Story here. The tone is highly confrontational – “Stop supporting those militias in Iraq!” “We never started!” – but at least we’re talking.
Is this a hopeful sign for peaceful resolution of the matter of Iran’s nuclear program? And/or for engaging Iran in helping stabilize Iraq as the Iraq Study Group recommended?
This, of course, comes just after Bush authorized the CIA to try to destabilize Iran’s government . . . so we could be sending some mixed signals here . . .
Communication is always better than cold silence. There’s no way we could have hoped for more than just an exchange of what’s already being spouted in our respective citizen propaganda machines, so the discussion topics weren’t exactly surprising. At least there’s dialogue now, though. It’s harder to drop bombs on someone’s country when you just finished looking them in the eye and talking over a cup of tea.
Or very clear ones, they got the message that the CIA was going to be unleashed and decided to parlay a bit.
Declan
Not as long as Bush is in office; and not after unless we retreat from Iraq and act a LOT less aggressive. Given America’s recent behavior, it’s perfectly rational for them to want nukes. And I don’t believe that the Bush White House wants peace; I think they are just itching for an excuse to attack. I wouldn’t be surprised if Iran is negotiating in order to stall until someone less bloodthirsty, loony and dishonest gets into office; someone they can either negotiate a lasting peace with or whom they can just tell “We’re a sovereign nation, so we’ll do what we want.”
I doubt they find the CIA especially scary. They are probably more afraid of us conquering them or even nuking them.
They have lived with the thought of being attacked for at least 6 years of this administration, its only the CIA being given the green light to cause mayhem, have they actually sat down.
Declan
They have tried to talk to us before IIRC; we haven’t been interested. We are the crazy ones here. And I doubt they believe that the CIA didn’t already have the “green light”.
Yes, the very important 2003 Iranian letter, Condi lying to Congress, our complete rebuff – this sad tale is all behind us. Maybe this go around will be a little better, but as we saw with Clinton in the 90s when the objective is regime change meaningful inspections and dialogue eventually collapses.
“Clinton” ? Clinton has been out of office a long time; stop trying to drag him into things to make Bush look better. Especially since it fails; Bush makes Clinton look like a great stateman and saint, by comparison.
Der Trihs, you should be familiar with my posting history (check my sig if you’re forgetful) – why in the world would I want to make Bush look good? Or any president, really.
Furthermore, I made an important point: if the administration’s goal is regime change, any talks or potential future inspections will be in bad faith and ultimately fail. It’s appropriate to bring up Clinton because that’s exactly what he did with Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Listen to Scott Ritter, he was there and knows what he’s talking about.
As for Clinton himself, you’re correct, although you should know that Clinton is still responsible for more dead Iraqis than Bush at this point. Bush will probably end up beating him but it’ll take a couple more years at this rate.
I think if we want meaningful discussion with Iran we’re going to need a new administration, most likely a Democratic one because everyone running for the GOP currently looks insane. It’s also important that Mrs. Clinton doesn’t get elected because she seems to be cast in the same mold when it comes to frothing over Iran. We need Obama or Edwards or…Gore…to actually get change. I hope so, anyway.