Bush Administration To Join Iran Nuke Talks

stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust mixx.com

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

Compare other versions »

Show your support.
Buzz this article up.
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.

Story continues below
advertisement

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."

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.

 
 

Comments
74
Pending Comments
0

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: 1 2 3 Next › Last » (3 pages total)
- Aarky See Profile I'm a Fan of Aarky

Even though Burns is going to a meeting doesn't mean the White House has changed their approach.
They have had a constant policy of saber rattling toward Iran. There was a very small article in the papers that disappeared real quick a few months ago. The article stated that General Mohammed Jafari, the top Iranian General in charge of the Republican Guards made a secret trip to the Green Zone in Baghdad for negotiations. Within a week, Phillip Zelikow announced his resignation. I would like to know what it was all about. Some interesting news from Haaretz: The US has decided against an attack against Iran and told the Israelis to tone down their saber rattling. Last Wedsnday, Mier Dagen, the head of Mossad visited the White House. Ehud Barak, the Defense Minister for Israel and former PM was also here early this week. Gabi Ashkenazi, the Israeli Army Chief of Staff, will be here in a couple more weeks. My take is that they are trying a full court press to get approval and assistance for an attack against Iran. AIPAC, the lobbying group for the Zionists have been lobbying Congress to pass the House Resolution 362. Among other things it would require or allow an naval embargo of Iran. The neo-cons and Zionists still want war. Our top military has been pushing back. If Admiral Mullin gets sacked for his recent comments, we'll know that Cheney's group is still powerful. We can only cross our fingers.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:09 AM on 07/17/2008
- research See Profile I'm a Fan of research

IRAN
Here's why we are going to invade Iran:

to get back the oil fields:

n 1951 Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh was elected prime minister. As prime minister, Mossadegh became enormously popular in Iran after he nationalized Iran's oil reserves. In response Britain embargoed Iranian oil and invited the United States to join in a plot to depose Mossadegh, and in 1953 President Dwight D. Eisenhower authorized Operation Ajax. The operation was successful, and Mossadegh was arrested on 19 August 1953.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:04 PM on 07/16/2008
- Krikkit See Profile I'm a Fan of Krikkit

You're kidding, right? Have you ever looked at a map of Iran? It's the country that Mordor was modelled after. It's surrounded on three sides by some of the most rugged mountains in the world. On the fourth side is the sea, and a march of hundreds of miles across some of the harshest dessert terrain immaginable. It would take an absolute idiot to think that we could invade and "take over" anything in Iran. Oh, wait...

And then there was that whole Iranian revolution thing in response to Brittain and the US deposing Mossadegh's democratic regime. I think they'd be a bit more pissy this time around. We aren't in a position to depose anything at the moment, not even our own madmen in power.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:19 PM on 07/16/2008
- beaupritchard See Profile I'm a Fan of beaupritchard

Persians are not arabs and they've been there for thousands of years.

Yet another culture we are provoking that we do not understand.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:01 AM on 07/17/2008
- research See Profile I'm a Fan of research

Not to mention the nuclear carrier sinking underwater rockets.

Or the treaties with Russia that would draw them into the conflict.

I totally agree with you.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:36 PM on 07/16/2008
- LouStool See Profile I'm a Fan of LouStool

I could have swarn that if you negotiated with Iran you would be Chamberlin? Now that Bush has seen the light and has taken Obama's lead, I hope he doesn't send Faux News correspondent Ollie North to Iran. We all know what happened last time a Bush negotiated with Iran......Iran got some great weapons.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:06 PM on 07/16/2008
- Celldumceen See Profile I'm a Fan of Celldumceen

