform us how you plan to pay for this war and plan to get sufficient soldiers for it.

Also:

If Bush adopted Clinton's war plan on Serbia, i.e, air strikes only with no ground forces, to topple the Iranian regime, would you support it?

Steve White,

Wow. Things are so nice a clear and rosy in your world, aren't they.

Sadly, we *are* currently weak, thanks to Bush, and Iran *is* taking advantage of it to get nukes, and there is nothing we can do about it except to make things worse in the long run.

Not that Bush cares about the long run. Bush sez "Armageddon my groove on!"

Whatever form it takes, the new Iraqi government will not be a producer or possible supplier of WMDs,

Nor was Saddam's Iraq.

nor a supporter of Islamic terrromism or threat to its neighbors in the Middle East. So you tell me, how is this not better for US foreign policy?

Quite the contrary, there are several forms that a new Iraqi government or governments could take that would make it a supporter of Islamic terrorism. For one thing, before we invaded there was no Al Qadea presence in the heart of the Middle East; they were confined to the fringes of the Muslim world in backwards areas such as Yemen and Afghanistan. Now, however, Iraq, which is at the very center of the Middle East, has become a central training and recruiting ground for the group, putting them directly on the borders of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, Jordan and Syria, and right on top of Iraq's oil fields.

For another, it is quite likely that the eventual Iraqi government tha emerges will be a Shiite theocracy closely allied with Iran. In overthrowing Saddam, we've done Iran's work for it, replacing their secular foe with fellow co-religionists who share many of their goals.

If Bush adopted Clinton's war plan on Serbia, i.e, air strikes only with no ground forces, to topple the Iranian regime, would you support it?

What exactly do you think is going to happen to the US forces surrounded by the Iraqi Shiites if the US attacked Shiite Iran? In 1980 Iran held 44 American hostages; now, thanks to George Bush, they have 150,000.

Ah tbroz the pretend scholar.

There is a very good piece on Churchill in the current issue of Harpers magazine.
Using Churchill's life to justify America's pre-emptive defense posture holds up about as well as New Orleans' levees or Bush's poll numbers.
In short it's just another little rape of history to justify the unjustifiable.

Chico,

"Prior to his ouster, Saddam was the unchallenged dictator-for-life of Iraq" - okay, I'm with you so far - "with no constraints on his behavior."

Really? *No* constraints at all? How interesting.

I wonder why he didn't use this unconstrained power to, I dunno, cure cancer or even attack Israel? Was it self-control do you think?

If Bush adopted Clinton's war plan on Serbia, i.e, air strikes only with no ground forces, to topple the Iranian regime, would you support it?

Perhaps if Bush also had Clinton's rationale, i.e. that Iran was engaged in an ongoing genocide. Otherwise, we're just engaging in unprovoked aggression against a sovereign nation that has not attacked us -- which, in a sane society, would be considered both crazy and evil.

But this is sheer lunacy, to even imagine that airstrikes could "topple the Iranian regime." Hey, why even bother with airstrikes? Why not just wave our magic wand? It'll certainly be as effective.

And please inform us how you plan to pay for this war and plan to get sufficient soldiers for it.

Tax cuts, of course.

We could survive a year with $200 a barrel oil;

$1.3 Trillion dollars in mortgages switch from interest-only to conventional mortgages in 2006-2007. In some states, more than 50% of new mortgages are interest-only for the first few years.
http://www.realtytrac.com/news/press/pressRelease.asp?PressReleaseID=99

The day after they do that, we'd bomb their few gasoline refineries.

The economic shocks from $200, or $1000+, per barrel oil will crash the world's economy.

We need their oil far more than they need our money. That is how we remain checkmated. The only maneuver we have is to get off of oil as a source of energy. Not domestic produced oil. Off oil as completely as possible.

The usual response, if talks are unwelcome, is to demand some kind of obviously unacceptable precondition for the proposed meeting.

Let me count the ways...

1. Iran's willingness to talk proves they're weak; we don't need to negotiate.
2. Iran's unwillingness to cooperate proves they're hiding something; negotiation is useless.
3. They want to play us off against Russia, China and the EU-3; direct talks are counterproductive.
4. Or in a pinch, they won't agree to the shape of the table and flag placement.

