Report: Bush administration to ‘establish a diplomatic presence in Tehran.’
Report: Bush administration to ‘establish a diplomatic presence in Tehran.’
The Bush administration “plans to establish a diplomatic presence in Tehran for the first time in 30 years,” the Guardian reports. This “remarkable turnaround in policy” is “dependent on agreement by Tehran”:
The Guardian has learned that an announcement will be made in the next month to establish a US interests section - a halfway house to setting up a full embassy. The move will see US diplomats stationed in the country.
The news of the shift by Bush who has pursued a hawkish approach to Iran throughout his tenure comes at a critical time in US-Iranian relations. After weeks that have seen tensions rise with Israel conducting war games and Tehran carrying out long-range missile tests, a thaw appears to be under way. [...]The return of US diplomats to Iran is dependent on agreement by Tehran. But President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad indicated earlier this week that he was not against the opening of a US mission. Iran would consider favorably any request aimed at boosting relations between the two countries, he said.
Bush’s apparent embrace of diplomacy with respect to Iran seems to contradict his earlier sentiments that such tactics are akin to Nazi appeasement. (HT: TPM)
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
53 Responses to “Report: Bush administration to ‘establish a diplomatic presence in Tehran.’”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
What are the odds of anyone asking purina if bush is being a nazi appeaser?
July 17th, 2008 at 11:32 amGood plan. First piss them off calling them evil and threatening to attack them and then try diplomacy. Dumbass.
http://progressiveworldreview.com
July 17th, 2008 at 11:33 amOn a more thoughtful note, what are the odds that this is a ploy so bush can say he exhausted every avenue before he starts bombing?
July 17th, 2008 at 11:33 amA plan involves more than one step at a time in any direction.
July 17th, 2008 at 11:36 amSo, diplomacy is only an 'appeasing of terrorists' when a Democrat suggests or does it? Interesting...
July 17th, 2008 at 11:36 amSubstitute 'Air Force 5th Bomb Wing' for 'diplomatic.'
July 17th, 2008 at 11:38 amThe diplomats have received strict instructions to not talk to any Iranian officials.
Their only purpose in being sent there is to be recalled a couple days before GDumbya starts bombing the hell out of Tehran. This is the sum total of GDumbya's knowledge of diplomacy.
July 17th, 2008 at 11:40 amBobwurst Says: What are the odds of anyone asking purina if bush is being a nazi appeaser?
Or how about the other day when Bush gave his absurd "Everything is just dandy" speech and the press didn't ask him a single question or substance. Not one. No wonder Americans, who rely on the media for information they can't easily access themselves (excpet now online), are so ignorant or mis-informed. Sheesh!
July 17th, 2008 at 11:40 amcan you say HYPOCRITICAL appeasement?
lol... the ENTIRE bush admin is a FU*KING JOKE!
July 17th, 2008 at 11:41 amForgive me for being so cynical, but... BINGO!
July 17th, 2008 at 11:42 amYou are either with us or with the... Doh!
July 17th, 2008 at 11:43 amIs it possible that BushCo sees the impending economic meltdown and realizes we cannot afford any more wars?
Probably not.
July 17th, 2008 at 11:44 amhow about the other day when Bush gave his absurd “Everything is just dandy” speech and the press didn’t ask him a single question or (of) substance.
The press has capitulated. Reporters either (1) understand that GDumbya is incapable of answering tough questions or (2) don't want to be complicit in spreading more lies on top of lies that would occur if they did.
July 17th, 2008 at 11:44 amWhat is BOLT-ON's response? Now this should be fun-ny...
July 17th, 2008 at 11:46 amIs it possible to go sane after seven years and more of insanity?
July 17th, 2008 at 11:48 amI bet the NeoCons are pulling their Zionist heair out after this remark.
How dare Dubya go against his owners!
July 17th, 2008 at 11:48 amNormally I'd welcome any type of diplomatic outreach with Iran that doesn't involve selling them antitank missiles via Israel. Diplomacy is always better than threats.
But with this administration, I just don't trust it.
July 17th, 2008 at 11:53 amI have to say the snappy skepticism that is dominating the comments here thus far strikes me as being quite sound rather than simply flippant.
July 17th, 2008 at 11:56 amIt's only Nazi appeasement when Democrats do it apparently.
Someone must of told Bush that the American public just might get more than upset when gas would hit 12 dollars a gallon if he attacked Iran, as in "linch mobs".
