Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
Back to Main

April 22, 2008
Bad-Faith Talks

In February neocon Marc Reuel Gerecht from the American Enterprise Institute used a NYT op-ed call for talks with Iran. Not to achieve any solutions, but as a preparation for war.

The Bush administration should advocate direct, unconditional talks between Washington and Tehran.
…
Foreign-policy hawks ought to see such discussions as essential preparation for possible military strikes against clerical Iran’s nuclear facilities.
…
[A] new approach would certainly put the United States on offense and Iran on defense. We would, at least, have the unquestioned moral and political high ground. And from there, it would be a lot easier for the next administration, if it must, to stop militarily the mullahs’ quest for the bomb.

The point of negotiations is only to win some "high ground" and some national and international support for strikes on Iran.

In lockstep with Gerecht, Michael O’Hanlon from the now equally rightwing Brookings Institution, opined in yesterday’s Washington Times:

By trying to talk, we better position ourselves to get tough and have others join the effort.

Through negotiation, we can prove to the world that American recalcitrance, Texas cowboy foreign policymaking, and pre-emption doctrine are not the real problems here. Only by patiently trying to work with Iran, and consistently failing to make progress, will we gradually convince Bush-haters and U.S. doubters around the world that the real problem does not lie in Washington.
…
[A]s part of a broader realpolitik strategy, talking with Iran — while preparing for the next steps after those talks fail — is still the right thing to do.

I see two possible interpretations here:

  • The neocons mean what they say and now really want to talk to Iran. If only to use this eventually to argue for war.
  • They fear that talks are in preperation (or ongoing?) and want to preempt these. Iran, they might hope, will not agree to talks, as it may now believe that such would be held in bad faith.

The Iranphobic Michael Ledeen still hates the idea of any conversation with Iran:

We have had high-level and low-level talks, public and private talks, talks conducted by diplomats, by spooks, and by a colorful array of intermediaries ranging from former Spanish President Felipe Gonzales to nephews of Rafsanjani, Iranian-American businessmen, former NSC and CIA members, and others with more dubious qualifications.

All failed.
…
That’s Iran. The mullahs want us to die.

As he is usually the leader of the neocon gang on Iran, I suspect that the second point is the better interpretation.

By letting possible talks appear as just another step to war, the neocons hope to incite Iran to avoid any negotiations.

Posted by b on April 22, 2008 at 07:50 UTC | Permalink
Comments

Well, any talk with anyone is always in bad faith when it’s with BushCo or NeoCons. Whether Iran thinks it’s still worth trying is up to them.

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Apr 22 2008 8:06 utc | 1

And, unexpectedly and gratifyingly, the Bush administration’s National Intelligence Estimate of November, which found that “in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program,” damaged Western resolve to invoke economy-crippling sanctions, let alone the American threat to use force against Tehran. (An uncited sentence from the Gerecht article.)
Once again we find the neo-cons complaining about “the Bush administration’s National Intelligence Estimate of November”.
Was it, in fact, “the Bush administration’s” estimate, or the estimate of a well-informed and mutinous crew that knows how to play the game?
The neocons and their friends could only start the war in Iraq by laying claim to (and manipulating) the intelligence community–nearly destroying the intelligence community’s credibility in the process. Nor was it possible for the intelligence community to recover its own credibility: this could only happen by letting the Iraqi resistance argue the facts of the case. Five years, three trillion dollars, and four million refugees later, the NIE is not to be lightly dismissed by its most envenomed detractors. This is hard on the neocons’ nerves, as we see from their fevered prose.

Posted by: alabama | Apr 22 2008 8:43 utc | 2

That’s Iran. The mullahs want us to die.

No, Michael Ledeen, the mullahs want you to die, not us and believe me, I’d be more than happy to throw you and your worthless neocon friends under the nearest bus. Take Cheney/Bush with you, moron.

Posted by: IntelVet | Apr 22 2008 14:14 utc | 3

Back to Main