There’s been a lot of press about the fact that the Bushies sent an envoy to Iran this week to begin talks regarding Iran’s nuclear program. Most of the press has been glowing, either praising the Bushies for finally holding talks with someone they don’t like, or pointing out, quite rightly, that Barack Obama turns out to be correct more often than not, and once again, a suggestion he was ridiculed for early in the campaign — you know, for daring to talk to regimes not totally friendly to the United States — was eventually embraced by the Bush Administration in a last-ditch attempt to save what little "legacy" they may have left.
But we should look at another aspect of this, folks.
This is from an AP article this morning, in which the worst Secretary of State in US history, Condi Rice, suggests that Iran isn’t "serious" about the talks:
"We are in the strongest possible position to demonstrate
that if Iran does not act then it is time to go back to that
(sanctions) track," Rice said.
Moreover, Britain’s newest Prime Minister, who seems to be less of a lapdog than Tony Blair said:
"Iran has a clear choice to make: suspend its nuclear
program and accept our offer of negotiations or face growing
isolation and the collective response not just of one nation
but of all nations around the world," Brown said.
Sounds like sanctions, right?
Well, listen some more…
The U.S. government was "indecisive about whether to lean
on diplomacy or the military option," said Deputy Foreign
Minister Alireza Sheikh-Attar, according to the student news
agency ISNA on Monday.
Rice said Iran’s envoy to Saturday’s talks, attended by
senior U.S. diplomat William Burns, engaged in small talk
rather than address the central issue of the sextet offer.
"I understand that it was at times meandering," Rice said.
She said EU foreign policy chief"clarified"
Iran’s choices at the talks.
"It was also a very strong message to the Iranians that
they can’t go and stall and make small talk and talk about
culture and that they have to make a decision," said Rice.
This is troubling, to be sure. Forget the fact that such talks always start on a "small talk" note (forgive her, she wouldn’t know, she doesn’t usually talk to anyone about anything, right?); doesn’t she seem a bit too dismissive after having sent one envoy one time?
Am I the only one feeling a bit of déjà vu
Is Condi setting Iran up for an attack? Is this part of an overall strategy to make it look like we’re engaged with Iran diplomatically, but they’ve chosen to force us into war?