Or of course the Chinese and Russians clued him in on just how "they would go nuclear" over him attacking Iran.
Bush doesn't do anything he is asked, so someone somewhere pushed his STFU button.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:00 pmThe press has capitulated. Reporters either (1) understand that GDumbya is incapable of answering tough questions or (2) don’t want to be complicit in spreading more lies on top of lies that would occur if they did.
Or 3) understand that their press credentials would be quickly revoked and possibly a loss of job.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:00 pmW has now taken to watching Obama's speeches on television full time to see what the next correct foreign policy move would be.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:01 pm"The move will see US diplomats stationed in the country."
And provide targets for "false-flag" attacks, nothing more.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:03 pmhypocritical considering his past statements, but seems like a step in the right direction.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:06 pmAPPEASER!!!
July 17th, 2008 at 12:10 pmbackup Says:
hypocritical considering his past statements, but seems like a step in the right direction.
Only if you trust Bush's intentions. You would be wise to carefully consider his motives and past deeds. This smells funny to thinking people.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:11 pmWho in the religious community, those that are not hypocrites that is, would truly support this thug administration?
A year ago, these priests had it right:
July 17th, 2008 at 12:21 pmGuatemalan Mayan priests to 'purify' sacred site after Bush visit
You've all already expressed my thoughts:
1. Bush = Nazi appeaser
2. Bush = hypocrite
3. Iran diplomacy = false flag op
110 days....
July 17th, 2008 at 12:26 pmLet us start a petition to get President Obama to assign George WTF Bush and Dick, not because his name is Richard, Cheney as the "Diplomatic Presence" in Tehran and then cancel their Passports. I wonder if Iran uses "Oil-boarding" as an incentive factor. It would be fitting to say the least.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:26 pmWell ain't this a revoltin' development!
July 17th, 2008 at 12:27 pmCondi going to "secure peace in our time"?
July 17th, 2008 at 12:27 pmThe Republicans are very carefully reversing themselves on issues to prepare for the election. It is an attempt to rob Obama of issues on foreign policy. Iran - we are engaged in diplomatic actions because we perceive that the Iranians have been cowed by our sabre rattling. Iraq - we brought home the surge troops because we are winning. More will follow and we will use them to clean up Afghanistan.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:27 pmWhy do I suspect he has Bremmer in mind for this "diplomatic presence?"
July 17th, 2008 at 12:29 pmIt would be funny for Chris Matthews to have that guy back on and ask about this. You know, the one who didn't know who Chamberlain was. Doubt he'll come, though.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:30 pmalph the wonder llama Says:
Bobwurst Says:
On a more thoughtful note, what are the odds that this is a ploy so bush can say he exhausted every avenue before he starts bombing?
Forgive me for being so cynical, but… BINGO!
---
Worked for Iraq, didn't it?
Most people believe the lie that Saddam threw out the nuclear inspectors, when it was actually the Bush admin that told them to get out of Iraq so that they could start bombing.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:32 pm"... seems to contradict"? Why can't we speak the truth and say that it directly contradicts Bush and his surrogates' attacks on Obama for the suggestion that talking to Iran would be an important step?
Why all the hedging when it comes to this kind of subjectivity? What happened to the unvarnished truth?
July 17th, 2008 at 12:36 pmJMOHR Says:
The Republicans are very carefully reversing themselves on issues to prepare for the election. It is an attempt to rob Obama of issues on foreign policy. Iran - we are engaged in diplomatic actions because we perceive that the Iranians have been cowed by our sabre rattling. Iraq - we brought home the surge troops because we are winning. More will follow and we will use them to clean up Afghanistan.
That's my take on this, exactly. More evidence of it has been showing up in Congressional votes, with Republics suddenly discovering the middle class -- at least for a few months.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:42 pmThis may prove to be a problem for Israel that is just itching to bomb Iran. Maybe it will prevent bombing that beautiful country.
July 17th, 2008 at 12:50 pmIf this is another feint before another US undeclared war of aggression I shudder to think what price we liberal elitists will end up paying for the pistachios and caviar we all like to sprinkle on our muesli breakfast cereal.
July 17th, 2008 at 1:01 pmMost likely scenario:
1. Bush sends diplomats
2. CIA assassinates one or more of said diplomats
3. US bombs Iran in retaliation.
July 17th, 2008 at 1:02 pmsomething underhanded is surely in the works...
bobwurst @3 offers one likely scenario...
when even JOHN BOLTON (yelling, as rachel does) changes his tune, it's really time to worry...
something evil...
