The Cheney failure on Iran policy
It's almost like Bush decided to allow Cheney to try the "threat policy" until 6 months left in his presidency, and then they'd go the other way. (Almost exactly 6 months?)
Ms. Rice, you're up. You have six months to solve it all.
(Guardian) "US plans to station diplomats in Iran for first time since 1979"
(NYTimes) "Policy Shift Seen in U.S. Decision on Iran Talks"
(First, the Bush administration comes closer to Obama's Afghanistan position, now this?)
Ms. Rice, you're up. You have six months to solve it all.
(Guardian) "US plans to station diplomats in Iran for first time since 1979"
(NYTimes) "Policy Shift Seen in U.S. Decision on Iran Talks"
(First, the Bush administration comes closer to Obama's Afghanistan position, now this?)
posted by mikevotes at
8:14 AM
11 Comments:
That is the kind of observation that keeps me coming back to your blog.
By
Anonymous, at 7:57 AM
Thanks.
It just seemed odd that we're suddenly rushing to diplomacy.
It's like at the 6 month point, Condi Rice anxiously took over.
By
mikevotes, at 8:10 AM
The Israelis are talking to Syria, exchanging prisoners with Hezbullah. Probably not coincidental.
By
Anonymous, at 8:44 AM
Any/all of Bush "successes" have been because he abandoned the neo-con position and took up the Democratic position: N. Korea, for example.
Maybe too broad a brush, but... Had the Dems not been pushing these issues -- and had the Dem nominee not been successfully beating McCain about the head and shoulders with these issues -- would they have shifted track?
By
-epm, at 9:12 AM
I think they are finally bowing to reality. Rising gas prices are starting to get ordinary people's attention. The war talk has the whole world spooked.
By
Anonymous, at 10:44 AM
Anon, The Israeli/Hezbullah thing is kind of a weird case. For two years the Bush administration had been telling them not to talk to Syria, but, at a low level, they were anyway. Then a couple months ago, they went in for serious engagement.
No idea how that would be tied to the US or Iran.
....
EPM, and like Afghanistan. I should have added that. However, at the same time, Bush embracing the policy does make me wonder about the policy a bit, you know?
Maybe he finally came to the right path, but his endorsement makes me a little queasy.
You know what I'm saying?
.....
Anon, I think it has as much to do with Bush not wanting to leave office with this massive thing undone. You could argue legacy. You could argue that he doesn't want Obama making the deal or whatever, but my sense is that he doesn't want to Iran to extend beyond him.
He really believes that it is a MAJOR issue/threat and doesn't want it on his record that he did nothing.
By
mikevotes, at 11:00 AM
"You know what I'm saying?"
Yeah. It's like putting a misogynist in charge of women's health issues. No wait, that actually happened. Ahhhhh!
When Bush says "I'm here to help" you KNOW you're in trouble!
By
-epm, at 11:15 AM
"No idea how that would be tied to the US or Iran."
You can't see how the Hezbullah takeover of Lebanon is tied to how the US deals with Iran?
By
Anonymous, at 12:35 PM
Anon, sorry, poorly written on my part.
I meant the Israeli moves and change in US stance towards them seem to predate this current and recent US move towards Iran diplomacy.
The Israelis have been trying to hold Syria talks for years.
Maybe the current body swaps got the go ahead as part of this, but the groundwork was being carried out long before this recent US reachout to Iran.
That's what I was trying to say.
By
mikevotes, at 2:17 PM
I've never really understood why the US has been so hostile to Israel/Syria talks. Probably listening to those in Israel who don't want a peace settlement. And I'm not sure how a deal with Syria on the Golan would affect the Palestinians.
By
Anonymous, at 2:40 PM
The only thing I can gather is that they thought it would take pressure off Iran or Hezbullah, or something.
By
mikevotes, at 4:32 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home