Iran, Diplomacy, And Propaganda Debunked

Does Iran want to talk? If so, is there any reason on Earth why would we shouldn't do so?

From the Washington Post-

Iran has followed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent letter to President Bush with explicit requests for direct talks on its nuclear program, according to U.S. officials, Iranian analysts and foreign diplomats.

The eagerness for talks demonstrates a profound change in Iran's political orthodoxy, emphatically erasing a taboo against contact with Washington that has both defined and confined Tehran's public foreign policy for more than a quarter-century, they said.

Though the Tehran government in the past has routinely jailed its citizens on charges of contact with the country it calls the "Great Satan," Ahmadinejad's May 8 letter was implicitly endorsed by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and lavished with praise by perhaps the most conservative ayatollah in the theocratic government.

"You know, two months ago nobody would believe that Mr. Khamenei and Mr. Ahmadinejad together would be trying to get George W. Bush to begin negotiations," said Saeed Laylaz, a former government official and prominent analyst in Tehran. "This is a sign of changing strategy. They realize the situation is dangerous and they should not waste time, that they should reach out."

Bingo. Like Saddam in 2002 and early 2003, they are making diplomatic overtures (contrary to Bush's revisionist history, he did let the weapon inspectors in and they remained there until they were ordered to leave by Bush himself in March 2003). Let's hope this time that those overtures- and potential resolutions- are not ignored. We do not, of course, know Iran's intentions, but we have a duty to sit down with them and find out.

When the Seymour Hersh story first hit that the Bush administration was planning for big-time war with Iran, some conservatives (ie. not the uber-hawkish ones who are looking forward to more military confrontations) said that was all tough talk meant to scare the Iranians into working out a diplomatic solution with us. Well now this is the way we find out if that was the case... or if the Bush crew is uninterested in any diplomacy that would interfere with their war footing.

So far the Bush administration appears not to be taking the Iranian leaders up on their offer.

Matthew Yglesias shares my skepticism that they will or that they believe in diplomacy-

If you're concerned with things like America's interests, not getting lots of people killed, and preventing Iran from going nuclear you'd take them up on the offer. I honestly don't think this is even remotely a hard question. It might not work, of course, but even that would leave us better off than we are now as the weird kid sulking in the corner refusing to talk to Billy.

Nevertheless, there's no mistaking the fact that just as Iran has been trying to at least set the stage for possibly ratcheting tensions with the United States down, there's been a fairly concerted effort in the American press to ratchet things up. The folks doing the ratcheting have, it's clear, some friends and some influence inside the administration.

People need to understand this and be clear with themselves. This is not a group of people primarily concerned with Iran's nuclear program -- anyone who thought that would be open to some negotiating. This is a group of people primarily concerned -- for whatever reason, no doubt the reasons are mixed and vary somewhat -- with continuing and intensifying US-Iranian conflict. It's not clear how influential this faction is or will be in the president's decision-making, but those of us on the outside are either with them or against them.

For proof that some people do seem to want war, look no further than the continuing warmongering of Matt Drudge, who apparently has not learned his lesson after being proved a tool repeatedly in the past week...





Speaking of Drudge, that suspect 'badge' story he helped spread appears now to be certainly false. The Canadian paper that first published the report- The National Post- has apologized for the report. "It is now clear the story is not true. We apologize for the mistake and for the consternation it has caused not just National Post readers, but the broader public who read the story," the editor stated in an editorial. In addition, more and more evidence seems to indicate that the source for the story is connected to the usual suspects- neoconservative groups like Benador Associates and the Project for the New American Century- which engaged in similar misinformation campaigns prior to the start of the Iraq war. Not that the NY Post is likely to let their readers know that, of course.

To be certainly continued...