Europeans Meeting With Iranians Sans Bush & Co.

Prakosh

Senior Member
Looks like Bush and the American government have become the odd men out at the next meetings with Iran on their Nuclear proliferation talks. Bush has few options going into his next talk at the U. N. and he is unable to talk with Iran because he refuses to, until they agree up front to do what they want to have talks about. Bush seem to want everybody to do what he wants them to do first and then he will talk to them about whether or not he will accept what they have done and decide if it is enough. He appears to believe not that he is just president of the United States but also the Daddy of the World. He won't talk to you until you do all your chores. That's Bush, and he thinks it's the Cowboy thing. And he is still trying to tell the world that Iran has nuclear capability that they like Iraq just don't have. And of course the United Nations inspectors who doubt that Iran has anything like that and the IAEA, are all screwed because they won't paint the same picture of gloom and doom that Bush demands so that he can have his third war. I guess he thinks that the third war will be a charm. I sure hope this idiot can no longer generate any international support for his ignorance. I hope that even though there are plenty of Americans ready to send others off to die in their name, that cooler heads prevail and Bush either is forced to bomb Iran on his own completely or he is forced to refrain. Personally I think he and Rove want War with Iran to be the October Surprise.

Europeans May Meet With Iran, Sans U.S.

Sep 16, 5:20 PM (ET)

By DEB RIECHMANN

WASHINGTON (AP) - European diplomats are considering a meeting with Iran on the sidelines of next week's U.N. General Assembly in hopes of de-escalating the standoff over Tehran's nuclear program - but the United States won't be getting an invitation.

The Bush administration, which is pushing for U.N. sanctions against Iran, has said it will join European-led negotiations with Iran only if it stops its uranium enrichment work first.

That has led European negotiators to work on having a meeting - without America - in which Iran could say it is temporarily suspending enrichment activities because new negotiations had indeed begun.

A U.S. official confirmed that European diplomats were contemplating the meeting, but White House spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore would say only that President Bush has consistently supported talks with Iran, led by Britain, France and Germany. "He is hopeful that ongoing negotiations will encourage the Iranian government to suspend its enrichment and reprocessing activities," she said.

The U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the volatile nature of the discussions, said the Bush administration is not expecting that such a meeting would be a major turning point in the dispute. The Bush administration has little confidence that "Iran will come through to meet the conditions" of verifiably suspending its enrichment work, the official said.

At a news conference Friday, Bush said he will send a signal at the United Nations that the United States will not tolerate delay tactics by Tehran. "Stalling shouldn't be allowed," Bush said.

Bush also stressed that he believes there is a strong consensus in the international community to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, although Russia and China - two members of the U.N. Security Council that have veto power - have been hesitant about imposing U.N. sanctions against the Iranian government.

Full Story
 
Do you ever think past the appearance of something to the background? International politics are often filled with the background that is not reported. In this case the US has not been involved in much of the talks from the beginning, making it appear as if the US was not involved at all. This makes it so Iran can make changes without appearing to bow to the US, to save face with other nations in that region.

It would not be helpful to appear as the "leader" of this, therefore that is done in the background rather than the foreground....
 
Do you ever think past the appearance of something to the background? International politics are often filled with the background that is not reported. In this case the US has not been involved in much of the talks from the beginning, making it appear as if the US was not involved at all. This makes it so Iran can make changes without appearing to bow to the US, to save face with other nations in that region.

It would not be helpful to appear as the "leader" of this, therefore that is done in the background rather than the foreground....

Bush can't meet with them under any circumstances because he has made such a big deal about not meeting with them until they clean up their room. If anyone here is engaging in face saving it is Bush not Iran. He has said so many times that he won't talk to them not even you hard core Bushites could stomach him meeting with them now!
 
Bush can't meet with them under any circumstances because he has made such a big deal about not meeting with them until they clean up their room. If anyone here is engaging in face saving it is Bush not Iran. He has said so many times that he won't talk to them not even you hard core Bushites could stomach him meeting with them now!
Right. However, even if Bush hadn't already called them part of the "Axis of Evil" and made a big deal about it, the fact that the US was seen long before and will still be long after Bush as Evil and Controlling would make it so taking an upfront position of power in the negotiation would doom it.