Several intelligence officials described the damage in terms of how long it would take for the agency to recover. According to their own assessment, the CIA would be impaired for up to "ten years" in its capacity to adequately monitor [Iranian] nuclear proliferation on the level of efficiency and accuracy it had prior to the White House leak of Plame Wilson's identity.

Why do Rove and Bush hate America?

Why do conservatives support traitors who place partisanship above American security?

Steve White: The whole minuet with the EU-3 and the IAEA has been perfect -- lots of talk, lots of hard work by Iranian nuke scientists. Every time it looked as if the EU-3 would grow a spine, the Iranians offered to talk a little more, or offered to make a concession.

That is a truly ignorant statement devoid of knowledge or understanding of what has transpired between the US, EU-3, IAEA and Iran for the last 3.5 years.

Most of what is publicly known about Iran's nuclear program and the hints of a concealed program--and the only credible evidence on which action would be based--comes courtesy of the inspections and analysis of the IAEA. That's not to say it hasn't had help from intelligence agencies (it probably has).

Or maybe you'd prefer to rely on US intelligence, which has admitted it knows virtually nothing of what's going on in Iraq. Or maybe you know many people as ignorant as you who would put stock in a another Iraq-like NIE or a Powell-like presentation to the UN. All of which, contradicted and vindicated UNMOVIC/IAEA inspections and analysis in Iraq.

Make no mistake, the administration screwed up. The adminsitration constrained our options in Iran with Iraq. If there is any blame for "inaction", it rests solely with the administration. The EU-3 has demonstrated a spine. That's why talks were broken off. As long as the original conditions--as specified in the Paris Agreement in 2004--and urged on by the administration were met, talks continued. When Iran arguably failed to meet those conditions, talks stuttered and came to a halt.

The offer to talk is a trap, designed to continue freezing the West in its current, inactive posture...

And what do you consider an "active" posture? In case you haven't noticed, "the West", thanks to the administration, doesn't have any good options. China and Russia hold the cards.

Correction to previous post: "going on in Iraq" should be "going on in Iran".

>From a realpolitik perspective, one could argue that any subsequent Iraqi regime would be better from the U.S. point of view than the continuation of Saddam's rule.

What's really comical about this statement is that last time the realpolitic people were in charge we had Rumsfeld shaking hands with, uh, Saddam Hussein.

To put it so even the wingnuts here can understand (not so sure about Mr. White): Saddam is *exactly* the type of guy a realpoliticker wants running a state of concern. Very receptive to carrots and sticks - Bible/Koran/Little Red Book thumpers, not so much.

As far as the post subject, current news story says that Condi and her cohorts couldn't fricking be bothered to even count the pages in the letter: "17 or 18" she says.

Jesus. I understand the Dauphin is intellectually as well as morally and emotionally limited, but Condi was a Stanford Provost. She could have at least skimmed the damned thing.

Steve White: We do not arm and train the MEK -- we penned them in at the end of the first phase of the war, and let them go when they promised to behave (they reneged, of course).

There you go again...

Yes we let the MEK go. And they did reneg, but not on their "promise to behave". Most reneged (over 3000 IIRC), at our insistence, on calling themselves MEK. Duh. It wasn't suppose to change their behavior. But it provided cover for the DoD when we (*cough*) redirected them. And maybe some thin cover for those who have publicly supported the MEK--people like our esteemed Representative Tancredo (among many others in Congress and the administration).

Who was responsible for negotiating and executing that promise to behave, which they "of course" reneged on? Who failed to prosecute members of a terrorist organization responsible for the killings of US citizens and others? Who has made warm-fuzzy statements about the leadership of that terrorist organization?

Which makes your beloved administration, by your own statement, either naive to the point of stupidity, or duplicitous.

On topic... This looks like it may be part of a broader "peace offensive" (so to speak) by Iran. Apparently Ahmadinejad sent letters to other world leaders. Also, high-ranking Iranian officials have been chatting it up in region. OTOH (here):

[Government Spokesman Gholamhossein Elham] Commenting on Iran-America direct negotiations over Iran’s nuclear dossier, Elham said, "This is nothing but speculation in sections of print media. The government has no plans whatsoever for holding direct talks with the US."

Iran on May 7 rejected a call from UN Secretary General Kofi Annan for Washington to enter direct talks with Iran over its disputed nuclear program. "It's obvious that all these artificial crises have been created by the US, which is against Iran's independence. So there is not need to have the US in these talks," foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters. "The US is not ready for equal dialogue. They want to have others on their side through intimidation. So we think there are no conditions to enter into a respectful dialogue," Asefi said.