This is yet another example of Barack Obama demonstrating superior judgment! Two months ago George Bush calls Obama an appeaser for wanting to talk to the Iran and here he is adopting that position! Obama preaches for months that we need more troops in Afghanistan and his opponent John McCain attacks him for saying that until yesterday when he adopts that position. Barack Obama opts out of public financing out of fear that will leave cash strapped against right-wing 527, he gets called a flip-flopper. A few days later exactly what he said would happened has happened, a half dozen 527 pop up saying they are going to spend millions of dollars running adds against him! The most notable of these groups is the one backed by the NRA! Doesn't this country need a POTUS who gets it right on the first try, wouldn't that be refreshing for a change! This guy will make a great prez!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:44 PM on 07/16/2008
- nosanity See Profile I'm a Fan of nosanity

you liberal pantie wastes are sickening . Iran is voting for oduma . talk means nothing without the means to back it up . better start learning all foreign languages and fast , we will soon be passed around for cigarettes as we will be the worlds b...h

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:51 PM on 07/16/2008
- chirps See Profile I'm a Fan of chirps

"Iran is voting for oduma"

Iranians vote in U.S. elections?

"better start learning all foreign languages and fast"

When I see European students speaking better English than many Americans, I say yes, that"s a great idea. And the time to teach a foreign language isn"t in the ninth or tenth grade; it needs to start in kindergarten or before.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:05 PM on 07/17/2008
- Krikkit See Profile I'm a Fan of Krikkit

Wow, better stop nibbling on the GOP "eat me" cakes, dude, your sanity, or at least your perception of reality seems to depend on it just a bit too much.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:20 PM on 07/16/2008
- research See Profile I'm a Fan of research

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

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:05 PM on 07/16/2008
- nosanity See Profile I'm a Fan of nosanity

clearly iran sees that we are serious and we will bomb them into the stone age {not that they ever left it} and so they must capitulate , until or unless mr capitulation {bho} gets in to office . peace through superior fire power .

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:45 PM on 07/16/2008
- Krikkit See Profile I'm a Fan of Krikkit

LoL. You go first.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:22 PM on 07/16/2008
- research See Profile I'm a Fan of research

Good old fascist Might Makes Right?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:10 PM on 07/16/2008
- ejay579 See Profile I'm a Fan of ejay579

Where is Kevin James?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:07 PM on 07/16/2008
- ConcernedAmerican See Profile I'm a Fan of ConcernedAmerican

If Obama's judgment is so awful how come W and WcCain keep ripping off his ideas???

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:37 PM on 07/16/2008
- springsm See Profile I'm a Fan of springsm

Bush is doing his darndest to build a legacy and become the "hero of western civilizaion", by trying to do the ideas of Obama and many others not of bush's party. Alittle too late but it is good to try. He is such a basket case that I shudder when he all a sudden makes a move. My guess is that now he can say "we TRIED talking and it didn't work.....bomb bomb bomb". Knowing that to bush "talking" is that demanding little bully voice, "demanding or threatening". Even Condi does it. I know nothing about the third most official diplomat, William Burns. And Perino...my gosh.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:20 PM on 07/16/2008
- marthlois See Profile I'm a Fan of marthlois


I agree. That's my concern as well - that they will enter into these half-hearted talks, they will fail (of course they will since the administration doesn't "get" negotiation - and will shout loudly "see how it's failed? We tried and now you want to let an inexperienced Obama try negotiating? Better that we just skip the negotiations, the sanctions and show our muscle".

I recollect OSAMA's words years ago - that he would see to it that the US would be paying over EIGHTY DOLLARS A BARREL FOR OIL, that they would weaken the US and bring about our economic destruction". Hmmm. And Weak???? We don't even have the strength in our military to protect our troops in OTHER parts of the world. I don't trust the administration on this one - I really feel it's a complete setup. Such scary times!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:16 AM on 07/17/2008
- CitizenFace See Profile I'm a Fan of CitizenFace

This here's NOT that surprising. Look people, Iran will not lose face on this issue, particularly before the Iranian presidential election in which Ahmadinejad wants to appear strong.

As this article notes, this meeting "is aimed at proving America's resolve to peacefully prevent Iran from developing nuclear arms."

