Friends,
Recall our earlier posting:
10 May 2006 * Engdahl: USA's 'geopolitical nightmare' *
http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/?id=1137&batch=16&lists=cj
Now, two weeks later, we see his analysis - of power shifting to the
'realists' - being verified in mainstream sources (LA Times, below):
A decision to talk to the Iranians would be a dramatic
departure from the administration's strategy of isolating
the Tehran regime. Critics of engagement, including Vice
President Dick Cheney and influential neoconservatives, say
such talks would legitimize a duplicitous regime and
represent a blow to Iranian human rights activists and
dissidents.
...Such hawkish voices have dominated in the administration and
Congress, but a perceptible recent shift seems to favor
Republican foreign policy "realists" and moderates.
rkm
--------------------------------------------------------
Original source URL:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-usiran27may27,0,5966469.story
From the Los Angeles Times
GOP Heavy Hitters Pressuring White House to Talk With Iran
By Laura Rozen
Special to The Times
May 27, 2006
WASHINGTON - Amid concern that the U.S. is drifting toward eventual
confrontation with Iran, a growing number of influential statesmen,
Republican senators and foreign policy experts are stepping up
pressure on the Bush administration to consider doing what no U.S.
administration has done in 27 years: talk directly with Iran.
In recent congressional hearings, think-tank conferences, op-ed
essays and media appearances, Republican heavyweights - including
former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger, Senate Foreign
Relations Committee Chairman Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) and Sen. Chuck
Hagel (R-Neb.) - have publicly urged the administration to leave the
current path of escalation and join European allies in direct talks
with Tehran.
The public campaign parallels private efforts by GOP insiders,
foreign policy specialists and U.S. allies abroad to influence the
thinking of key administration officials, including Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice and Elliott Abrams, who oversees Iran policy
at the National Security Council. Both have met recently with foreign
diplomats and outside experts and have discussed U.S. diplomacy with
Iran.
"I think the administration is gradually and with some reluctance
moving in the right direction," said a central figure in the
Republican foreign policy establishment who is trying to shift the
administration's stance.
"But I don't think they are taking initiatives now. I think they are
being dragged."
The administration's stance toward Iran, refusing direct talks while
allowing other nations to negotiate, has paid few dividends and could
add to the unpopularity of future sanctions or military action, the
foreign policy expert said.
But the administration may be forced to change as a result of
"pressure from Europeans, from the Russians, and the general sense
that they are just on a wicket they can't sustain there," the expert
said.
As pressure on the White House intensified in the last week, there
were signs of slight but significant shifts in the administration
position.
Press Secretary Tony Snow repeated the administration's refusal to
consider direct talks but said things could change if Iran suspended
its uranium enrichment efforts and committed to halting them
permanently.
"When that happens, all right, then there may be some opportunities,"
Snow said.
On May 8, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wrote a 17-page
letter asking Bush for direct talks.
In Snow's comments last week, analysts said they detected the
outlines of a U.S. counterproposal about conditions for possible
talks.
A decision to talk to the Iranians would be a dramatic departure from
the administration's strategy of isolating the Tehran regime. Critics
of engagement, including Vice President Dick Cheney and influential
neoconservatives, say such talks would legitimize a duplicitous
regime and represent a blow to Iranian human rights activists and
dissidents.
The Bush administration has sought to support anti-regime efforts.
Such hawkish voices have dominated in the administration and
Congress, but a perceptible recent shift seems to favor Republican
foreign policy "realists" and moderates.
Pressure for talks involving the United States began to build after
the collapse of a Russian-sponsored compromise on Iranian nuclear
enrichment this year and after disagreement in the last month within
the U.N. Security Council on the best approach.
"Some of the E.U. members were nervous that things were really going
downhill very fast and headed to military confrontation," said one
nongovernmental energy consultant knowledgeable about the internal
debate. "When [the Russia proposal] failed, all bets were off. And
that prompted thinking that there has got to be another way."
Visiting German officials urged the administration to hold direct
talks in April, and Rice has met with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi
Annan, who favors greater U.S. involvement.
Lugar held two days of testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee this month featuring speaker after speaker who proposed
some form of dialogue.
"The witnesses generally shared the view that no diplomatic options,
including direct talks, should be taken off the table," Lugar said.
"Direct talks may in some circumstances be useful to demonstrating to
our allies our commitment to diplomacy [and] reducing the risk of
accidental escalation."
Kissinger and Hagel have called for talks.
Proponents of such talks point out that even in the case of North
Korea - which, like Iran, Bush considers a rogue state - U.S.
officials have taken a place at the bargaining table with
representatives of other nations, in some cases speaking to their
adversaries in person.
"There are lots of things we can talk about," said retired Air Force
Gen. Brent Scowcroft, who served as national security advisor to
former President George H.W. Bush and was a mentor to Rice. "We don't
even have to talk directly. We could set up a system like we have
with North Korea and talk to them on the fringes, in the hallways.
There are lots of ways to do it, and I think we are gradually getting
there."
Iranian dissidents are pushing for the toughest conditions if the
U.S. eventually holds talks with Tehran's fundamentalist regime.
"I think the U.S. should have a very clear and transparent stance
that it will not negotiate with Iran unless Iran should fulfill some
prerequisites or preconditions," said dissident Mohsen Sazegara, who
lives in Connecticut. "These conditions can be freedom of speech in
Iran ... free elections, free labor syndicates and some other
conditions."
Analysts expect U.S. officials to ease into talks with Iran,
beginning not with bilateral negotiations, but a variation of the
six-nation talks underway with North Korea. Other analysts suggested
such talks would be preceded by negotiations conducted through a
third party on terms of possible talks and would begin very quietly.
"If we were going to engage Iran, we would do this very quietly,"
said Mike Buttry, an aide to Hagel, who supports talks with Tehran.
"We would not write a press release and say, 'We've engaged Iran.'"
Copyright 2006 Los Angeles Times
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Escaping the Matrix website http://escapingthematrix.org/
cyberjournal website http://cyberjournal.org
subscribe cyberjournal list mailto:•••@••.•••
Posting archives http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/
Blogs:
cyberjournal forum http://cyberjournal-rkm.blogspot.com/
Achieving real democracy http://harmonization.blogspot.com/
for readers of ETM http://matrixreaders.blogspot.com/
Community Empowerment http://empowermentinitiatives.blogspot.com/
Blogger made easy http://quaylargo.com/help/ezblogger.html
