GOP Heavy Hitters Pressuring White House to Talk With Iran

2006-05-28

Richard Moore

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