‘We look forward to a good discussion around that table in Sharm el-Sheik’

Let’s look back to Jan. 11, when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sat at the witness table in Hearing Room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building explaining why “those who talk about engagement with Syria and Iran” are all wet. “That’s not diplomacy — that’s extortion,” she said.

Three months later, when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi met with senior Syrian officials, the administration and its allies launched a vicious attack, accusing her of undermining U.S. policy. As far as the administration was concerned, any kind of direct contact with Syria was a terrible mistake.

Now, as we talked about earlier, the administration that lambasted Pelosi for chatting with Syrians has decided to start chatting with Syrians. And as for the policy about not engaging with Iran, that unshakable position is being thrown under the bus, too.

The United States is looking forward to talking to Iran at the forthcoming international conference on Iraq in Egypt this week, a senior U.S. diplomat said Wednesday.

The United States and Iran have not had any meaningful contact in a generation, even though the country has a central role in four major crises confronting America in the Middle East, U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said in comments delivered at the British think-tank, Chatham House.

He said he hoped U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would be able to speak directly to her Iranian counterpart at Egypt’s Sharm el-Sheik resort. He noted that while Tehran has still not decided whether to accept face-to-face talks, the two parties had much to discuss.

When Democrats said the Bush administration should engage Iran and Syria directly, Republicans said Dems were dangerously clueless. When the Iraq Study Group said the Bush administration should engage Iran and Syria directly, Republicans said the ISG were fools.

And now the Bush administration believes it should engage Iran and Syria directly. I can’t wait to get the right’s apology, can you?

Just to be clear, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns indicated that he wasn’t just talking about some exchange of pleasantries with Iranian officials; he was referring to active negotiations.

“We look forward to a good discussion around that table in Sharm el-Sheik,” he said. “It’s been 30 years since the United States and Iran have been able to negotiate on serious issues.”

Relations with Iran have been frozen since the 1979 storming of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, a situation that Burns said had given America its “most unusual diplomatic relationship with any country in the world.”

“Since that time,” he said, “we’ve literally had no contact, of any meaningful sort, with the Iranian government.” […]

Burns said that while containing Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad remained one of the United States’ biggest challenges, conflict between the two could still be avoided.

“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,” he said, adding that the summit offered both countries a chance to collaborate on an issue of common concern.

“This is an opportunity for us to be talking together, directly, and to be working together, directly, for the good of the people of Iraq,” he said. “We hope the Iranians will take advantage of this opportunity that all of us in the international community are giving it.”

In 2004, John Kerry raised nearly the identical points. George W. Bush and his cohorts said Kerry was not only wrong for supporting talks with Iran and Syria, but was dangerously wrong.

Indeed, taking a step back, Bush ended up embracing the Democratic policy on North Korea, and the Democratic policy on increasing the size of the military, too. Now the administration has come to realize we’re right about negotiations with Iran and Syria as well.

I’m hard pressed to understand how the right thinks Dems lack credibility on foreign policy when the Bush White House keeps “borrowing” our ideas.

I hear that the most popular beverage in Egypt right now is something called the Sharm-el Shake. It’s kind of like a Caramel Shake but with hummas and some turmeric for that special Middle Eastern flavor.

Yes, I am making this up.

And yes, I do know how retarded this sounds. But trust me, with the kind of lunacy now abroad in the world we need all the laughs we can get. Even stupid ones.

  • It is manifestly plain that the Bush administration does not know whether to shit or go blind, if you’ll forgive a pungent metaphor, on any foreign policy initiative. As with many such organizational dilemmas, the book response seems to be to create as much commotion as possible, in hopes that activity might be mistaken for decisiveness. It remains to be seen if any significant measure of the population will fall for the ol’ head fake again.

  • It’ll get better I am sure. When Rice finally meets with them, and of course ends up giving them the finger, the Republicans will blame her failure to achieve anything on the Democrats, because a) this was their idea and b) Democrats have undermined the credibility of America’s resolve to win the GWOT.

    We need new management. These guys are never going to get anything right until they finally leave the white house.

  • Dear Condi – leave the diplomacy thing to Pelosi & the Democrats.

    Your job on the other hand is simple – appear before Henry Waxman’s committee and testify under oath before Memorial Day, regarding the bogus Niger uranium claims or any other question he might have. OK?

    Thanks,
    Ohioan

  • Better be careful. They’re pinching and claiming as their own all our best policies.

  • Well, obviously someone in the Bush Cabal has been talkin to Syria at some level. The Administration has sent “enemy combatants” to Syria for torture. And also innocents like the Canadian of Syrian ancestry who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

  • And now the Bush administration believes it should engage Iran and Syria directly. I can’t wait to get the right’s apology, can you?

    I know that’s rhetorical…. still…. it leads to this historical observation:

    Republicans are descended from Tories.
    They believe in honoring a King above all else.
    [Whispered aside: just so long as the King continues to enrich them.]
    So by nature they are anti-democratic and pro-aristocratic.
    Ergo… of course it is OKAY for the King to engage Syria.
    Just as it is treason for one of His sub-vassals to engage Syria.

    Ever wonder why that aristocrat that Lord Cheney shot in the face apologized so readily?

    Now you know….

  • ROTFLMLiberalAO – (re# 8)

    Wow, well put.

    I’ve seen them as cult members. No logic can batter their worldview that Dear Leader is absolutely right. If someone was wrong for their actions yesterday, and Dear Leader gives his blessing to those actions today, it is because of the TIMING. Only Dear leader know all of the universe.

  • I think you’re missing something here… how about instead of saying “that the right thinks the Dems lack credibility on foreign policy when the Bush White House keeps “borrowing” our ideas” and actually look at what the consensus are seeing in Iran. Iranian journalist Omid Memarian in his article Iran and the United States: time to engage, puts a couple things into perspective: “the US is currently attempting to contain the influence of Iran’s hardliners”, furthermore, “Iran and the US share the same enemies in the region, namely the Taliban and al-Qaeda” and he thinks that “a more nuanced US policy involving diplomatic relations with the Iranian government and fully-fledged economic and social ties with Tehran would allow the true picture of Iran under the ayatollahs and hardliners to emerge” . I think that the US administration is aware of these benefits/convergences – democratic or not. Join in the debate at http://www.opendemocracy.net or leave a comment for Omid Memarian if you think he’s wrong!

  • Comments are closed.