Back to Persia!

A British newspaper reports that the Bush administration will announce plans to establish a diplomatic presence in Tehran for the first time in 30 years. There's no confirmation from the White House, but last week a senior U.S. diplomat William Burns told Congress the United States was looking to opening up an interest section in the Iranian capital.

http://news.aol.com/article/paper-says-us-to-open-office-in-iran/86477

I wonder what would happen if the staff of that US office in Teheran were to be taken hostage ? (This administration has certainly helped me "hone" the cynical part of me..)

I find this difficult to believe, considering that Bush said we do not negotiate with terrorists and blah blah blah. What you are alleging here, CG, is that the President of the United States has been untruthful with the American public.

I'm sure you are not making such a suggestion about our President, I'm just saying it seems like it, and in today's market I'd be really careful about something like that.

Let's see if we have this straight. Reuters News Service (definitely NOT a friend of the United States) reports that the UK Guardian (another non-friend of the United States) says their Washington correspondent claims the U.S. is going to announce the establishment of "a U.S. interests section" that is supposed to be "halfway towards opening an embassy."

And to back up this claim the Guardian Washington correspondent quotes...

...nobody! No source is mentioned.

However, Reuters does note: "Senior U.S. diplomat William Burns said in testimony to Congress last week the United States was looking to opening up an interest section in Tehran but had not made a decision yet."

They went on to say: "Washington said on Wednesday it was sending Burns to join atomic talks with Iran this weekend to signal to Tehran and others that Washington wanted a diplomatic solution to their nuclear impasse."

You'd think liberals would be all excited about that sort of news. Think again.

""Washington said on Wednesday it was sending Burns to join atomic talks with Iran this weekend to signal to Tehran and others that Washington wanted a diplomatic solution to their nuclear impasse, and that the United States does not negotiate with terrorists."

tee hee. I added the last part myself.

The liberals can't get excited about Bush lies any longer, it would be nice if they could get excited once about him telling the truth.

This man is full of confusion and double speak, when it comes to this President, I believe none of what I hear from him, and half of what I see.

I am glad; the soon ex President Bush is listening to the future President Obama!

Instead of opening up a diplomatic office, they could have saved a few bucks by sharing rent with the Halliburton offices already in Teheran.

So, does this mean we can expect Bush to "refine" his position on the idea and call off the meeting by next week?

The US sent Brooks to Geneva to talk to Iran about it's nuclear program and to try to break a stalemate. As of today, it didn't work because Iran skirted the issus

The US has always maintained some sort of diplomatic tie with Teheran, but it's done so through, I think. the Swiss embassy.

As of today, I don't think the US will go any further--unless to show thw world that it's tried.

Question for you, Liz...How much further should the US go in search of a diplomatic solution? It has repeatedly tried to work with the UN and the world community to resolve this issue. It has repeatedly tried to talk with the Iranians about the issue. It has offfered, and convinced others to offer, economic solutions in an effort to resolve the issue. To date, Iran has rebuffed every effort and said, categorically, that it WILL NOT stop its nuclear program. So...I ask you, Liz, and any one else who might have an informed opinion, exactly how much more should the US do in pursuit of a diplomatic solution?

At what point to we decide a diplomatic solution is not going to obtain the desired result? Do we wait until Tel Aviv vanishes in a mushroom cloud before we acknowledge the futility of such an effort? Or, do we perhaps take more assertive action when it might actually be effective in obtaining the desired result?

mushroom cloud

Can we take that to mean, Dax, that you would only support efforts to remove any Iranian nuclear arsenal and do not support efforts to prevent the aquisition of one?

I don't support a nucular (Bush) capable Iran any more than I support the scare tactics of Chenynesque doomsday.

I despise politics by fear, and those who intend to frighten us into submission to their will.

The entire neocon agenda since 9/11 has capitalized on this fear, and essentially succeeded. Just not with me. I don't buy it, and while there are plausible reasons to take out Iran's nukes, a mushroom cloud is not one of them.

