Saturday, May 27, 2006
Confronting Iran: The question of "direct talks," part 1
Suddenly, the news is full of stories discussing whether the United States will, or should, engage in "direct talks" with the Islamic Republic of Iran. This issue has been building for months, but there is clearly something in the back chatter that is bringing it to the fore. The Iranians are apparently reaching out to the United States through various channels, including Greece, the New York Times is running a front-page story this morning that includes sufficient leakage that it is obviously intended to test the domestic political waters, and WaPo columnist David Ignatius has declared that "it is time" to talk to Iran directly. Of these three, the Times article is the most illuminating.
The question of whether the United States should conduct direct talks is a complicated one that I hope to explore at some length before the end of the weekend. Suffice it to say that there are good arguments on both sides, and that David Ignatius' simple view that we have nothing to lose from engagement is not sufficiently nuanced for my taste or the country's best interest. He may be right in the end, but agreeing to "direct" and, more relevantly, officially acknowledged negotiations with Iran is not without risk to the United States and its allies.
4 Comments:
By 
Papa Ray, at
Sat May 27, 10:49:00 AM:
You can see through this as well as anyone.
This is the MSM doing their best to mold, shape and affect what is being done or that they want done.
There are many other voices that are not being heard, including the majority of the voices coming out of Iran, from government representives, all the way to the unwashed in the streets.
They all call for the descruction of America, the Jews, and even of [e]urope.
Don't let the talking heads distract you. Dr. Rice isn't distracted and neither is Bush.
Papa Ray
West Texas
USA
By ScurvyOaks, at
Sat May 27, 07:41:00 PM:
You may well have already read Krauthammer's thoughts on the subject. If not, I encourage you to take a look. I don't have a strong sense of whose arguments I lean towards, but Krauthammer makes some points that seem sound.
By Papa Ray, at
Sun May 28, 09:46:00 AM:
I thought you might like to see this. Not going to be on MSM..
Is it just being a good neighbor or what?
Afghan President Thanks Iran For Support
Papa Ray
By Dawnfire82, at
Tue May 30, 10:49:00 AM:
Something that I've never seen mentioned...
Official diplomatic relations comes part and parcel with embassies and diplomatic staffs. On every diplomatic staff is (at least) one intelligence operative. Allowing an Iranian embassy to open in the US is to allow Pasdaran and Hezb Allah operatives into the continental US *with diplomatic immunity.*
There's a damn fine reason that we don't maintain relations with state sponsors of terrorism.