Not recognizing that makes it convenient for the "We hate him" crowd, but the fact is Clinton wouldn't have been able to either...
 
Right. However, even if Bush hadn't already called them part of the "Axis of Evil" and made a big deal about it, the fact that the US was seen long before and will still be long after Bush as Evil and Controlling would make it so taking an upfront position of power in the negotiation would doom it.

Not recognizing that makes it convenient for the "We hate him" crowd, but the fact is Clinton wouldn't have been able to either...

Well, I don't know about any of this. Much of it seems hypothetical, in the extreme. Except for the fact that we are not seen as a close friend of Iran's and haven't been since the CIA overthrew Mossadegh and installed the Shah in 1953. But since we are fabricating all kinds of hypothetical scenarios and since no less a personage than Langston Hugh's wrote a poem about the beneficial affects of "If-ing". I'll "if" a little.

First Bush is not Clinton. If Ahmadinejad had challenged Clinton to a debate, I think Clinton would have debated him, not refused to do so, as Bush has done. I also think that if Clinton had debated him he may well have at least given Ahmadinejad a run for his money, even though the U.S. has a lot to answer for regarding the current state of affairs in Iran. According to Stephen Kinzer in Overthrow (2006), "The shah did not tolerate dissent and repressed opposition newspapers, political parties, trade unions, and civic groups. As a result, the only place Iranian dissidents could find a home was in mosques and religious schools, many of which were controlled by obscurantist cherics." According to Kinzer, it was an earlier failure of intelligence that enabled the CIA to say even as the anti-shah forces were launching their revolution that "the Shah will be an active participant in Iranian life well into the 1980s...and there will be no radical changes in Iranian political behavior in the near future." Of course, Bush would not know what to say when Ahmadinejad forced him to confront this history, but Clinton would probably not be so tongue tied.

I can't remember Clinton ever arousing suspicion about whether or not he was thinking on his feet or whether he was getting the answers off stage becuase there was a huge lump in his back (and the story about the bad sout---not exactly, the person who makes all the suits for the Presidents and who has been meeting with Bush almost weekly for fittings for the last 3 or 4 years now and is the same tailor who has been making suits for the president for over 40 years. His suits sell for around $3-4,000 a piece.) But even if Clinton had not met with and debated Ahmadinejad, he would certainly not have made a big deal out of not talking to Iran or any other country, and if it would have been possible I am sure that Clinton would have engaged in some sort of back door diplomacy that would have given both countries an out if things didn't work out or if they were unsuccessful.

Bush's form of not negotiating until after he gets his way on those things that the negotiations would generally be used to attain is just plain ignorance. But Clinton never refused to talk to anyone as far as I know, although there was probably someone somewhere that he refused to talk to, he's probably not taking calls from Monica L. any longer. Bush is another story entirely, I think he could engage Ahmadinejad if he wanted to. But he just doesn't want to. Indeed, as he has said many times, he will not until they stop all nuclear fresearch and until we have verified that. This verification is nothing more than a way for the US to finally figure out and map where all the Iranian nuclear facitilities are so that they can be taken out when Bush decides, as he did with Saddam when he felt he had enough information, that Ahmadinejad isn't cooperating, and bombs all Iran's nuclear facilities and perhaps then invades the country.

Bush claims that he wants to go through the UN etc., which is all a ruse because we are the UN for the most part. By that I mean that without our leadership at the UN nothing of any substance gets done on an issue. I still don't think Clinton would have refused the debate.
Not because I liked Chinton, I didn't, but because that wasn't Clinton's personality. Bush won't even meet with Cindy Sheehan for Christ's sake. Big risk for him there.
 
Last edited:
I really don't think that Clinton would have debated the new figurehead President of Iran under any circumstances. I don't believe he would have been so myopic...

Look. I am not in here saying Bush is the smartest man in all creation or that his move into Iraq was a good one. I am specifically stating the truth of the matter. The problems in the ME would have precluded Clinton from taking a visible leadership role. In fact, the Rs would be making a huge stink about how "we lost face" because of his actions and use it to "prove" it...