I've lived through the Communists Will Take Over scare, and I've lived through the Domino Theory, and the FIght them There or We'll Fight Them Here, and it's all the same bullshit, cut from the same cloth.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...none of that is responsive to the question, Dax.

I asked at what point do we decide we have done as much as we can diplomatically and must either concede defeat or resort to force? Iran is indisputably pursuing a nuclear program about which the world---not just the US---has serious reservations. The Iranians have repeatedly said they are not going to stop doing what they are doing...regardless of what we say or offer. So, where does that leave us? Do we shut up and accept a nuclear armed Iran or do we do something to prevent it?

I don't know, Law. Although I don't think that trade sanctions really work, as a result of them, Iran is having trouble with exports. Since its major export is oil, perhaps a total shut-down of oil imports from Iran could be the next step.

The entire world economy has been affected by the cost of crude. In the US, the sales of high-priced, low-efficient automobiles has dropped dramatically. We've shown we can do it--but what we've done is really short-term and in response to panic. If we could honestly keep up with the changes we need to make in order to end our reliance on fossil fuels, we could, perhaps, cut off the crude imports from Iran. As far as I can see, this would be the only way to bring Iran to a negotiating table.

Cutting off crude imports from Iran is impossible, or perhaps I should say totally ineffective. Oil distribution is a huge network of ships. Sources and destinations are flexible and the routes are not fixed. If we were to not buy from Iran directly, the oil that we would have bought will go to another country (say Canada) and the oil that would have gone to Canada from from somewhere else (say Venezuela), would come here. No pain and no gain for anyone.

Did you know that by far the bulk of Alaskan crude doesn't come to the US? West Coast Refineries aren't set up for it. It just gets sent out over the shipping network.

Would it be possible for the world to stop crude imports from Iran? Probably not, but I still think it's the only 'sanction' left that would mean anything.

As I understand it, the UN was established in order to stop war. Wouldn't a world-wide boycott of Iranian oil stop a possible war?

Stopping EXPORTS from Iran is the only thing that might work, but getting a world-wide boycott of Iranian oil is somewhere between extremely unlikely to impossible. That leaves only bombing their pipelines, etc. That too is unlikely for a world-wide action, but only too possible for a US action, at least under the present administration. This time around, Congress would probably not support it, if asked.

Iran can try to export all it wants to--if no one buys (i.e., imports) those exports, wouldn't that be an effective trade sanction? Isn't this what the UN is supposed to do--stave off war rather than sanction it?

That is an idealistic solution, Liz. it is however one that is rather unlikely. The Chinese for instance are rather unlikely to support it. Even if the rest of the world said no to Iranian crude, the Chinese would likely say yes, yes, yes. Even if you got the ENTIRE world to agree, I do not think it would change the Iranian position. We would still be forced to address the issue of an Iranian nuclear program.

Law, I've been pondering your question.

When do we stop negotiating, {which Bush claims we aren't doing) and start attacking?

And the answer depends upon what is really happening in Iran. If it could be shown that they are really and truly six months away from awesome nuclear capablilty, that's one thing.

If Cheney and Rice say Iran is six months away from awesome nuclear capability and we'd better strike now or we'll all die in the searing poisonous cloud of leftover missile gravy, choking and burning and begging for the sweet relief of death, that's a different thing.

The question is who to trust for the true information. I can't trust this administration, I can't take GWB or Condi or Cheney at their word for anything. So it's a real quandry for me.

So let me answer it this way. If my first scenario is correct, I would favor some kind of attack, perhaps air strikes against specific targets. This of course might escalate, but I think it's the only way to start.

In the second scenario, I'd just like to tar and feather them and ride them out of town on a rail, after which I'd dump them in the briar patch and go to the bar.