July 17th, 2008 at 1:20 pmSo Bush flip flopped and took on Obama's position. Once Again.
Now if we can stop McCain from making indecent remarks about Iran.
Originally I couldn't figure out why McCain wanted to poison the well with Iran - after all, why not start negotiations on good terms. Originally I thought it may be to guarantee that they wouldn't negotiate with him should he be elected. But now I'm wondering if it could also be to poison any attempts of Obama to negotiate with them ?
July 17th, 2008 at 1:22 pm"The press has capitulated. Reporters either (1) understand that GDumbya is incapable of answering tough questions or (2) don’t want to be complicit in spreading more lies on top of lies that would occur if they did.
'Or 3) understand that their press credentials would be quickly revoked and possibly a loss of job.'"
or 4) are on his team
July 17th, 2008 at 1:29 pmTrollups,
North Korea's outcome was due to Bill Richardson.
Quit trying to rewrite history; Bush is doing quite well on his own.
July 17th, 2008 at 1:32 pmBush was against appeasement before he was for it.
Flip flop!!
July 17th, 2008 at 1:43 pmstewarjt Says:
Is it possible to go sane after seven years and more of insanity?
Well, if we can apply Einstein's theory on the universe here, (where if you travel in a straight line in space long enough you come back to the same place) then perhaps bush has gone so far to the right that he's re-appeared on the left...or has gone so far insane that he has come back around to sanity from the opposite end?
July 17th, 2008 at 1:45 pmZimzone, isn't the N Korea agreement essentialy what Clinton had set up, and bush dismissed in bush's first year in office? Except of course that now N Korea has several nukes they didn't have back when the adults were in charge.
July 17th, 2008 at 1:49 pmWell, we wouldn't want them to think that their missile test "worked" now would we? WTF!!?! How is this going to deter them from building weapons? It's a good idea, but couldn't be worse timing, in my opinion.
July 17th, 2008 at 2:25 pmJust wait. After about a month Bush will announce that "I tried it Obama's way, I tried to talk to them, but it didn't work." This is all a dog and pony show before the bombs start falling.
July 17th, 2008 at 2:31 pmBobwurst Says:
Zimzone, isn’t the N Korea agreement essentially what Clinton had set up, and bush dismissed in bush’s first year in office? Except of course that now N Korea has several nukes they didn’t have back when the adults were in charge.
I believe we're both right, Bobwurst. Richardson was an integral part of Clinton's efforts, but was brought back in once the 6 party talks emerged.
It's interesting to note that the 'Axis of Evil' is now gone?
July 17th, 2008 at 2:57 pmIrag-we destroyed it.
N. Korea-backed off before being destroyed
Iran-See N Korea.
Buckie Boy said:
"...so someone somewhere pushed his STFU button."
There is a STFU button, man we gotta find that thing.
July 17th, 2008 at 5:09 pmBush can't bomb Iran if we have diplomats on the ground there...
How would that look (even to a crazy person)??
July 17th, 2008 at 5:20 pmBush needs eyes on the ground to plan the attack. Secure networks will facilitate the passing of up to date intelligence from sympathetic locals. As mentioned earlier, they'll be pulled in a grandstand event prior to an attack.
Of course, the Iranian people will rush in afterwards and greet the returning diplomats with flowers.
July 17th, 2008 at 7:07 pmNormalizing relations with Iran is the right thing to do. But, like others, I suspect Bush's true intentions with this decision. There is no way that we can take on Iran right now while we are still bogged down in Iraq (right next door!) and Afghanistan (again, right next door!!) Iran is a much larger country than Iraq and has a real military that didn't suffer the from the same sanctions that Iraq did.
We don't have to deal with Ahmadenijad. In fact, there is little point in talking with him. The real power in Iran is held by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the "Supreme Leader". This post is the highest level of political and religious authority as per the post-1979 constitution.
I am no fan of the Islamic Republic, but the reality of the world requires that we hold our noses and deal with people that we don't like very much. Ditto for North Korea. We must be clear about our intentions and make the best use of our diplomatic corps to resolve tensions. Less hostility between Iran, the United States and Iran's neighbors would not only bring us closer to peace but would also affect the market price of oil.
Peace is always, always less expensive than war.
July 17th, 2008 at 8:22 pm