Diplomacy good now? I'm so confused!

[babylonsister]

US envoy to join Iran nukes meeting

By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Writer 47 minutes ago


WASHINGTON - A top U.S. diplomat heading to Geneva has no plans to meet separately with Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, but the mere presence of the Bush administration official at talks between the Iranian negotiator and representatives of other world powers will be a sharp break with past administration policy.

William Burns, America's third highest-ranking diplomat, will attend talks with the Iranian envoy, Saeed Jalili, in Switzerland on Saturday. The talks are aimed at persuading Iran to halt activities that could lead to the development of atomic weapons. It will be the first time such a high-ranking U.S. official has attended such talks.

Official contacts between Iran and the United States are extremely rare and although Washington is part of a six-nation effort to get Iran to stop enriching and reprocessing uranium, the administration has shunned contacts with Tehran on the matter.

White House press secretary Dana Perino referred to the weekend meeting as a "one-time U.S. participation."

"We will be there to listen. We are not there to negotiate. And our long-standing principle, that Iran must halt its uranium enrichment before negotiations can take place, remains the same. It's also been referred to as freeze-to-freeze — if they were to freeze their enrichment, then we would not forward with the consequences of not accepting the (incentives) package, which are more sanctions," she said.

more...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080716/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iran_nuclear;_ylt=AtMxAaQsmUTNIPQNGYjfjZKs0NUE

[Muttocracy]

1. yep, we're appeasers now I guess - WashPost link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3397453

[gratuitous]

2. Well, it's not exactly "diplomacy"

The Bush administration is sending a diplomat to "attend talks" in a "one-time" shot to deliver one more bellicose ultimatum. That doesn't exactly fit my definition of diplomacy, even if a diplomat is involved. But I'm sure that Iran has learned the lessons of Iraq and North Korea quite well: Iraq disarmed and was invaded anyway, North Korea went ahead with nuclear development and the Bushies caved.

The lesson, of course, has escaped notice on the Democratic side of the aisle in Congress.

[Muttocracy]

3. good point about N. Korea - though it does seem like some sort of change

I just can't figure out why BushCo are doing this now :shrug:

[gratuitous]

4. It's anyone's guess

But I think it will be a pro forma nonsense thing, and when the Iranians rightly reject this stab at "diplomacy," the Bush administration can say, "See how unreasonable they are? They don't even want to negotiate!" The fact that the "negotiations" consisted of one side making outlandish demands that it knew the other side wouldn't accede to will never ever be mentioned, and the story will build about those wacky Iranians and the danger they pose to the region (Israel) and the rest of the world.

Iraq was the template, cribbed from earlier despots' machinations for creating a casus belli of a great power against a poorly armed adversary.

[Muttocracy]

5. true, it may be a checkmark on the way to further saber-rattling with Iran. nt