Bush will now permit direct talks with Iran, which is described as a “major policy shift” by the MSM. A little closer look at the details indicates that Bush has not changed his policy of regime change, but simply found a different method to achieve his goals. This new method is to ostensibly discuss resolution of the conflict with Iran to appease global and internal pressures for diplomacy, but not to engage in true substantive talks that would accomplish resolution as that would eliminate grounds for regime change. And the whole “diplomacy” process is capped off with a 12-months deadline to ensure Bush can start regime change during his tenure.
Events which triggered Bush’s decision to practice make-believe diplomacy.
During the past month, Bush realized that “he could not hope to hold together a fractious coalition of nations to enforce sanctions — or consider military strikes on Iranian nuclear sites — unless he first showed a willingness to engage Iran’s leadership directly over its nuclear program and exhaust every nonmilitary option.” In other words, the US offer to talk to Iran is a bump on the road to Bush pursuing his original plan of extreme sanctions and/or military action against Iran, both of which may be conducted unilaterally by the US. As stated by one former official, “it came down to convincing Cheney and others that if we are going to confront Iran, we first have to check off the box” of trying talks. Then, if the talks fail for any reason, Bush can argue that the problem lies with Iran.
On May 14th, the White House dismissed calls for direct talks with Iran, claiming that the UN was the “best forum” for “those discussions.” A few events over the past 2 ½ weeks convinced Bush to at least give the impression that he is engaging real diplomacy:
One, so many diplomats, nations and politicians from both parties disagreed with Bush’s refusal to talk to Iran. If Bush had not allowed talks, then he may have been stripped of any cover in the future to claim that he had complied with his public pledge to use all diplomatic means to resolve the dispute.
Two, on May 30th, the day before Bush agreed to direct talks, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency made headline news that “Iran does not pose an immediate nuclear threat.” This declaration followed a May 18th report which raised new doubts about whether Iran’s nuclear program was technically advanced given that “Tehran may have used material from China.” And, it followed a May 22nd report that the US intelligence community issued a consensus assessment that Iran could not attain weapons capability until 2010-2015 due to technical problems. Of course, Cheney is displeased with this assessment, which he calls “too cautious” and other “administration officials” now have “little confidence in the intelligence on Iran’s programs.” The absence of an immediate threat means that Bush has time to determine whether the Iranian nuclear program is for weapons or energy, but such an investigation may not produce a result conducive to Bush’s goals. However, by focusing public attention on “ground-breaking” diplomatic measures and structuring the talks based upon the assumption that Iran’s nuclear program is an immediate WMD threat, Bush avoids the necessity of establishing the truth of both claims. And that is the public spin – – that these talks give Iran one last chance to eliminate the immediate threat of a nuclear weapons program.
Three, the Iranian president sent Bush a letter, which arrived just hours before the UN gathered to consider sanctions against Iran. The result was that Bush’s sanctions were rejected in favor of the European carrot-and-stick incentives package, temporarily placing the UN forum on the back burner, along with Bush’s plans. This meant that Bush needed to take action to regain control of the agenda. By agreeing to direct talks, the US joins the European countries that are the primary vehicle now for resolving the dispute with Iran.
Four, the US media is starting to report the 2003 peace offer that Iran presented to the US. On May 22nd, US News & World Report reported that Iran proposed talks with the US in 2003 that addressed terrorism, its nuclear program and Iraq, but Bush rejected the offer. Four days later, the Inter Press Service published a story based on a copy of the Iranian offer which offered concessions on issues that the Bush team has identified as the crux of its problem with Iran, including peace with Israel, cessation of material assistance to Palestinian militants and tighter controls by the International Atomic Energy Agency that would make it very difficult for Iran to conduct secret nuclear activities undetected. Thus, Bush needed to act quickly to beat the historically slow progression it takes before MSM truly covers a major story. As Rice stated, Iran has only weeks, not months, to respond to the US offer on nuclear talks.
There are indicators that Bush’s offer to talk with Iran is simply a new method to achieve old goals of extreme sanctions and/or military action to effect regime change.