Either one are disingenuous and I would point it out regardless of the Party in the Office. It is smart International negotiation to negotiate in the background while letting members of NATO take the front.
 
I really don't think that Clinton would have debated the new figurehead President of Iran under any circumstances. I don't believe he would have been so myopic...

Look. I am not in here saying Bush is the smartest man in all creation or that his move into Iraq was a good one. I am specifically stating the truth of the matter. The problems in the ME would have precluded Clinton from taking a visible leadership role. In fact, the Rs would be making a huge stink about how "we lost face" because of his actions and use it to "prove" it...

Either one are disingenuous and I would point it out regardless of the Party in the Office. It is smart International negotiation to negotiate in the background while letting members of NATO take the front.

Kissenger engaged in all kinds of negotiations directly while pretending he wasn't doing anything at all and then stepping forward on;y when he had a deal, there was no reaosn to have anything going on up front or having others doping the front negotiations while something else is going on in the back while all the time you are ranting and raving about how fucked the other party is, which is what your if-ing leads one to conclude. But since it's only if-ing, it doesn't really matter much does it.
 
Kissenger engaged in all kinds of negotiations directly while pretending he wasn't doing anything at all and then stepping forward on;y when he had a deal, there was no reaosn to have anything going on up front or having others doping the front negotiations while something else is going on in the back while all the time you are ranting and raving about how fucked the other party is, which is what your if-ing leads one to conclude. But since it's only if-ing, it doesn't really matter much does it.
Amazingly the word "if" didn't show up once in the post you quoted before making this terribly out of place remark.

And stepping forward would only lead the other nations in the region to the conclusion that this was a US decision and he is now just another puppet. It would make it nearly impossible for him to be able to make any such agreement. It is very easy for politicians to take advantage of such, and they often have in the past. Knowing that President SoandSo cannot make direct remarks about what is happening they might, let's say in a Debate for President, ask why we aren't taking a larger "Leadership" role... Then smirk knowing that it would wreck the role we have taken in the talks to be upfront about it.
 
Amazingly the word "if" didn't show up once in the post you quoted before making this terribly out of place remark.

No of course not, you were pretending that your "ifs" from the earlier posts were now "the truth" when in fact they were specuilation pure and simple. At least call theorizing what it is, instead of trying to claim some kind of "truth" value for what is nothing more than hypothetical though no matter how educated or reality based it might be. Neither of us know what is going on. I don't for a minute claim to know the truth, but you somehow think you do. I still don't know what allows you to think that, but go ahead. I'll refer to it as if-ing, no matter what you prefer to call it.
 
No of course not, you were pretending that your "ifs" from the earlier posts were now "the truth" when in fact they were specuilation pure and simple. At least call theorizing what it is, instead of trying to claim some kind of "truth" value for what is nothing more than hypothetical though no matter how educated or reality based it might be. Neither of us know what is going on. I don't for a minute claim to know the truth, but you somehow think you do. I still don't know what allows you to think that, but go ahead. I'll refer to it as if-ing, no matter what you prefer to call it.
Except your original post makes it clear that under no circumstances do you take under consideration the background of International Politics, but love to play the appearance. That is a Partisan trick as listed above in my previous post. It is played by both sides and hence my logical assertions as to what would happen if roles were reversed.

I don't "pretend to know" what is currently happening, I deduce it from past actions. It really isn't all that hard to do.
 
Do you ever think past the appearance of something to the background? International politics are often filled with the background that is not reported. In this case the US has not been involved in much of the talks from the beginning, making it appear as if the US was not involved at all. This makes it so Iran can make changes without appearing to bow to the US, to save face with other nations in that region.

It would not be helpful to appear as the "leader" of this, therefore that is done in the background rather than the foreground....

This makes it so Iran can make changes without appearing to bow to the US, to save face with other nations in that region.

This theory, doesn't square with the fact that Iranian leaders have publically been requesting to meet with Bush and the U.S.
 
This makes it so Iran can make changes without appearing to bow to the US, to save face with other nations in that region.

