I'm getting a lot of calls and emails asking for commentary about the news the Bush will send Burns to "talk" to the Iranians in Geneva. A lot of bloggers are expressing unmitigated astonishment at such a huge "shift in policy" and "reversal" etc. etc.
Color me skeptical.
Look folks, if my previous entries in this blog didn't make my views on the matter clear, let me make it clearer: THERE HAS BEEN NO CHANGE AT ALL. Zip. Nada. Nothing. The suggestion of there being "significant policy changes" and "reversals" is simply not borne out by the facts. The Iranians have not reversed anything - they've been offering to talk to the US since 2003 and earlier. And the Bush administration has not changed anything -- just yesterday Hadley unequivocally stated in Ankara that there would be no negotiations until Iran ends enrichment. According to Ha'aretz, the Israelis have sought and obtained assurances that there would be no compromise on that point. So what's changed here? That Burns will sit in the same room as Jalili and they can silently look at each other across from a table?
For the last 7.5 years the Bush administration has diligently fended-off every chance of negotiating with Iran, torpedoed EU talks with Iran, and imposed deal-killing preconditions on talks - and now, with only 6 mos. remaining on the clock, Bush decides to throw a Hail Mary pass, with virtually no chance of accomplishing anything, which consists of little more than Burns agreeing to be in the same room as Jalili.
[I am reminded that many people reading this blog don't know what a Hail Mary pass is, so let me explain it: it's when in the last remaining minutes of a football game, the losing side which has nothing left to lose tosses a forward pass, and prays for scoring an accidental point - that's why they call it a Hail Mary pass.]
Why is that? Well, different people have different theories. Some say Bush is just making a pretense of talking in order to make a subsequent military attack more credible and sell-able. My personal theory is that Bush has accepted the fact that the next administration will inevitably sit down with the Iranians, so he's trying to pre-empt it and leave his mark on the talks, thereby locking in the next administration to a particular course of negotiations.
And as far as the theory that Rice's side of the policy argument has won over Cheney's, lets all remember that the "no talks without suspension" precondition was imposed by Rice, not Cheney. And oh, the "interest section" opening in Tehran? Well, assuming that ever happens, remember that the US has had an interest section in Cuba too -- even in the midst of 6 decades of overt hostility.
Whatever theory you chose, the bottom line is that the basics have NOT changed. Sorry, don't get your hopes up just yet.
A Western diplomat who was present at the talks in the Geneva Hotel de Ville today said after the meeting that things were not as bad in the meeting as they seemed in the post-meeting press conference -- when Javier Solana said repeatedly that he did not get a clear answer from Iran to the EU "incentive" proposals, he did not get the answer he was seeking, he did not get a clear "yes" or "no".
Jalili looked very pained every time Solana said that.
The Western diplomat said later that Jalili definitely did not state in the meeting that Iran would NOT stop its enrichment program.
Solana reminded journalists that the EU proposal offered to refrain "from any new UN Security Council sanctions" (while the three sets already in place would apparently remain) in exchange for Iran refraining from "any nuclear activity [not just any NEW activity] including the installation of new centrifuges".
Both Solana and Jalili used a similar vocabulary -- mentioning "cooperation" and "commitments" -- but apparently meaning different things.
Solana says that he hopes to get a clear answer from Iran very soon -- in the next couple of weeks, or in about two weeks -- either telephonically or in person.
So, war will not break out tonight...
Apparently the Iranians brought a new "non-paper", in which, Solana's spokeswoman indicated, Iran has "reorganized the phases", but, she said, "they do not coincide with our phases". She did not want to say more.
Jalili twice mentioned his hopes that there can be a "discussion of our shared worries and concerns" -- but based on what he called a "collective obligation" [another Iranian diplomat called it a "collective commitment", but noted that he was not sure what Jalili meant. His interpretation, he said, was that the each of the parties in the region -- and he mentioned Iraq -- should make commitments, not just Iran alone...]
In any case, the Western diplomat said after the meeting and the press conference that Solana made a presentation in the meeting, after which the "political directors" of all 6 of the EU 3 + 3 (as they were called on their badges) spoke in support of Solana's remarks -- including Burns.
Of course, each of the six used his own words, this Western diplomat said. His feeling was that it was important and useful that Burns spoke in the meeting, and that the Iranians would now have to think about it ...
Jalili said a bit cryptically that "we believe the different problems and issues and crises that exist today in our region can best be dealt with by the 6+1, rather than by 7 minus 1".
Posted by: Marian | July 19, 2008 at 01:35 PM