Some Republicans Suggest Talks with Iran

In 2003, the neoconservatives who prided themselves on being the 'most forward-thinking' were already talking about dealing with Syria or Iran as soon as Iraq was taken care of. Some of those neocons have left the administration and other neocons, particularly those in the media who helped Bush make his case for war, have been taken less seriously over time.

I never considered Rumsfeld or Cheney to be neocons though they obviously made an alliance with the neocons. The distinguishing characteristic of neocons is that they kept talking about bringing democracy to the Middle East, and some neocons actually believed in the goal. Not for a moment should anyone take seriously the notion that Rumsfeld or Cheney cared about the democracy project. There are already books that have been written about the first two years in Iraq and the theme that comes through, besides the incompetence of Cheney and Rumsfeld, is that they never bothered to coordinate much with those working to bring democracy to Iraq and often these two worked at cross-purposes with others. Cheney and Rumsfeld are right wing conservatives who exaggerate threats partly because their poor judgment sees enemies everywhere and partly because they have discovered that there is personal advantage to them in exaggerating those threats. Their word, love of power and judgment are not to be trusted.

As long as Cheney and Rumsfeld remain in the Bush Administration, the possibility of an attack on Iran will continue to be quite real anytime between now and late summer of next year. There is some noise that we may be backing away from a possible attack on Iran, and, indeed, if there has been a decision by Bush to go slower on Iran, I would simply caution that Bush may be waiting until after the midterm elections to deal militarily with Iran.

Laura Rozen of War and Piece has an article in the Los Angeles Times (hat tip to Steve Soto of The Left Coaster) about the growing concern of Repubican realists and moderates:

Amid concern that the U.S. is drifting toward eventual confrontation with Iran, a growing number of influential statesmen, Republican senators and foreign policy experts are stepping up pressure on the Bush administration to consider doing what no U.S. administration has done in 27 years: talk directly with Iran.

In recent congressional hearings, think-tank conferences, op-ed essays and media appearances, Republican heavyweights — including former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) and Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) — have publicly urged the administration to leave the current path of escalation and join European allies in direct talks with Tehran.

The public campaign parallels private efforts by GOP insiders, foreign policy specialists and U.S. allies abroad to influence the thinking of key administration officials, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Elliott Abrams, who oversees Iran policy at the National Security Council. Both have met recently with foreign diplomats and outside experts and have discussed U.S. diplomacy with Iran.

(snip)

...the administration may be forced to change as a result of "pressure from Europeans, from the Russians, and the general sense that they are just on a wicket they can't sustain there," the expert said.

As pressure on the White House intensified in the last week, there were signs of slight but significant shifts in the administration position.

Press Secretary Tony Snow repeated the administration's refusal to consider direct talks but said things could change if Iran suspended its uranium enrichment efforts and committed to halting them permanently.

"When that happens, all right, then there may be some opportunities," Snow said.

(snip)

A decision to talk to the Iranians would be a dramatic departure from the administration's strategy of isolating the Tehran regime. Critics of engagement, including Vice President Dick Cheney and influential neoconservatives, say such talks would legitimize a duplicitous regime and represent a blow to Iranian human rights activists and dissidents.

The Bush administration has sought to support anti-regime efforts.

Such hawkish voices have dominated in the administration and Congress, but a perceptible recent shift seems to favor Republican foreign policy "realists" and moderates.

Pressure for talks involving the United States began to build after the collapse of a Russian-sponsored compromise on Iranian nuclear enrichment this year and after disagreement in the last month within the U.N. Security Council on the best approach.

"Some of the E.U. members were nervous that things were really going downhill very fast and headed to military confrontation," said one nongovernmental energy consultant knowledgeable about the internal debate. "When [the Russia proposal] failed, all bets were off. And that prompted thinking that there has got to be another way."

Visiting German officials urged the administration to hold direct talks in April, and Rice has met with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who favors greater U.S. involvement.

Lugar held two days of testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this month featuring speaker after speaker who proposed some form of dialogue.

"The witnesses generally shared the view that no diplomatic options, including direct talks, should be taken off the table," Lugar said. "Direct talks may in some circumstances be useful to demonstrating to our allies our commitment to diplomacy [and] reducing the risk of accidental escalation."

Let's keep in mind that in addition to 'Republican heavyweights,' there has been a chorus of generals calling for Rumsfeld to resign; their calls have a great deal to do with putting the brakes on a military strike against Iran.

President Bush, other administration figures and Bush's right wing supporters in the media have repeatedly said they do not wish to take the military option off the table. Note the last paragraph in the quote above where Senator Lugar asserts: no diplomatic options, including direct talks, should be taken off the table.... Bush has spent much of the last five years avoiding diplomacy or even a foreign policy that makes sense. That is a position the United States can no longer afford. The job in Afghanistan is far from finished. Trouble in Iraq continues day after day. We do not need a third war nor do we need a foreign policy that continues to be based on false assumptions.