Weird doings from Sharm al-Sheik between Mottaki and Rice
A very weird "insider" account of the interaction between Iranian Foreign Minister Mottaki and Condi Rice over lunch,
At dinner,
And, Sean McCormick, tell me how this helps,
Yeah, trying to shame the guy. Good diplomatic plan.
It sounds like Mottaki feels no need to deal with the US. What is the US really offering him?
(And, Condi Rice was just all smiles at the after meeting press conference. Sure, she didn't accomplish a damned thing towards helping Iraq, but she managed to piss off the Iranians.)
The Iranian entered the lunch, greeting the gathered diplomats with the Arabic phrase, "As-salama aleikum," or "Peace be upon you," according to an Iraqi official who was present.
"That's true," Rice replied, according to the Iraqi official.
At dinner,
As it turned out, Mottaki's place was set directly across the table from Rice. When Mottaki entered the dinner and saw the arrangement, he immediately told his hosts that he had to excuse himself and leave, said a U.S. official who accompanied Rice.
And, Sean McCormick, tell me how this helps,
"I don't know which woman he was afraid of, the woman in the red dress or the secretary of state," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.
Yeah, trying to shame the guy. Good diplomatic plan.
It sounds like Mottaki feels no need to deal with the US. What is the US really offering him?
(And, Condi Rice was just all smiles at the after meeting press conference. Sure, she didn't accomplish a damned thing towards helping Iraq, but she managed to piss off the Iranians.)
posted by mikevotes at
8:47 AM
8 Comments:
Female violinist eh? Good one. Deflect the prime time audience away from what Mottaki actually said...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/
2/hi/middle_east/6621821.stm
By
Anonymous, at 9:30 AM
Too revealingly dressed? Good thing Condi left the knee-high leather boots back home!
By
Anonymous, at 11:11 AM
It's not like Condi or Bush or anyone on the KoolAid team cares about actually accomplishing anything. Sure, they'd like the world to roll over and play dead so they could just rule the planet, as is their just and divine providence to do. But how they really measure themselves is by their fidelity to -- their loyalty to -- an unshakable allegiance to their own perfect world view. Better to lose a generation than to yield one dotted i or crossed t in the Bush doctrine of American global manifest destiny. Right?
By
-epm, at 1:13 PM
That's a good point, anonymous.
I was caught up in the Kremlin watching of it, and didn't even look for Mottaki's stance.
....
Jeff, Now that Condi's being judged on her record, her clothing has toned down.
....
EPM, There must be some underlying theory/proponent of the "no talks" stance inside the White House.
Cheney's certainly the mouthpiece, but I'd be really curious about the dynamics around this.
By
mikevotes, at 1:34 PM
"There must be some underlying theory/proponent of the "no talks" stance inside the White House. "
I'm not sure there's a theory so much as an attitude. It's more like, "They get all pissy and up in our face, so f- 'em. We're not talking to them."
The theory, if there is one, is that we're the king-makers (the godfathers, the Corleone's) of the world, so if you give them the silent treatment they'll feel left out and impotent and eventually they'll capitulate to being subordinate to our demands.
By
-epm, at 1:48 PM
Yeah, the Corleone thing, but as that runs in the face of all postwar US diplomatic throey, someone must have brought it in.
I agree that alot of it is a perception and stance, but the career state dept people must be chafing like crazy at this so there has to have been some deliberate discussion.
This is a decision within an argument, so, some rationale or theory must've been put up for abandoning the traditional course.
By
mikevotes, at 2:16 PM
Sure, it was "brought in." But isn't it really the play book the neo-con back benchers have been running with for the last 1/2 century? So, yeah, it was brought in (Abrams, Rummy, Cheney, et al.) when the Bush Machine took over the White House, but I don't it's a new tactic developed c.2000AD. It's just a tactic that was repudiated (for the most part) by normal, emotionally stable elected politicians in the past.
Are career diplomats chafing? Sure. Such stories have been running below the fold since 2001. I don't think this is news anymore. Is it?
As far as debate inside the White House, well I don't think the inner circle is doing much debating. Anyone who was debating it (Powell?) has been purged by now.
By
-epm, at 2:50 PM
Right. Right. Right.
I think what I'm saying is that I'd like to hear the underlying justification for this.
It hasn't worked, and I would be very curious to hear the internal argument to keep it going.
By
mikevotes, at 3:16 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home