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

My God, Bush really is worried about his legacy as his administration splutters to a disgraceful close.

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.

The White House announced yesterday that William Burns, a senior state department official, is to be sent to Switzerland on Saturday to hear Tehran's response to a European offer aimed at resolving the nuclear standoff.

Burns is to sit at the table with Iranian officials despite Bush repeatedly ruling out direct talks on the nuclear issue until Iran suspends its uranium enrichment programme, which is a possible first step on the way to a nuclear weapon capability.

This is quite a turnaround from Bush. After all the sabre rattling of recent weeks, saying that Israel was intending on launching a strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, I really didn't see this coming.

This is exactly the kind of move which Barack Obama has been proposing - face to face talks with Iran - that some Republicans have been calling him "naive" for suggesting.

Bush really does want a deal here. And if he's really sending Burns for a one off visit to remind the Iranians that they must suspend uranium enrichment before talks can take place then he's even more moronic than I ever imagined.

Bush has recently been warned by a report from the Rand Corporation that a strike on Iran would be counterproductive to the US's aims:

The diplomatic overture follows unequivocal advice to the US that a military strike on Iran would not change the country's nuclear policy. The Rand Corporation, a leading consultant, said in a report for the US Air Force that any attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would only bolster the regime of Mr Ahmadinejad.

"If Iran's facilities were to be bombed, public support for any retaliation its government took would likely be widespread," its report said. "Attacks on Iran proper would generate a great deal of ill-will and, in our view, would be unlikely to change Iranian policy."

It's simply astonishing that it has taken Bush until the final days of his administration to realise that the Iranians were not going to back down from their legal right to enrich uranium for civilian purposes.

Now he's packing Burn's arms with offers whilst warning the Iranians that this is their only chance to give him what he wants.

Ivo Daalder, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a think-tank in Washington, said: "I'm glad the administration has finally decided the only way to get a peaceful resolution of the nuclear issue is actually to talk to them. But it will take a sustained and serious engagement, rather than a one-time meeting, to see whether an acceptable deal can be done."

But US officials were adamant that Mr Burns will not be permitted to negotiate directly with the Iranians or to hold separate bilateral meetings. His only role, they said, is to press the White House position that Iran must suspend its enrichment of uranium before direct talks can begin.

It's so typical of the neo-con mindset that negotiation must involve an element of surrender by the other side. That's why Bush is threatening that this is a once only opportunity. He wants utter capitulation, which is why he has found it so hard during his time in office to ever realise any form of diplomatic success.

Senior European diplomats were described as ecstatic at the overnight breakthrough. They believe it will send a message to Iran that the international community wants a negotiated rather than a military solution to the standoff.

I can understand their excitement, but it will only be justified if the US approach this as the opening of a dialogue, the beginning of talks. It has no chance of success if it is simply a one off threat from Bush demanding that Iran give him what he wants.

However, it is a substantial move on Bush's part, and it represents a huge victory for Condoleezza Rice over Dick Cheney on how the US should proceed here. Cheney would have favoured bombing as the first choice solution, so the State Department have done very well to steer Bush down this avenue. The tricky part will be keeping him on this course and stopping him listening to Cheney's bellicose ranting about "what needs to be done".

P.S. A final thought. I wonder where all of this fits in with Bush's speech to the Knesset claiming that it was akin to the appeasement of Nazis to negotiate with the Iranians?

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Bush said at Israel's 60th anniversary celebration in Jerusalem.

Perhaps Bush now feels that he has come up with that "ingenious argument". Or, which is much more likely, it's only really appeasement if Obama does it.

Click title for full article.

Tags: Bush, Iran, Burns, diplomatic talks, US Embassy