Bush Administration To Join Iran Nuke Talks

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Bush Administration To Join Iran Nuke Talks stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

MATTHEW LEE | July 16, 2008 10:11 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »
I Like ItI Don’t Like It
In this Oct. 22, 2002 file photo, William Burns, currently U.S. ambassador to Russia, addresses a news conference at the American Cultural center in Damascus, Syria. In a break with past Bush administration policy, Burns, America's third highest-ranking diplomat, will for the first time join colleagues from other world powers at a meeting with Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, The Associated Press has learned Tuesday, July 15, 2008. (AP Photo/Bassem Tellawi, File)

WASHINGTON — For now, the Bush administration has chosen compromise over confrontation in dealing with Iran's disputed nuclear program with a dramatic gesture intended to demonstrate commitment to a negotiated solution.

In breaking with past policy to send a top diplomat to weekend talks with Iran's chief nuclear envoy, the administration has in its waning months refined its position on contact with the hardline Iranian regime, much as it did in the ongoing effort to rid North Korea of its atomic weapons, which has shown recent promise.

U.S. officials on Wednesday dismissed comparisons between the administration's approach to the two remaining members of Bush's "axis of evil," but they acknowledged broad similarities in the end game.

They said the participation of William Burns, the State Department's third-ranking diplomat, in Saturday's meeting in Switzerland is aimed at proving America's resolve to peacefully prevent Iran from developing nuclear arms while also exploiting perceived splits in Iran's hardline Islamic government.

"What this does show is how serious we are when we say that we want to try to solve this diplomatically," White House press secretary Dana Perino told reporters a day after President Bush signed off on dispatching Burns to the meeting with Iranian nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili.

At the meeting being led by European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, Jalili is expected to give Iran's definitive answer to incentives offered to Tehran last month by the United States and five other nations in exchange for its suspension of activities that can produce the ingredients needed for a bomb.

Burns will not negotiate with Jalili but officials said he will listen to his presentation of Iran's final answer to the package. Burns will also restate a U.S. offer for formal negotiations with Iran if it suspends uranium enrichment and reprocessing. He will warn that if the deal is not accepted, the Iranian government can expect more sanctions to be imposed on its banking and financial sectors. And, he will remind Iran that Bush has not taken the military option off the table.

"We believe the timing is right, now, to go and underscore the unity of the international community that Iran must suspend its nuclear uranium enrichment, and then we can talk about negotiations from there," Perino said, maintaining that the meeting was a "one-time U.S. participation."

Story continues below
advertisement

Still, the decision to send Burns to the meeting breaks with long-standing policy under which the United States had insisted it would not meet with Iranian officials outside of talks on the security situation in Iraq unless Iran had already suspended enrichment and reprocessing.

Iran and the United States broke off diplomatic relations after the 1979 Islamic Revolution and hostage crisis and the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and official contacts between the two countries are extremely rare. Although Washington is key part of a six-nation effort on Iran's nuclear program, it has shunned direct talks with Tehran on the matter.

Officials denied an all-out policy shift, although they allowed that a not-so-subtle shift was under way, partly intended to take advantage of what Washington sees as internal rifts in Tehran over whether to accept the package of incentives presented by the United States, the other four members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany.

"There's no change in the substance, but it sends a strong signal," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.

He downplayed suggestions the administration had adopted the same course it has taken with North Korea but said Burns' mission was roughly the same as those of diplomats engaged in talks with Pyongyang.

"If you're trying to confront a tough issue, it helps to highlight the contrasts, various pathways, various consequences, both negative and positive for certain decisions by the party at hand, in one case, North Korea, in the other case, Iran," McCormack said.

At the White House, Perino said the meeting would sharpen the contrast for the Iranian people of life under the current regime there, compared with the opportunities they could have if Iran accepts the incentives deal. And, she added, the meeting will "further clarify the consequences" if Iran does not accept the incentives.

Iranian officials vehemently deny their nuclear program is intended for anything other than civilian power production, but the international community, particularly the United States, suspects it is trying to secretly develop an atomic bomb.

Saturday's meeting will come at a time of heightened tensions between the United States and Iran, especially 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.

The tensions have also spilled over into the U.S. presidential campaign.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has advocated for direct diplomacy with Iran and welcomed the decision to send Burns to Geneva, calling for continued engagement with Tehran. "Now that the United States is involved, it should stay involved with the full strength of our diplomacy," he said in a statement.