This theory, doesn't square with the fact that Iranian leaders have publically been requesting to meet with Bush and the U.S.
Of course they have, to put it forward and get refused is part of that game... This makes it appear to their "constituents" and other nations of the region as the good guy. This is all part of the game. Like when Castro points the finger at the US for Human Rights violations, etc. It doesn't mean that Cuba is better, only that they get to look like the good guys for a couple seconds.
 
Man I wish p.com was still up... I remember writing and beginning a thread on this topic long ago, it was particularly good "article" on it too.
 
Of course they have, to put it forward and get refused is part of that game... This makes it appear to their "constituents" and other nations of the region as the good guy. This is all part of the game. Like when Castro points the finger at the US for Human Rights violations, etc. It doesn't mean that Cuba is better, only that they get to look like the good guys for a couple seconds.

Nice theory. It helps inncoulate bush against criticisms of bungling.

As for me, I'll believe competent republican leaders Like Brent Scowcroft, who say we should be talking to Iran and Syria. Dudes like Scowcroft have been proven right over and over, and Bush and his apologists have been proven wrong over and over.
 
Nice theory. It helps inncoulate bush against criticisms of bungling.

As for me, I'll believe competent republican leaders Like Brent Scowcroft, who say we should be talking to Iran and Syria. Dudes like Scowcroft have been proven right over and over, and Bush and his apologists have been proven wrong over and over.
No, there's plenty of bungling to go around. Just not in the case of "not taking a role" in the talks. The role he is taking is one many other administrations have taken with other nations, the background.
 
No, there's plenty of bungling to go around. Just not in the case of "not taking a role" in the talks. The role he is taking is one many other administrations have taken with other nations, the background.

All I'm saying Damo, is that rather than searching for theories that will back up and defend Bush's policy, we should be listening to the foreign policy realists, not the foreign policy NeoCons who've gotten everything wrong. Why would you trust the Neocons at this point, with our foreign policy? Why woulnd't you trust the people who've acutally been right all along? Like Scowcroft?


GOP Heavy Hitters Pressuring White House to Talk With Iran
By Laura Rozen,
Los Angeles Times May 27, 2006

WASHINGTON — Amid concern that the U.S. is drifting toward eventual confrontation with Iran, a growing number of influential statesmen, Republican senators and foreign policy experts are stepping up pressure on the Bush administration to consider doing what no U.S. administration has done in 27 years: talk directly with Iran.



http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=61429;article=32704;title=Iran News
 
That I wouldn't trust a NeoCon with foreign policy doesn't mean what I suggest is incorrect. Even a strong President would be taking a backseat in this one for the reasons previously provided.

And demanding a "debate" certainly isn't begging for talks.
 
That I wouldn't trust a NeoCon with foreign policy doesn't mean what I suggest is incorrect. Even a strong President would be taking a backseat in this one for the reasons previously provided.

And demanding a "debate" certainly isn't begging for talks.

You appear to be suggesting that the Bush foreign policy towards Iran is clever and prudent. That they are cleverly giving the Iranians diplomatic cover. If your not, then we are in agreement. I don't trust Bush at all to run our foreign policy.

I recall on FP you made a similar argument about how clever and nuanced Bush's policy towards North Korea was.

I find nothing clever about bush's foreign policy. Whatever his tactics are, I suggest we do the exact opposite. And put Republican realists like Hagel, Scowcroft, and Powell in charge of foreign policy.
 
You appear to be suggesting that the Bush foreign policy towards Iran is clever and prudent. That they are cleverly giving the Iranians diplomatic cover. If your not, then we are in agreement. I don't trust Bush at all to run our foreign policy.

I recall on FP you made a similar argument about how clever and nuanced Bush's policy towards North Korea was.

I find nothing clever about bush's foreign policy. Whatever his tactics are, I suggest we do the exact opposite. And put Republican realists like Hagel, Scowcroft, and Powell in charge of foreign policy.
Look, not that it is "clever" just that he appears to have listened to the long-timers in the bureaucracy and stepped back when it is prudent. I expect Bush to go directly against what I think is right, he has almost every time. Attempting to "give" Democracy away is one thing I think is always wrong...

Even the Dalai Lama and I disagree on that one.
 
Back
Top