Posted on 05/13/2007 11:11:06 PM PDT by freedomdefender
The U.S. and Iran will hold rare meetings within the next few weeks in Baghdad to discuss the insurgency in Iraq, officials from the two nations said Sunday.
The talks, to be conducted between the U.S. ambassador in Baghdad and Iranian officials, would be the highest-level negotiations acknowledged between the two countries in recent years. The announcement suggested a new willingness on the part of the Bush administration to reach out to a longtime foe.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
There is a softer line towards Iran at the moment - at least, on the surface.
This gives a very dangerous message to the world.
Perhaps on the surface it might. But who knows what we are telling them privately?
Sorry it does not make sense to me.
Or, perhaps we are lighting one fire and putting out a dozen others? We don’t know what’s being communicated to the Iranians. We could be delivering an ultimatem.
The U.S. has nothing to gain from giving countenance to thugs like the Iranians, who just kidnapped British seamen who were on an Iraqi government- and U.N.-sanctioned mission in Iraqi waters.
We still owe those guys for Lockerbie and for the U.S. Embassy seizure in Tehran, not to mention all the ops they've had Hezbollah carrying out, from terrorism in South America to counterfeiting U.S. currency and rocketing Israel in the Bekaa Valley.
We had to change our currency three times because of Hezbollah's counterfeiting, undertaken with Iranian treasury support. Something like 20% of the U.S. currency circulating in eastern Europe was counterfeit.
I think it’s probably mutual. Tehran would be smart to help us squelch the violence, which would allow us a graceful exit, then the mullahs could work the political angle to grab control of the country.
Very likely. Many people in the Iranian ruling class like to think about the Safavid Empire - the good old days, when their borders were much more extensive than now.
At this rate, Dr. Rice will be calling Warren Christopher and Madeleine Albright to ask for a few more tips on conducting disastrous foreign policy.
Exactly!
LLS
I don't interpret it that way. We've been telling Iran for a long time that they need to do something about the insurgents. I see this as just one more way that the US is sending the message.
Yes it is one more way. It's also a "way" that we previously have implied we wouldn't be engaging in - i.e., direct talks between the US and Iran. Yes, yes, yes I know that this opposition to direct talks related to the nuclear issue, but still I don't remember any distinctions being clearly drawn in the past when US officials have said that we don't conduct bilateral talks with a rogue state such as Iran. Now, however, we ARE conducting such talks. And as a practical matter, this has to bleed over into the area where we've officially abstained from talking to them - nuclear energy. If we are negotiating to get their help on one issue, it's pretty hard to be preparing to bomb them simultaneously, due to another issue.
Because of the chaos/crisis in Iraq, we DO have something to gain - some assistance in bringing order to Iraq. It's sad that Iran has gained leverage this way, but it has.
Since tens of thousands of Iraqi refugees are streaming into Iran, they most definitely should have some interest in getting some order in Iraq. Regugees in those numbers are very destabilizing. On a proportional basis, it's a number far greater than the illegal-alien invasion of the US.
I thought we did not negotiate with Terrorist States?
Unfortunately, our options for bringing order out of chaos in Iraq are fairly limited. The mess in Iraq has empowered Iran.
Reagan negotiated with the USSR - and they sponsored a lot of terrorism, including - some speculate - the shooting of John Paul II.
I don't remember exactly what he said, but I don't think it was anything so specific as we would never again talk to any specific named countries. Again, Reagan talked to the Sovs after they shot down an airliner with scores of Americans (including a congressman) on board, and after they allegedly had been aiding various terrorist gangs worldwide, and allegedly had a role in the attempted murder of a pope. So talking with Iran is certainly not outside of US practice and precedent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.