Kevin, your last comment is the ticket. the bushliar-criminal regime is convinced that bombing iran is the only way to ward off a dem takeover of congress in November (rightly so), which is the only way to delay all of them starting their journey to the Haque for crimes against humanity. ip so facto, anything (e.g., face to face talks) that could jeopordize the bombing is off the table.
.

Stefan writes, In 1980 Iran held 44 American hostages; now, thanks to George Bush, they have 150,000.

Yes, 150,000 heavily armed, well-trained hostages. With aircraft, artillery, tanks and support.

Peter writes, When that happens [NB the US bombs their gasoline refineries], Iran shoots off every remaining anti-shipping missile they have, at anything floating in the Persian Gulf. That's the use it or lose it doctrine.

Which isn't as much as you think. The Iranians have a supply of anti-shipping missiles, but there are plenty of reports about suspect maintenance, leadership and ability to get these missiles on line in a crunch.

And as you note, it's a one-time affair, particularly with the USAF and Naval air around.

In addition, any remaining medium range missiles get launched at Saudi + Kuwaiti oil infrastructure: pumping stations, oil terminals, just because they're our allies in the region.

Iranian medium range missiles aren't the most accurate or reliable. A few might hit what you've noted, and that's a problem. The problem for Iran is again, it's a one-shot affair, after which they're pretty much unable to threaten the Gulf and Strait.

Since tanker traffic navigating the Straits of Hormuz have to pass within artillery range of hundreds of miles of mountainous Iranian coastline, they are in reasonable position to interdict all Gulf oil exports to the world.

Until they lose their artillery, of course. This is the sort of hunting the Naval air and USAF are particularly good at.

I'm not advocating a large-scale shooting war with Iran. If you really think Iran can stand up to a coordinated air/sea campaign, however, you're mistaken.

Steve White: I'm not advocating a large-scale shooting war with Iran.

Then what are you advocating? A "small-scale shooting war"? The kind where low-tech delivery vehicles such as suicide bombers and IEDs have the advantage? The kind that drags on and allows Iran to leverage its position in Iraq and throughout the Middle East?

Yet you castigate the Euro surrender monkeys for holdiing talks with Iran. And you don't advocate a "large-scale shooting war". Which by elimination appears to leave a conflict in which the US plays to its weakness and Iranian strength, and which the US would likely lose big time.

I can appreciate thinking out loud and bouncing ideas around. But really, is this the product of rational thought, stream-of-consciousness, or just plain ignorant bullshit?

Steve White: Iranian medium range missiles aren't the most accurate or reliable. A few might hit what you've noted, and that's a problem. The problem for Iran is again, it's a one-shot affair, after which they're pretty much unable to threaten the Gulf and Strait.

And Iraq was in even worse shape.

Thanks for proving yet again how non-dangerous Iraq was, how little a security threat to its neighbors (just as Powell proclaimed in February 2001), much less the US, and how unjustified the invasion of Iraq was.

The supposition that Bush & Co. are determined to attack Iran, but feel the need to go through the motions of an effort to reach a peaceful resolution, with the support of other nations (as the Downing Street memo confirmed was the case in the run-up to the Iraq war), does gain credence from Cheney's verbal assault on Russia during his recent European trip.

While Cheney's comments may have been uncharacteristically truthful, they are far from Kissengerian realpolitik. With Russian cooperation on Iran critical, this is hardly the time to antagonize Putin, particulary as Cheney's comments will accomplish nothing vis-a-vis Russia directly, or for that matter influence Russian oil & gas policy, which was Cheney's most obvous reason for raising the issue at all. Russian support for the U.S. position on Iran, however, likely will be affected, and not for the better.

Was Cheney's ill-timed channeling of Jimmy Carter an instance of oblivious incompetence, or calculated to ensure that Potemkin efforts at avoiding conflict would backfire on Bush's agenda by actually succeeding? Perhaps the saddest thing about this mess is that with this administration, both possibilities seem credible.

So...Ahmadinejad used the letter to rail against the Iraq war, call democracy a "failed" system, and, in a world-class show of irony, say that "repressive and cruel governments do not survive."

So much for that.