Consequently, "if the deal is not accepted, the Iranian government can expect more sanctions to be imposed on its banking and financial sectors" and "Bush has not taken the military option off the table."

This is just the carrot at the end of the stick. What happens if Iran don't bite?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:26 PM on 07/16/2008
- whiteboyblues See Profile I'm a Fan of whiteboyblues

HYPOCRITE!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:44 PM on 07/16/2008
- AnnieinOR See Profile I'm a Fan of AnnieinOR

took the word right out of my mouth.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:49 PM on 07/16/2008
- ebanks84 See Profile I'm a Fan of ebanks84

It's "hypocrit." No such word as hypocrite............

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:31 PM on 07/16/2008
- Researchguy66 See Profile I'm a Fan of Researchguy66

It's somewhat like O*ba'mas newfound "flexibility", isn't it?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:34 PM on 07/16/2008
- ChicagoPunk See Profile I'm a Fan of ChicagoPunk

There's no hate like conservative hate.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:54 PM on 07/16/2008
- jupitor See Profile I'm a Fan of jupitor

The time is right to talk directly with Iran? Didn't Obama say that some time back at the beginning of this campagne, and Mccain /Bush said stay the course! Obama idea is Nieve! He's weak on National security, don't know what hes talking about? MY gosh when does the stupidity stop with the Bush.Mccain? Didn't think we'd reconize this was Obama's plans months ago? Dah, guess they think us americans are stupid!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:52 PM on 07/16/2008
- Speakchic See Profile I'm a Fan of Speakchic

It pisses me off that they are stealing Obama's idea after calling it naive and careless!

Typical though!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:33 PM on 07/16/2008
- ebanks84 See Profile I'm a Fan of ebanks84

That's the only thing they're good at "stealing and lying".

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:33 PM on 07/16/2008
- NickNas See Profile I'm a Fan of NickNas

SEE?? All of the Doubters!!

A Sitting President AND the GOP Nominee for the next President of the United States BOTH following the LEAD Of Obama!

They know now how to get things done and they learned it from OBAMA!!

This is Priceless!! The C and D students are FINALLY Listening to the Professor LOL

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:32 PM on 07/16/2008
- dontomas See Profile I'm a Fan of dontomas

Unfortunately the media guru's will not point this out to the American public. I think they are just trying to steal O's thunder since they really do not mean it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:50 PM on 07/16/2008
- jeanrenoir See Profile I'm a Fan of jeanrenoir

Imagine the pressure the Republican Party must be putting on Bush NOT to keep rubber-stamping Israel's hawks as they race to destroy the world's economy by giving us $400 oil by going to war with Iran! You may hate the Republican pols, but, unlike Bush, they are not all simply wind-up dolls. They've actually noticed the blowback on their party from Iraq and the economic devastation which has befallen America as a DIRECT result of Bush's huge deficits to fund the war, the resulting collapse of the dollar, and the resulting tripling of the price of gas at the pump for Americans. It was very significant that John Bolton rightly thought it necessary to make a case to goyish Republican fat cats yesterday in the WSJ for why America should support Israel's impending attack on Iran, even though it will be "unpleasant" because it will give us $400 oil, and the American mob the Republicans have relied on for decades for their power will get a little bit upset over $12 gas at the pump. Israel, AIPAC, and the neocons have painted themselves into a suicidal political corner in America now, and plenty of Republicans are not going to fall on their swords with these suicidally arrogant kooks. No wonder Bush is inching back from the abyss and towards Obama's "appeasement."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:24 PM on 07/16/2008
- Krikkit See Profile I'm a Fan of Krikkit

Yeah, but the Greedy Old Perverts are still OWNED by their corporate masters, who don't care about anything but profiting from increasing chaos. So the Republicans will abandon ship, but the ship will sail on until the last ounce of blood money is squeezed from the stone.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:23 PM on 07/16/2008
Page: 1 2 3 Next › Last » (3 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in