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?