Hagel: U.S. Should Pursue "Direct, Unconditional and Comprehensive Talks" With Iran

Now it's official: President Bush has been misleading the nation on the alleged threat to the U.S. from Iran. As the Washington Post noted Tuesday, President Bush's warning in October that a nuclear-armed Iran might lead to "World War III" came "at least a month or two after he had first been told about fresh indications that Iran had actually halted its nuclear weapons program" in 2003.

So far the Administration has tried gamely to claim that nothing has changed. National security adviser Stephen Hadley "defended Bush's World War III reference in October and repeated it himself," the Post reports.

But if there was ever a time when sustained public and Congressional pressure could force a fundamental change in U.S. policy towards Iran, this is it. Certainly the Bush Administration will try to see if it can get away with maintaining its present course. But if Congress cannot rule out an unauthorized, "pre-emptive" U.S. attack on Iran now, when can it do so? It was Congressional pressure - backed by public pressure - that finally forced the Administration to disgorge the Iran National Intelligence Estimate. Congressional pressure, backed by public pressure, can force a fundamental change in Administration policy towards Iran.

Members of Congress, Democrat and Republican, have said that the release of the new NIE on Iran offers the opportunity for a new U.S. policy towards Iran based on real diplomacy. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel called for the U.S. to offer " 'direct, unconditional and comprehensive talks' with Iran - where all issues, ours and Iran's, are on the table, including ... security guarantees, and other incentives." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid urged President Bush "to announce a top-to-bottom review of his Iran policy and a diplomatic surge."

It may seem to many beyond the realm of imagination that President Bush could change course and pursue serious diplomacy with Iran.

But recall Richard Nixon's political identity before he pursued détente with the Soviet Union and established diplomatic relations with China. Nixon owed his very existence as a national political figure to destroying his political adversaries by the repeated and effective use of unsubstantiated invocations of the "Communist threat."

President Bush warned us against succumbing to the "soft bigotry of low expectations." Let's stop oppressing President Bush with the soft bigotry of our low expectations. President Bush should heed Senator Hagel's call, and pursue "direct, unconditional and comprehensive talks" with Iran.

Ask Congress to force the Bush Administration to change course.

Comments

[Liberterna]

well said.

We managed to influence China's behavior much better by giving them a stake in our well being. (we buy their stuff, they start to need and want us around)

Iran's hardliners only have credibility when they claim to be the only way to protect the people and country of Iran from the "big bad western colonial monsters who will destroy the country and make your daughters into whores" argument. (rather similar to Ghulliani's morbid 9/11 will happen everyday unless i'm president)

If we show the people of Iran that we really are no threat to them, the hard line argument in would evaporate. Giving the reformers and pro-democracy secular movements a chance.

Attacking the country in anyway shape or form will invoke a level of patriotism among Iranians that will only unify and harden them. Remember we as Americans are proud of our 200 some odd years of history and achievement, they have survived and thrived in the toughest neighborhood in the world for 3000 years, their pride is a force we must consider, Texan Cowboy style does not impress there)

[NABNYC]

Okay, let's back up again. Why is it the entire nation is supposed to be obsessed with Iran? What is it they have done to warrant this focus? Oh that's right. Bush, Cheney, Lieberman, Hillary and Condi MushroomCloud told us that Iran has nukes and will destroy us all.

That's right.

And that's the only reason. All the liars have been telling us stories. Again. Same stories as they told us about Iraq.

Now what about what's-his-name, Osama bin Laden? Why is it we're not obsessed with him? Why no national commitment to hunting him down, getting him, killing him? Why are we so anxious about Iran which has not attacked or threatened to attack us, yet we ignore bin Laden?

I support the U.S. trying to have a better relationship with Iran. But I don't see any reason for this obsession. Remember, it wasn't Iran who attacked the U.S.: it was bin Laden.

Now, I know that Israel is obsessed with Iran. And they came out yesterday, outraged that the U.S. would release a truthful report. And I know Israel wants the U.S. to attack Iran. And they even said yesterday that now that they know Iran has no nuclear weapons, Israel probably will attack them. Because Israel attacks everyone.

But why is the U.S. so obsessed with Iran? I mean other than the fact that Israel is. Doesn't our government do anything for the people of the U.S. anymore? Has our entire military been turned over to control by Tel Aviv? Because if it's my military, which by the way I am funding, my vote is that they stop chasing Israel's tail and go back and get bin Laden. Then end the wars and bring the troops home.

[TurnThePageGA]

Chuck you better be careful or SCHRILLARY will be calling you NAIVE and INEXPERIENCED.

[snruB]

Isn't this exactly what Obama advocated and was called "naive" for it?

[OckhamsElectricRazor]

Direct, unconditional and unconditional talks with Iran BY the Bush regime is a bad idea. Instead, back-channeled reassurances by Congressional leaders and our allies that US aggression toward Iran will NOT be tolerated. Certainty of impeachment should be made clear if any aggression against Iran is made.

The Bush regime has demonstrated that it does not have the will or the competence to engage into serious diplomacy. In addition, it does not have to the credibility with the world community to lead any such effort. Who would believe Bush/Cheney about anything?

Establishing peaceful relations with Iran is indeed an urgent priority for the next President. However to expect Bush to become a peace negotiator in the Middle East would be like expecting OJ to become a marriage counselor.

[Dandy12]

Why is Chuck retiring? He ought to be running (for Pres. not away)!! Apparently, we don't really want to talk to much of anyone. Fear is easiest to cultivate (cultivating the fog) in an atmosphere of paranoia, US VS. THEM! Look at the propaganda of Lenin, and Goebels..
GOT MIT UNS! Ja Wol! Eta Pravda!!

[Boyaca]

This is not going to happen. The report will be buried in doubt as the best spin masters in the world get at it. The people who made the report will be discredited and will be forced out of the service. Their careers irreparably damaged. Just give it a couple of months and they will be back to proving that Iran needs to be nuked.

[Dohiyi]

Revisit Bush's October WWIII speech. It was not about Iran building nuclear weapons, it was about Iran having the knowledge to build nuclear weapons. Bush must have already known about the new intelligence. Recall that when Bush was asked whether Iraq had actual weapons of mass destruction or just the ability to make them, he answered, "What difference does it make?"

The new intelligence estimate may actually make it more likely that Bush will order a preemptive attack on Iran. Bush has been pushing for much stronger sanctions against Iran. The new intelligence estimate is likely to completely derail that effort. If Bush cannot successfully pursue tougher diplomatic sanctions against Iran, and the intelligence makes it even less likely that his successor in office will get tough with Iran, isn't he likely to conclude that he must act before he leaves office?