In a stunning reversal of hardline foreign policy, the Bush administration has announced it will engage in diplomatic talks with Iran and Syria in an effort to stabilize Iraq.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced the policy back flip at a hearing of the US Senate Appropriations Committee on Tuesday, which is considering the Bush administration’s request for $100 billion to continue its operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“I think that it’s an acknowledgment of reality. It’s in effect a move toward a foreign policy less based on ideal outcomes and more based on realistic possibility,” former US diplomat James Dobbins told Reuters. “It's long been the view of most area experts that one isn’t going to be able to stabilize Iraq unless one secures a modicum of support from the neighboring states. They simply have too much access, too much influence and too much at stake themselves in Iraq’s future to be ignored.”
Dr Rice confirmed that “Prime Minister Maliki believes and President Bush and I agree that success in Iraq requires the positive support of Iraq’s neighbors”.
The diplomatic summits have been organized by the Iraqi government, with the support of the White House. Envoys attending the first meeting scheduled for March 10 in Baghdad will include representatives of Iraq’s immediate neighbors Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan and Turkey as well as the five permanent members of the UN National Security Council (United States, Britain, France, China and Russia). A second ministerial-level meeting in April will be attended by Dr Rice and will be expanded to include top diplomats from Canada, Germany, Italy and Japan.
Dr Rice openly conceded that pressure from critics in the new Democrat-controlled Congress prompted the Bush administration to reconsider the diplomatic option to help stabilize Iraq. “This is one of the key findings, of course, of the Iraq Study Group and it is an important dimension that many in the Senate and in the Congress have brought to our attention,” she said. “We’ve had conversations about the importance of doing this, and we’ve listened, and I want you to know that.”
Yet Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is not yet convinced that the Bush administration’s sudden about-face will evolve into an effective diplomatic strategy in the Middle East. “Democrats and the bipartisan Iraq Study Group have made clear for months that America must be willing to talk with all major nations in the region, including Iran and Syria, if we are ever to find the necessary political solution in Iraq,” said Senator Reid in a statement. “Today’s announcement is a first step, but it is not enough on its own.”
In January, President Bush rejected the ISG recommendation to establish diplomatic dialogue with Iran and Syria because he said they sponsor terrorism and foment sectarian violence in Iraq. Several US allies in the Middle East are also becoming increasingly concerned at Iran’s growing influence in the region. Mr Bush himself has had only acrimonious public dialogue with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has called for Israel to be wiped off the map and recently hosted a conference in Tehran where delegates denied the Holocaust and thus the importance of Israel as a Jewish sanctuary.
President Bush also believes that Iran has been developing nuclear weapons and supplying Shiite insurgents with explosively formed penetrators (EFPs) and other sophisticated weapons used to kill US forces in Iraq. The US has long insisted that Iran must halt its uranium enrichment activities as a precondition for diplomatic talks, and recently led the charge to level international sanctions on Tehran for its nuclear program. Iran has just missed another IAEA deadline to halt its uranium enrichment and has defiantly vowed to continue its nuclear program, which it says is for peaceful purposes. It is understood that the US will not bring up the nuclear issue at the forthcoming meetings which include Iran, in order to focus on stabilizing Iraq.
“These meetings, the first one in Baghdad, will focus on Iraq”, said State Department spokesperson Sean McCormack at a recent press briefing. “And I’m sure that there are going to be different kinds of discussions, meaning different groupings. Again, I’m not going to exclude any particular interaction at this point in that forum at the regional level on issues that are important to us, but the focus will be on Iraq.”
The new diplomatic initiative is but one component of the Bush administration’s overhauled Iraq policy, and is part of a greater overall effort to defuse tensions in the Middle East. “Our diplomatic offensive [is] to build greater support both within the region and beyond for peace and prosperity in Iraq,” said Dr Rice. “We are recommitting ourselves to the security and stability of the Gulf region.”
Dr Rice also acknowledged the widely held belief that the Bush administration had been fixated on a military solution for stabilizing Iraq. She told the hearing that there is a new US emphasis on reconstruction and economic development, and that she had recently urged Prime Minister al-Maliki to press ahead with political reforms that promote national reconciliation in Iraq as a matter of priority.
