US hopes for breakthrough talks with Iran

The US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, and Iran's Foreign Minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, are both attending a summit in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, for Iraq and its neighbours that will attempt to contain the Iraqi conflict as well as offer financial, political and technical support.

It's the nearest thing the US will have to a chance to negotiate with Iran since George Bush came to power.

Nicholas Burns, the US Undersecretary of State, speaking in London, expressed the hope that Ms Rice would be able to meet her Iranian counterpart in Sharm el-Sheikh, saying that the Americans looked forward to a "good discussion" on reducing the sectarian violence in Iraq.

Officials have made it clear that there is no connection between the Egyptian talks focusing on Iraq, and the international attempts to curb Iran's nuclear programme. But Mr Burns said: "Surely it is better for us to take the time now to see diplomacy play out, both on the nuclear issue, and on the issue of Iraq, and see if it's possible to build a few bridges with our two countries."

Ms Rice said: "I think I can handle any question that is asked of me. If we encounter each other and wander to other subjects I am prepared to address them at least in terms of American policy."

This is the nearest thing to an attempt to save face and reverse US policy that we have seen since the Bushites came to power. Their position regarding possible negotiations has always been spectacularly perverse, demanding that the other side admit defeat before any possible negotiation can take place. There has always been a boring degree of machismo to the way the Bush administration approached any possible talks, as if the whole idea of talking was somehow defeatist. To them, the military route is the only route that a "real man" can take.

As with North Korea, there position vis a vis Iran has been to demand that Iran suspend all uranium enrichment before any talks would become possible. Of course, whilst this might appeal to their own supporters, the inherent flaw in such an approach is that it ignores the fact that the side you are attempting to influence also has it's own supporters, it's own people on the street if you will, and that this approach - which really amounts to calling for the other sides abject surrender - is guaranteed to fail. Any government who agreed to such a deal would be committing an act of national disgrace and would have to resign.

However, team Bush have never appreciated such diplomatic niceties. Until now.

However, even as they offer an olive branch team Bush can't help emphasising who has the biggest cock.

"We have the patience to see diplomacy play out," said Mr Burns, although he added that all options - including a military strike - are under consideration.

They can't help themselves these people. They are so dysfunctional, so wedded to violence as a way of solving all political problems that, even as they propose a possible diplomatic solution, they can't help but remind you that they might attack you anyway.

Or perhaps they simply bring up the possibility of violence as a way of disguising the fact that they are engaging in a U-turn.

Bush's policy towards Iran has been an abject failure. Threats of violence have simply been ignored by the Iranians which has only caused Bush to further up the ante and threaten even nuclear strikes, making the American government appear slightly unhinged.

By attempting to force Ahmadinejad into a corner, Bush has succeeded only in cornering himself. The military option towards Iran was always a suicidal option, albeit one that we all worried that Bush might be insane enough take.

Now he attempts diplomacy, however, even as he does so, he can't help pointing to that big gun he possesses.

It's pathetic and infantile. However, as it is a U-turn, I'm going to be gracious and wish them well.

Click title for full article.

Tags: Bush, Ahmadinejad, Rice, negotiations, US, Iran