The Death of Diplomacy

Notwithstanding the gaining momentum on environmental reality, the most important story in the news today was this item in the Washington Post, which shows that Iran absolutely wants to settle this nuclear issue through direct talks with the United States. I never thought there was any doubt about this. The real ruler in that country, Khameini, is a mullah but also a pragmatist.

Iran has followed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent letter to President Bush with explicit requests for direct talks on its nuclear program, according to U.S. officials, Iranian analysts and foreign diplomats.

The eagerness for talks demonstrates a profound change in Iran's political orthodoxy, emphatically erasing a taboo against contact with Washington that has both defined and confined Tehran's public foreign policy for more than a quarter-century, they said.

Though the Tehran government in the past has routinely jailed its citizens on charges of contact with the country it calls the "Great Satan," Ahmadinejad's May 8 letter was implicitly endorsed by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and lavished with praise by perhaps the most conservative ayatollah in the theocratic government.

"You know, two months ago nobody would believe that Mr. Khamenei and Mr. Ahmadinejad together would be trying to get George W. Bush to begin negotiations," said Saeed Laylaz, a former government official and prominent analyst in Tehran. "This is a sign of changing strategy. They realize the situation is dangerous and they should not waste time, that they should reach out."

The story details a series of back-channel attempts to negotiate, and how US intelligence analysts have taken notice. Recently at The Belgravia Dispatch conservative Greg Djerejian compiled a list of all the US officials who have urged direct talks, including Henry Kissinger, Richard Lugar, Richard Armitage, Chuck Hagel, Robert Gates, and other prominent Republicans. This story only buttresses that with statements like this one, which is completely analogous to what I said when the Ahmadinejad letter came out.

But U.S. officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said government experts have exerted mounting pressure on the Bush administration to reply to the letter, seconding public urgings from commentators and former officials. "The content was wacky and, from an American point of view, offensive. But why should we cede the high moral ground, and why shouldn't we at least respond to the Iranian people?" said an official who has been pushing for a public response.

Analysts, including American specialists on Iran, emphasized that the contents of the letter are less significant than its return address. No other Iranian president had attempted direct contact with his U.S. counterpart since the countries broke off diplomatic relations after student militants overran the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979, holding 52 Americans hostage for 444 days.

The question really has to be why the Bush Administration is rejecting these overtures, and the advice of the most experienced foreign policy minds in his party? The answer is pretty simple. There's no money in diplomacy.

The Euro-three talks (where Iran negotiates with the three European powers, even though the US is the only country threatening them) are DESIGNED TO FAIL. Until we enter negotiations the Iranians will not accept anything that comes out of those talks. We won't join because we don't want to reach an agreement. We want to announce that diplomacy has failed without engaging in diplomacy. In this way it's a carbon copy of the strategy in the pre-war run-up with Iraq.

This could be resolved in two weeks. The Iranians don't want sanctions. Some would say that they would continue to hide their nuclear program but there are ways to make inspections more muscular and give them teeth. The climate is ripe for negotiation. We refuse to do it.

And we can't even explain WHY. This Kos diarist catches Helen Thomas asking a simple question, and Tony Snow completely flabbergasted with how to answer it:

Q The President apparently has gotten several messages, underground, back-channel and so forth, through intermediaries for direct talks with Iran. Surely he is not going to blow a -- speaking of opportunities with Iraq, this is an opportunity to talk directly to Iran. And why doesn't the President do it? And don't give me the -- I'm sure the three other allies and so forth would be very happy if we talked directly to Iran.

MR. SNOW: Well, if you don't wish me to answer the question, then I'll just move to the next questioner.

Q I want you to answer after I've told you what my premise is. (Laughter.)

MR. SNOW: This from Secretary of State Helen Thomas. The position has always been clear. We are not going to divide --

Q If elected I will serve. (Laughter.)

MR. SNOW: Boy, that's going out everywhere today. (Laughter. The position has always been the same, which is if Iraq, in fact, proceeds with -- we think that Iraq -- Iraq -- Iran -- thank you very much -- needs to be very serious about suspending all enrichment and reprocessing of uranium. They have to agree to do it. They have to do it in a verifiable and credible manner and a permanent manner. When that happens, all right, then there may be some opportunities. But the first precondition right now -- and we've been working with our allies on this -- is to make sure that Iran does nothing in terms of advancing its ability to build nuclear weapons.

Now, we also are not going to divide up the coalition by trying to engage in side conversations with Iran. (darth's note: Noone said anything about dividing the coalition...which doesn't exist yet anyway)...(*snip)

Q Why don't we sound out whether these are true opportunities, or not?

MR. SNOW: Well, again, Iran -- I mentioned before --

Q -- lay down laws for everybody else. This is true negotiation.(SMACK!!)

MR. SNOW: This is more an argument than a question, Helen, and I'm not going the engage in arguments about what constitutes or doesn't --

Q No, it isn't. It isn't. I'm asking you, why don't we take advantage of these feelers?

MR. SNOW: You are assuming -- I am not going to tell you each and every thing this government is doing diplomatically when it comes to Iran. I'm not telling you that there are --

Q -- you're more amenable to them?

MR. SNOW: I am telling you that nothing happens, the position has not changed. Iran has an obligation -- what Iran is trying to do is to negotiate through the press right now.

Q -- no --

(Tony gets very argumentative here...)...

MR. SNOW: Sure, it is. And you're doing an able job of it, Helen. So what's going on here is that Iran, in responding to pressure, is trying to change the subject. And we're not going to let them change the subject. The subject --

Q It isn't changing the subject --

MR. SNOW: Of course, it is.

Q -- it wants direct talks with the United States.

MR. SNOW: But it already knows what the preconditions are for American talks.

Q Are they, in fact, putting out these feelers that Helen is talking about?

He couldn't talk his way out of the question. He's an empty suit, but how could he give the real answer? "We won't negotiate because we want another war!" It's almost criminal that we're even close to letting them get away with this again.