“Far from just a military campaign, our efforts in Iraq are moving forward on all fronts at the same time: security, political, economic and diplomatic,” said Dr Rice.
Has Iran "dropped" it plans to sell its oil in Euro-Dollars? Something Iraq did......4 months after we invaded....to find that now deceased evil dictators WMDs. He did sell oil in EUs.....not (US) petro-dollars didnt he?
Written by Lester
on 3/2/2007
The current administration had only two 'really' sensible people in my opinion - Powell and Dr. Rice. Now that only one is left, I just hope and pray to God that these 'talks' continue until the issue is resolved amicably. As someone once said and it seems to be appropriate for the current administration.
Rise not, to fall too hard,
But stoop to rise.
For we masters grow tall,
Inspite of that which we despise.
Amen
Written by Mandelbrot
on 3/2/2007
I'm wondering why we're waiting so long to start bombing. Enough is enough.
Written by Guinness
on 3/1/2007
A stunning flip or a cunning blip on the way to war?
Here's what one Middle East expert (Juan Cole)says:
--------------------------------------------------
Hans Blix, the former UN weapons inspector, has spoken out against Bush administration negotiating tactics with Iran. He points out that Washington's insistence that Iran capitulate to all Bush's demands before negotiations even begin is "humiliating." He also reveals that the Iranian civilian nuclear energy research program is much more primitive today than what Iraq had in 1991! And, in retrospect some analysts think Iraq's program hadn't actually had much success by then.
But the comment is misleading, because we don't even know that Iran has a weapons research program. It hasn't been proved, there isn't any solid evidence, and the Supreme Jurisprudent has given a fatwa against having or using nuclear weapons as illicit in Islamic law. You can't acknowledge that Iran is a dictatorial theocracy and then turn around and say that his fatwa is irrelevant.
The people who assert with such confidence that Iran has a weapons program are the same ones who insisted that North Korea had a uranium enrichment program, which now turns out to be unlikely. And then there was that little mistake about Iraq's "program."
The other issue is that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty permits states to have civilian nuclear research programs, and the current Bush administration/ UN Security Council threats of economic boycott are in essence an ex post facto repeal those provisions of the treaty, and imposes on signatory states new limitations that they never agreed to.
----------------------------------------
http://www.juancole.com/
Read him and do try to be less credulous about anything the Bush junta spews.
Thanks!
EA
Written by Erica Arborea
on 3/1/2007
What's new hear? The Bush Admin has been saying, as early as November, that they were willing to talk with Iran and Syria if Iraq approved. Stunning? What an opinion!
Written by Gary Collins
on 3/1/2007
What a crock! This is not a flip in policy. This is a decision made in the interest of stability and security in the region. The adminstration has long been the best advocate of a strong military as a springboard for such talks. It's impossible to negociate form a weak military position.
The Democrates, critical of the war and the adminstration clearly show that they do not understand the power and resolve of our enemy nor do they have our saftey or best interests in mind.
Written by Len Horst
on 3/1/2007
Thank God! At last some common sense. Wasn't it Churchhill who said it's always better to "make talk-talk rather than war-war"? There is a long ways to go, and the Administrations true intentions are yet to be seen, but at least this is a start.
It has always mystified me that the various neo-cons and Project New American Century types couldn't see that any country being threatened with "regime change" would not react by getting a Nuclear deterrant as quickly as possible. I am certain that the lesson of Iraq wasn't lost on them.If Saddam had a nuke, he would have been safer. In the eyes of any named "axis of evil" group, Saddams mistake was complying with the elimination of WMD's and not having any deterrant.His compliance didn't save him (as evidenced by Blix,Ritter and their boys being yanked before they could finish their inspections). Perhaps some assurances of soveriegnty and respect for International law(regarding Iran and Syria) may help with solutions to the bubbling cauldron that has been brewed in Iraq.
Regards
Written by Lyle Troseth
on 3/1/2007
Reality always is clear.It is up to you to respect it.Otherwise you will bow to it in desperate condition regardless of your wordings.