It's a little local tradition we call the "tar 'n' bar"

Oh, and my point about the mushroom cloud was not at all irrelevant. When those kind of shopworn talking point phrases are used, it raises the bullshit level, rather than the informational level, of the discussion.

Yeah, that's right. Do we accept a nucular (Jimmy Carter) Iran or do you have a better eye-dear. (John Kerry)

. o O (I just couldn't resist)

Yeah, let's do something about Iran's WMDs...

WALLACE: I want to ask you two questions about Iran. How do you weigh as a military man, as the top military man, the downside risk if either the U.S. or Israel were to militarily strike Iran in terms of blowback from Iran and its allies in the region, increased turmoil in that area, increased turmoil in the oil market?

MULLEN: I think it would be significant. I worry about it a lot. Ive said when Ive been asked this before right now Im fighting two wars, and I dont need a third one.
But I worry about the instability in that part of the world and, in fact, the possible unintended consequences of a strike like that and, in fact, having an impact throughout the region that would be difficult to both predict exactly what it would be and then the actions that we would have to take to contain it.
Adm. Mullen on Fox News

Mullen is fully aware that an attack on Iran would precipitate a horde of Iranian troops crossing the border into Iraq. This real possibility, coupled with the other propability that Iraqi Shi'a troops may turn on our own soldiers, should really worry any SANE military person who may care about our troops in harm's way.

CG, I did not see that ADM Mullen said he was worried about a horde of Iranian troops pouring accross the Iran-Iraq border...Nor do I see an attack on Iran as likely to precipitate Iraqi troops turning on US forces inside Iraq en masse. Indeed, I think the two are likely to be mutually exclusive. The bulk of Iraqi Shia are not especially enamored of the Iranians. You overestimate the unity their shared Shia beliefs brings them. Certainly some Shia religious leaders have close ties with the Shia clergy in Iran but that closeness most certainly does not extend to the average Iraqi. Indeed, the average Iraqi is, in my personal experience, quite concerned about the potential threat Iran poses to Iraq. Should the Iranians be so foolish as to invade Iraq in response to a US or Israeli strike on iranian nuclear facilities I strongly suspect you would see the Iraqis clamoring for MORE American troops rather than fewer. More pointedly, Iran lacks the realistic throw weight to invade Iraq given the current correlation of forces in the region. The existing US troops presence in theater is sufficient to repulse any Iranian invasion of Iraq even without Iraqi army assistance. Its a moot point anyway because if the Iranians invaded Iraq, there would be plenty of Iraqi army assistance in removing them.

A far, far more likely threat would be sharply increased Iranian support for the insurgency in Iraq couple with Iranian harassment of the US logistical tail in the Persian Gulf. Such efforts would very likely make our position in Iraq less comfortable than it is now and would certainly result in a sharp increase in the already considerable cost of operations in the region. In short, the Iranians might be able to make continuation of our large scale presence in Iraq prohibtively, evenly ruinously, expensive.

Conversation overheard while at work today. Two teenagers with their laptops were strolling through the Web. They hit on Obama's visit to Israel. They were discrying it as someting even a sitting president hasn't done recently let alone a presidentail candidate. I suggested that Obama was there to determine whether or not Israel might be really intends-ing to nuke Iran. My suggestion was met with both a giggle and a blank stare. Then both teens went on to look at the 'more important to them' websites.

Unless I'm in a parallel universe, Bush, a sitting President, visited Israel less than a month ago.

He must have been there to see if the Israelis are planning to launch a nucular attack on Iran. After all, the Israel tells ALL visiting US politicians what its strategic defense policies are...

Which kind of tellls you what the level of average American teen-age involvement is with current affairs.

We have a lot of work to do and I'm afraid it's a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq/Pakistan border," said McCain, R-Ariz., said on "Good Morning America."

Well, NO wonder the Iranians are a bit worried...With McCain, their country has simply disappeared....Whoever that kid was that won last year's geography-bee, should be hired by the McCain campaign.