Republican John McCain, meanwhile, has been more cautious about talks with Iran and had supported the administration's non-engagement policy. His campaign had no immediate comment on the new development.

WASHINGTON — For now, the Bush administration has chosen compromise over confrontation in dealing with Iran's disputed nuclear program with a dramatic gesture intended to demonstrate commitment ...
WASHINGTON — For now, the Bush administration has chosen compromise over confrontation in dealing with Iran's disputed nuclear program with a dramatic gesture intended to demonstrate commitment ...
Filed by Rachel Weiner  |  Report Corrections
 
Comments
73
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 Next › Last » (3 pages total)
- Canaris I'm a Fan of Canaris 2 fans permalink

That so many people refuse to see the inherent absurdity of not negotiating with someone until they do what we would be negotiating about continues to boggle my mind. If Iran were to halt the enrichment of uranium, what exactly would we be negotiating with them about? How many cartons of cigarettes we're going to ship them?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:07 PM on 07/16/2008

I liken it to paying just to get into a store and then negotiating with the salesperson over what that money will actually buy you.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:09 PM on 07/16/2008
- Cathexis I'm a Fan of Cathexis 7 fans permalink

Perhaps all hardcore Republicans suffer from some sort of Short-Term Memory Deficit? That's the only explanation I can come up with; such drastic change sof position for convenience would make teh average person's head explode with Cognitive Dissonance.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:59 AM on 07/16/2008
photo

If THEY do it (corruption, lying, gay porn, starting wars, torture, bankrupt the country), it's OK.

You haven't been paying attention for the last 8 years, have you?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:06 PM on 07/16/2008
- ChiGuy I'm a Fan of ChiGuy 324 fans permalink
photo

hypocrisy
n.
See: Current administration

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:45 AM on 07/16/2008
photo

Since when has Iran ever worked with us diplomatically? We are not going to give them ultimatums.
Is this our point ? The Untied States is pretty stupid if it is.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:28 AM on 07/16/2008

Umm...righ­t after the revolution. During the first Gulf War. The beginning stages of the Afghan War. During the establishment of the Afghan govt (if it weren't for Iran, the Northern Alliance would not have let Karzai become president.­..for better or worse). Of course, as soon as we got everything we needed from them, we called them part of the axis of evil.

When we're nice to Iran, they have a tendency to reciprocate.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:13 PM on 07/16/2008

Iran-Contra ring a bell?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:15 PM on 07/16/2008
- research I'm a Fan of research 257 fans permalink

Please list the last time Iran attacked another country without provocation.

We're going to attack IRAN to get back those oil filed, seized 50 years ago and because Iran threatened to take Euros instead of dollars of oil.

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/9-irans-new-oil-trade-system-challenges-us-currency

Even the infamous wipe Israel quote is FALSE and is being used at the UN to warmonger.
http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/24-media-misquotes-threat-from-irans-president//

Oh, the Iranians held candlelight vigils for the USA after 9/11.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:23 PM on 07/16/2008
- mom2sons I'm a Fan of mom2sons 5 fans permalink

If McCain is elected he will go to war with Iran and the draft will be instituted. Keep your eyes open, it could happen any day now. Bush and Co wants that oil to and will be living high on the hog in Dubai, the new headquarters of Haliburton. Disgusting!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:25 AM on 07/16/2008

Lets see if our idiotic media actually for once calls out these people out. Move after move, the Republicans call out Barack Obama for his positions, and then they actually end up USING them a few months later. Will our stupid-as-sin dumbed down pampered elite media recognize this and report this or will they continue to base their stories on "DUHHH OBAMA FLEEP FLOP!"

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:07 AM on 07/16/2008
- naschkatze I'm a Fan of naschkatze 85 fans permalink

What a revealing photo of Bush! Norman Bates?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:47 AM on 07/16/2008
- xmw I'm a Fan of xmw 17 fans permalink

Wow Bush following Obama on talking with Iran. McCain dittoing Obama on Afghanista­n...why have imitators when we can have the real deal!!!

