Soccer Dad

Is talking surrendering?

My initial reaction to Time for 'Plan B-H' in Iraq? by David Ignatius was not good. Ignatius wrote

The best hope for pulling off this three-cushion shot lies, paradoxically, in the diplomatic discussions with Iran that began Monday in Baghdad. Sources say that during their four-hour meeting, Crocker and his Iranian counterpart described in almost identical terms the two countries' shared interest in the success of Iraq's Shiite-led government. Crocker insisted that the Iranians back up those words with deeds -- by halting the shipment of deadly projectile bombs and the training of Shiite militiamen in their use. If Tehran takes that step, then Plan B-H may be for real.

What's needed is time: Iran's deputy foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, seemed to recognize this when he told the Financial Times that although he favored a plan for eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops, "immediate withdrawal could lead to chaos, civil war, could turn Iraq into a failed state. This is a fact. No one is asking for immediate withdrawal of foreign forces from Iraq."

When Ignatius is praising the White House for being "surrender monkeys," I worry. Ignatius doesn't believe that there's no one worth talking to.

Cox and Forkum felt as I did, that talking to Iran, particularly on Memorial Day was rubbing salt into fresh wounds. (Follow the link for their cartoon!)

It's bad enough that the Bush Administration actually thinks talking with Iran is going to stop them from killing even more of our troops in Iraq. Worse still, these talks officially end our diplomatic isolation of Iran since 1979 when the Iranians took Americans hostage. But it is flat out obscene that the talks were held on Memorial Day. There are Americans at gravesides today mourning loved ones who were cut down by Iranian-backed militias.

But it's possible there's more to this story than the administration's too soft words to tyrants. LGF noted that Pat Dollard was reporting that the soft words for Iran were actually backed up with some pretty big sticks!

For some reason, no one told you that just 5 days before Monday’s talks, an entire floating army, with nearly 20,000 men, comprising the world’s largest naval strike force, led by the USS Nimitz and the USS Stennis, and also comprising the largest U.S. Naval armada in the Persian Gulf since 2003, came floating up unnanounced through the Straight of Hormuz, and rested right on Iran’s back doorstep, guns pointed at them. The demonstration of leverage was clear. And it also came on the exact date of the expiration of the 60 day grace period the U.N. had granted Iran.

And it came just a few weeks after Vice President Dick Cheney had swept through the region and delivered a very clear and pointed message to the Saudi King Abdullah and others: George Bush has unequivocally decided to attack Iran’s nuclear, military and economic infrastructure if they do not abandon their drive for military nuclear capability. Plain and simple. Iran heard the message as well, and although a lack of leverage may seem clear to America’s retired military tv talking heads, it is not so clear to the government in Tehran.

The message to both Iran and Syria is that if the talks in Baghdad fail, the military option is ready to go.

With Binyamin Netanyahu pushing for sanctions and Norman Podhoretz pushing for military actions clearly there's some subsection of world opinion that's not willing to trust the judgments of folks like Hans Blix. Is the administration listening to the neo-cons?

I certainly hope so.

Iran, Nuclear Proliferation.