US plans to station diplomats in Iran for first time since 1979

[cal04]

Washington move signals thaw in relations
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/17/usa.iran

The US plans to establish a diplomatic presence in Tehran for the first time in 30 years as part of a remarkable turnaround in policy by President George Bush.

The Guardian has learned that an announcement will be made in the next month to establish a US interests section - a halfway house to setting up a full embassy. The move will see US diplomats stationed in the country.

The news of the shift by Bush who has pursued a hawkish approach to Iran throughout his tenure comes at a critical time in US-Iranian relations. After weeks that have seen tensions rise with Israel conducting war games and Tehran carrying out long-range missile tests, a thaw appears to be under way.

(snip)
The creation of a US interest section would see diplomats stationed in Tehran for the first time since the hostage crisis that began when hundreds of students, as part of the Iranian revolution that led to fall of the Shah, stormed the US embassy in 1979 and held the occupants until 1981.

[Clovis Sangrail]

1. How many people think this is a setup move?

I hope Iran says "we'll talk about it after Bush leaves office"

[bemildred]

2. It's "interesting".

I don't know that I would want to hazard a guess as to what it means yet.

[Middle finga]

3. Barack seem to be influential or maybe the powers that be know

he will be the next leader and their now doing everything Barack has been advocating like setting up talks with Iran, I just read in another post that our troops are preparing to go into Pakistan to route out the Taliban and Al Qaeda camps, and we just had Al Maliki side with Obama on US Troop withdrawals.

[emilyg]

4. Good.

[billyoc]

5. "Iran said to privatise $90 bln of energy assets"

DUBAI (Reuters) - Iran plans to privatise 47 firms in its energy sector worth $90 billion (46.2 billion pounds) and set up a holding company for these assets which it will list on four international exchanges, a National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) executive said.

The plan would see the oil and gas companies put under an umbrella group to attract foreign investment, Hojatollah Ghanimi-Fard, director of international affairs at NIOC told the London-based Middle East Economic Digest (MEED).

He said the firms would also be listed in Tehran by 2014.

"We decided the Iranian stock exchange may need to have some support financially from outside stock exchanges, especially for the oil sector, because the money involved is too much (for Iran)," Ghanemi-Fard told the magazine, without naming the firms.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUKL0951783020080209




Hey, bombing them would be great and all, but Halliburton has veto power. :hi:

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

6. You guys are missing the big story here, and...

It's almost bigger than the meat of this story.

This is a signal that Cheney is finally toast.

Dear Leader has now thrown Cheney over the side in the name of his legacy. Too little, too late, but Cheney and his shop has been pushing military engagement across the middle east hammer and tongs. They won a lot of them, too. But now, Dear Leader has McCain's people in his ear, begging him to do something, anything, to ease their hopeless plight. Defusing the Iran situation will have an immediate effect on oil speculation, especially going into the heating season(Why they are announcing this "sometime in the next month", to give their buds a little more time to make their last pile o' dough and get the hell out), thus dropping oil prices, and defusing tensions.

Prediction: I would not be surprised if Condi gets the credit and then gets the repuke VP nod. It seems a tailor-made scenario.

Wild Card in all of this is Israel. I suspect that they want to retaliate for Iranian support for Hezzbollah. It would give them a chance to show off their military and tactical might and create a distraction for Olmert.

And who knows if Cheney might go WAAAYYY off the reservation if he thinks he's out but for being unemployed.

[bemildred]

9. "Cheney is toast"

"Cheney is a has-been."

Boy that has a ring to it. Maybe it finally dawned on someone that if we cannot subdue Iraq or Afghanistan, then we sure and heck cannot subdue Iran either.

Your analysis seems tentatively right to me, except that Israel really has no say. The question that comes to my mind is what the various blathering long-range mouth-fighters in the Congress and the bloviating media will have to say about this development, especially after all the spew about Obama wanting use open-ended diplomacy.

[NC_Nurse]

7. "part of a remarkable turnaround in policy by President George Bush."

Why when a Dem changes their mind, is it a flip-flop...but when a Repub does the same, it's "remarkable".

sigh...

[bemildred]

8. Shifts in Iran Drove Bush to Alter Policy

Some priceless diplomatic dissembling here. This is all just the same as before, only different.

President Bush's decision to shift policy and send a senior U.S. envoy to nuclear talks with Iran this weekend was made after increasing signs that Iran was open to possible negotiations and that international sanctions were having a

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice pushed for the move in a meeting on Monday of Bush's top aides, and Bush's support suggests he increasingly is determined to put aside a possible military strike in an effort to reach a deal to end Iran's nuclear program in his final six months in office. In recent weeks, the White House already has approved a sweetened package of incentives to Iran that included a pledge to refrain from the use of force, supported a European gambit to begin preliminary talks with Iran and sent clear signals to Israel not to consider acting against Iran on its own.

For more than two years, the Bush administration has had the same bottom line: Iran must suspend its enrichment of uranium -- a route to a nuclear weapon -- before serious talks can begin. U.S. officials insisted yesterday that such a demand, also shared by European allies, had not changed, but the diplomatic lines have become sufficiently hazy that if negotiations start in earnest, Iran will also be able to claim a diplomatic victory.

Iran last week sent its own mixed signals, test-firing long-range missiles in the Persian Gulf while appearing conciliatory on possible negotiations.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/16/AR2008071600199.html

[bemildred]

10. US 'ponders Iran diplomatic base'

The US state department has refused to confirm or deny reports of plans to establish a US diplomatic presence in Iran for the first time in 30 years.

The UK's Guardian newspaper said the US would announce plans for an interests section in Tehran in the next month.

Officials said recently this was being discussed but not actively worked on.

The report coincides with another shift in US approach towards Iran, with a top US diplomat planning to attend talks in Geneva with the Iranians on Saturday.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7510899.stm

[Tutonic]

11. Appeaser? Well when Obama talks about normalizing relations

with Iran he's a big ole appeaser. And Bush and Mccain question his judgment. But when that dry drunk announces he plans to do exactly what Obama suggested he wants to wear a crown.

[Winston.]

12. Iran: War or Privatization: All Out War or "Economic Conquest"?

July 4, 2008

Is the war against Iran on hold?

Tehran is to allow foreign investors, in what might be interpreted as an overture to the West, to acquire full ownership of Iran's State enterprises in the context of a far-reaching "free market" style privatization program.

With the price of crude oil at 140 dollars a barrel, the Iranian State is not in a financial straightjacket as in the case of most indebted developing countries, obliged by their creditors to sell their State assets to pay off a mounting external debt.

What are the political motivations behind this measure? And why Now?


complete article: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9501