First, Bush imposes impossible precondition that Iran must first verify that it has fully suspended its nuclear enrichment program before talks may commence. This precondition is itself not impossible to meet, as Iran voluntarily suspended its program while engaged in talks with the Europeans last year. However, the US also wants the suspension verified by “allowing inspections to prove it.” It should be noted that Iran recently slowed down its nuclear production, a fact which has been confirmed by inspectors. But this is not good enough for Bush even though Germany has noted that such low level activity is harmless. This is where déjà vu is triggered as this was Bush’s condition to not start war against Iraq, but Bush did not permit the UN weapons inspectors to complete their job of verifying that Iraq did not have WMDs.
Second, one roadblock to Bush obtaining sanctions at the UN has been the potential veto threat from Russia and/or China. However, European diplomats disclosed that the US agreed to talks only if China and Russia pledged to back U.N. Security Council sanctions or “other harsh measures” if the talks do not persuade Iran to “permanently abandon nuclear efforts.” Bush was not able to eliminate this roadblock by other means over the past few years, and so this accomplishment was alone a great motivator for Bush to agree to pretend talks.
Third, if Bush were truly interested in resolving this conflict diplomatically, then he would at least discuss the “grand bargain” that Iran has been offering for 3 years that would address the issues that the US claims are at the heart of its dispute with Iran. The “grand bargain” negotiation would address “security guarantees, the end of U.S. sanctions, renewed trade, and diplomatic recognition in return for Iranian concessions on the nuclear front, terrorism, and so forth.” This grand bargain sounds like the peace negotiations that Iran offered in 2003. However, Rice explained that the talks with Iran now are not “a grand bargain” that would preclude the US from using military action to stop an Iranian nuclear program but merely an “effort to enhance the chances for a successful negotiated solution to the Iranian nuclear problem.” And, Bush administration hawks may have accepted the new approach of talks with Iran precisely because the European partners agreed not to ask the US to provide security assurances to Iran as part of these talks.
Fourth, unilateral military action by the US remains on the table of options and is not affected by the proposed talks with Iran. Britain and Russia proclaimed that the use of military force against Iran is not an option to resolve the impasse over Iran’s nuclear program. Unfortunately, the definitive proclamations disappear with the context. The use of military force against Iran was simply not “on the agenda” of issues discussed when the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council assembled the carrot and stick incentives package for Iran. That does not mean that the military force option is off the table for Bush. As the same article reported, the “Bush administration has resisted offering assurances that Iran would not be the target of a military attack.” One reason for this resistance is that while Russia and Britain were proclaiming military action was not an option, U.N. Ambassador John Bolton was busy reaffirming that unilateral military action against Iran is still “on the table.”
And, fifth, one of Bush’s goals is to implement extreme sanctions against Iran that are <u>designed to change Iran’s policies on its nuclear program as well as domestic policies related to regime change:</u>
“The plan is designed to curtail the financial freedom of every Iranian official, individual and entity the Bush administration considers connected not only to nuclear enrichment efforts but to terrorism, government corruption, suppression of religious or democratic freedom, and violence in Iraq, Lebanon, Israel and the Palestinian territories. It would restrict the Tehran government’s access to foreign currency and global markets, shut its overseas accounts and freeze assets held in Europe and Asia.”
The extreme sanctions would be implemented outside the UN, either with an agreement with other countries or unilaterally by the US. So far potential international partners have rejected extreme sanctions due to “reliance on Iranian oil, domestic legal constraints and the fear of being dragged toward another conflict in the Middle East.” Additional concerns are potential side effects of an increase in world oil prices as well as economic losses for Western allies and the Iranian people.
True, substantive diplomacy is the rational approach, and hopefully these talks will accomplish results despite Bush’s best efforts to control events toward effecting regime change. At this point, the upshot is that Bush offers to talk with Iran but only if Iran can first prove to Bush’s satisfaction that it has stopped its nuclear weapons program, which Iran says does not exist (just as Iraq had claimed) because it is a nuclear energy program. Even if talks proceed, Bush will not discuss those issues which his administration claims are the reason that Iran is an imminent danger to the world. So, what exactly will the parties discuss if talks are held? And, even if the talks proceed, unilateral US military action is not off the table. Finally, Bush is busy trying to find countries to join his coalition to impose outside UN channels extreme sanctions that are designed for regime change. Doesn’t sound like a major policy shift, just a different means to obtain the same desired ends of regime change.
Patriot Daily: News of the day, just a click away!
