Well, so much for the non-talking talks. Burns, who was instructed by the Israelis that there would be no negotiations until and unless Iran caved in first and ended enrichment, gave his ultimatum to the Iranians -- and now watch the propaganda spin cycle try to pin the blame for the fizzled talks on Iran. Iran was "stonewalling" don't you know - as if it was Iran that has imposed ridiculous preconditions on negotiations, or it is Iran that is asking for the other side to FIRST give in, THEN start talking. The NeoCons will of course start screaming "See! Diplomacy doesn't work!" as if diplomacy consists of issuing demands "or else!"
Burns had the gall to say ""We hope the Iranian people understand that their leaders need to make a choice between cooperation, which would bring benefits..."
Blah blah blah.
Burns' cheap effort to characterize the nuclear issue as a wedge between the people and the leaders of Iran is laughable. The nuclear program is widely popular amongst Iranians, and they all have a historical memory of previous world powers who had similarly demanded that Iran give up her natural resources and sovereign rights - "or else!" The people have a long, long history of that sort of thing, with the British and the Russian impersial powers. Those powers too gave Iran ultimatums -- and where are they today, Burnsie baby?
Comments