Appeasement.

The prisoner-body exchange between Israel and Hezbollah should be seen in its wider context. After several years of boycotts and isolation, this summer saw the walls of dialogue breached. Israel renewed its contacts with Syria, agreed on a cease-fire with Hamas in the Gaza Strip, exchanged prisoners with Hezbollah and offered to negotiate with Lebanon over the fate of the Shaba Farms - and all this as negotiations with the Palestinian Authority over a final-status agreement continued apace.

The U.S. administration has joined the nuclear negotiations that the European Union is conducting with Iran and made it clear that it opposes any Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

What on earth is going on here? Are George W. Bush and Ehud Olmert, in the days and weeks before the end of their terms of office, trying to do anything they can to record some sort of political accomplishment, to avoid being remembered as leaders who led their countries into failed wars? Or have they simply recognized the limitations of force and been left with no choice but to talk to the "axis of evil" without the enemy first altering its behavior? Iran is still enriching uranium, Hezbollah and Hamas are stockpiling missiles, Syria is giving its support to them all - and, suddenly, everyone is a legitimate partner for negotiations.

American officials mock their Israeli counterparts any time they recite long-winded monologues about "the struggle between moderates and extremists" in the Middle East. How does this struggle exist in the same universe as Israel's agreement to talk to Hamas and Hezbollah? the Americans ask. But their excuses for changing American policy vis-a-vis Iran sound exactly like Olmert's excuses for agreeing to a cease-fire with Hamas and a prisoner exchange with Hezbollah. The Americans and the Israelis insist that it is not dialogue, that the tough policy remains intact and that they do not believe the other side.

...

The U.S. administration told the Prime Minister's Office in Jerusalem in advance that it was sending a senior diplomat to talks with Iran, but only did so hours before the news was due to be published anyway. There were no consultation and no coordination. Yesterday, a senior State Department official visited Jerusalem carrying messages that were designed to placate Israel over the planned meeting with the Iranians. If it is a success, the next stage could be the opening of an American representative office in Tehran, with the goal of being able to "talk to the Iranian people."

But I'd also love to hear an explanation why the Bush administration thinks that talking with "terrorists and radicals" is all of a sudden such a splendid idea, when it was 1939 style appeasement merely 2 months ago.

Let us assume there is an explanation. Let us also assume you would not be privy to it.

Let us assume there is an explanation. Let us also assume you would not be privy to it.

I'm perfectly happy with the policy of using a diplomatic approach in order to settle differences - with or without an explanation from the Bush administration.

old europe wrote:

I'm perfectly happy with the policy of using a diplomatic approach in order to settle differences - with or without an explanation from the Bush administration.

Your largesse is quite admirable, in my humble opinion.

this seems like a major policy shift to me . i would think that the administration would welcome the opportunity to let the citizens know the reason for such change - should be good public relations imo .
hbg

(i spoke too quickly ... right wingers surely would NOT be in favour of this kind of "appeasemant" .)

hamburger wrote:

this seems like a major policy shift to me . i would think that the administration would welcome the opportunity to let the citizens know the reason for such change - should be good public relations imo .
hbg

(i spoke too quickly ... right wingers surely would NOT be in favour of this kind of "appeasemant" .)

Major policy shift indeed.

It is, frankly, quite puzzling. Maybe the Bush administration really doesn't care much about public opinion at this point (and why would they?). Maybe it's a final attempt to leave office being able to point to some kind of accomplishment. Bit of a mystery.


Of course, if you were cynical enough, there'd also be an alternative explanation: it's not about finding a solution. It's merely a fig leaf. A way of being able to say "Hey, we tried it your way, we talked to them - and it didn't work. Told you so. Now we regret this very much, but we'll have to bomb them."

Condi's coup: how the neo-cons lost the argument over Iran

Secretary of State's influence pivotal to Bush's change of policy

Condoleezza Rice was George Bush's handmaiden for the war in Iraq but she is now emerging as the best hope for avoiding a military conflict between the United States and Iran.

The Secretary of State, who is one of the few people with the President's ear, has shown the door to Vice-President Dick Cheney's cabal of war-hungry advisers. Ms Rice was able to declare yesterday that the administration's decision to break with past policy proves that there is international unity in opposing Iran's nuclear programme. "The point that we're making is the United States is firmly behind this diplomacy, firmly behind and unified with our allies and hopefully the Iranians will take that message," Ms Rice said.

Mr Bush's decision to send the number three in the State Department, William Burns, to attend talks with Iran in Geneva at the weekend caused howls of outrage that were heard all the way from the State Department's sanctuary of Foggy Bottom to the White House on Pennsylvania Avenue. A parallel initiative to reopen the interest's section of the American embassy in Tehran, which would be the first return of a diplomatic presence on Iranian territory since 1979, has also received a cool response from neo-conservatives.

"This is a complete capitulation on the whole idea of suspending enrichment," said Mr Bush's former UN envoy, John Bolton. "Just when the administration has no more U-turns to pull, it does another."

In public, Ms Rice has been as bellicose as any neo-con when it comes to Iran, calling dialogue with its leaders "pointless" and declaring: "For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons."

She had been the prime mover behind Mr Bush's disastrous policy of "preventive wars" and cheerleader of his expansive plans to reorganise the entire Middle East and to "export democracy". But with the rumblings of war with Iran growing steadily louder, Ms Rice worked feverishly behind the scenes to stop sparks from flying in the drive by the US and Israel to shut down Iran's nuclear programme.

The breakthrough, if that is what it turns out to be, that persuaded Mr Bush that it was time to end the 30-year boycott of high-level diplomatic contacts with Iran, came from the simple act of Ms Rice signing her name to a joint letter offering sweeter terms to Tehran than it had seen before.

The very act of putting her name to a package of incentives presented in Tehran last month persuaded the Iranian authorities that there was movement that would allow them to proclaim victory over the US, while ending their nuclear programme.

When he saw Ms Rice's signature on the document, Iran's Foreign Minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, was visibly stunned, according to those present at the meeting. He formally responded to the offer with a letter addressed to Ms Rice and the EU's foreign policy envoy, Javier Solana, as well as foreign ministers of the five other countries at the talks.

...

It's only appeasement when Democrats do it.

Of course, if you were cynical enough, there'd also be an alternative explanation: it's not about finding a solution. It's merely a fig leaf. A way of being able to say "Hey, we tried it your way, we talked to them - and it didn't work. Told you so. Now we regret this very much, but we'll have to bomb them."

Rice says Burns' attendance is a "one-shot deal"

U.S. changes tactics in talks with Iran, N. Korea
Fri Jul 18, 2008 11:00pm BST
By Sue Pleming - Analysis

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The political clock ticking, the Bush administration has shifted tactics and plans high-level talks with Iran and North Korea, meeting foes once part of President George W. Bush's "axis of evil."

Senior diplomat William Burns is set to see Iran's nuclear envoy in international talks on Saturday and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will meet North Korea's foreign minister for the first time, most likely on Wednesday, in Singapore.

Several foreign policy experts say the decision to be more open to engagement reflects a more pragmatic foreign policy -- adopted after other approaches failed.

"The president realized that our old policies were not working. We have been putting ourselves into a corner and were continuing to lose more and more ground on critical issues," said former U.S. ambassador to Israel and Egypt, Ned Walker.

The Bush administration insists the diplomatic steps are not a policy shift, particularly on Iran where Rice says Burns' attendance is a "one-shot deal" and full-blown negotiations can happen only if Tehran gives up sensitive nuclear work.

It's only appeasement when Democrats do it.

Which is why I find this sudden full about face quite remarkable.

Since I believe I have a greater vested interest, as an American citizen, in any diplomacy the American administration does, I find it "hopeful."

The majority of Israelis don't feel comfortable with Obama's saying he will talk to the Iranians directly. So, Bush got a multiple standing ovation upon completion of his speech. He talked about the Nazis, and he talked about the historical foolishness of talking directly to one's enemy. It just so happens that Obama said he would do that.

Hey, if it is such a good idea to talk directly with the Iranians now, then the same thinking should have been correct with the Nazis. So, why not mention the analogy? Problem is, it would not have been correct to talk to the Nazis, and it is still not correct to talk to one's enemies. I believe Obama took umbrage, since he didn't expect this brilliant verbal "chess" move.

Foofie wrote:

Since I believe I have a greater vested interest, as an American citizen, in any diplomacy the American administration does, I find it "hopeful."

Good for you. In that case, it seems you have changed your opinion over the course of the last couple of weeks, too.

I mean, not so long ago, you said

Foofie wrote:

The majority of Israelis don't feel comfortable with Obama's saying he will talk to the Iranians directly. So, Bush got a multiple standing ovation upon completion of his speech. He talked about the Nazis, and he talked about the historical foolishness of talking directly to one's enemy. It just so happens that Obama said he would do that.

Hey, if it is such a good idea to talk directly with the Iranians now, then the same thinking should have been correct with the Nazis. So, why not mention the analogy? Problem is, it would not have been correct to talk to the Nazis, and it is still not correct to talk to one's enemies. I believe Obama took umbrage, since he didn't expect this brilliant verbal "chess" move.

So let me ask you at this point: if it is so "hopeful" to talk directly with the Iranians now, then the same thinking should have been correct with the Nazis back then. Right?