Obama 08

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:09 AM on 07/16/2008
- kellygrrrl I'm a Fan of kellygrrrl 640 fans permalink
photo

they sure do seem to like 0bama's ideas

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:07 AM on 07/16/2008
- Charmed I'm a Fan of Charmed 27 fans permalink

For Obama to be so naive....t­hey sure are following his lead.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:06 AM on 07/16/2008
- levibatgirl I'm a Fan of levibatgirl 277 fans permalink
photo

Those turrist appeasing Un-American ba$tids! : P

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:03 AM on 07/16/2008
photo

How a president can lure us into what might be the last war if he goes to war in Iran - amazes me.
We have a mess already to clean up.
Iran is not a 'follow through' for improving any previous conflict. It is a mocked up new war- a new anger of frustration. Politically Bush is thinking like a fascist. Or this is some kind of totalitarian dominance. There should be a rule that states if a president is about to leave office within a year, he is not allowed to make decisions that will destroy further our infrastructure as a nation - by continually stressing the nation by promoting promiscuity within the world peace initiatives. This is a risk operation and does not secure a future for all involved. There should exist somewhere the necessity to conform to an existing social order, where the president and subversive activities halt, especially when the president is about to be replaced by a new one. Continuous applications of war are not in our best interest, and either the people need to speak out boldly and defy him, or it will be too late to remedy any force that might result in more extensive slaughter of individuals. It is noncomnformity in the making, and if the people of this world desire revolutionary change to conform away from this morbid fear, please don't let this President Bush consolidate us into his perfidious revolution. I discourage anyone to agree with this radical lapse of

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:03 AM on 07/16/2008
photo

How a president can lure us into what might be the last war if he goes to war in Iran - amazes me.
We have a mess already to clean up.

Iran is not a 'follow through' for improving any previous conflict. It is a mocked up new war- a new anger of frustration. Politically Bush is thinking like a fascist. Or this is some kind of totalitarian dominance. There should be a rule that states if a president is about to leave office within a year, he is not allowed to make decisions that will destroy further our infrastructure as a nation - by continually stressing the nation by promoting promiscuity within the world peace initiatives. This is a risk operation and does not secure a future for all involved. There should exist somewhere the necessity to conform to an existing social order, where the president and subversive activities halt, especially when the president is about to be replaced by a new one. Continuous applications of war are not in our best interest, and either the people need to speak out boldly and defy him, or it will be too late to remedy any force that might result in more extensive slaughter of individuals. It is noncomnformity in the making, and if the people of this world desire revolutionary change to conform away from this morbid fear, please don't let this President Bush consolidate us into his perfidious revolution. I discourage anyone to agree with this radical lapse of

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:02 AM on 07/16/2008

It was appeasement 2 months ago. In two months appeasement has matured into diplomacy. Don't you libs get it?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:59 AM on 07/16/2008
- 2bad I'm a Fan of 2bad 16 fans permalink

sure we get it sparky! it's called self-righteous, sanctimonious hypocrisy! isn't that what you rethugs call it too?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:05 AM on 07/16/2008

I think the rethugs call it, evolving. It is odd especially since they don't believe that evolution is possible.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:45 AM on 07/16/2008
- Grunty1 I'm a Fan of Grunty1 216 fans permalink

Yup, we get it. It is always positive when a Republican does it, especially all the screw ups, but if a Democrat brought about world peace singlehandedly, they would be demonized for it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:07 AM on 07/16/2008
photo

How a president can lure us into what might be the last war if he goes to war in Iran - amazes me.
We have a mess already to clean up.

Iran is not a 'follow through' for improving any previous conflict. It is a mocked up new war- a new anger of frustration. Politically Bush is thinking like a fascist. Or this is some kind of totalitarian dominance. There should be a rule that states if a president is about to leave office within a year, he is not allowed to make decisions that will destroy further our infrastructure as a nation - by continually stressing the nation by promoting promiscuity within the world peace initiatives. This is a risk operation and does not secure a future for all involved. There should exist somewhere the necessity to conform to an existing social order, where the president and subversive activities halt, especially when the president is about to be replaced by a new one. Continuous applications of war are not in our best interest, and either the people need to speak out boldly and defy him, or it will be too late to remedy any force that might result in more extensive slaughter of individuals. It is noncomnformity in the making, and if the people of this world desire revolutionary change to conform away from this morbid fear, please don't let this President Bush consolidate us into his perfidious revolution. I discourage anyone to agree with this radical lapse of

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:58 AM on 07/16/2008
photo

judgement.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:03 AM on 07/16/2008
photo

I am repetitious today ... I feel almost petrified from it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:30 AM on 07/16/2008
photo

His lapse of judgement I meant to say. His error in judgement will be to further compel us into another war. (--Sorry about the last word above, it did not print.)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:11 AM on 07/16/2008
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 Next › Last » (3 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect