U.S. Preparing For Iran Negotiations

(AP)  The United States is pursuing a two-track strategy with Iran that reflects the high stakes in any engagement with a nation President George W. Bush accuses of bankrolling terrorism and secretly building a nuclear bomb.

Monday's talks in Baghdad are one element. Discussion between the U.S. and Iranian ambassadors is only supposed to cover Iraq, where they have competing and overlapping interests.

Then there are the U.S. Navy's exercises in the Persian Gulf last week and tough talk from Bush about new United Nations penalties against Tehran.

"In the American mind, the two tracks sort of complement each other," with the muscle-flexing and threats serving to push Iran to the bargaining table, said Ray Takeyh, an Iran specialist at the Council on Foreign Relations.

"Iran only sees one track" and thinks it is a trap, Takeyh said. He does not hold out much hope the diplomats will get beyond talking points on Monday.

"The coercive track is undermining and negating the diplomatic track and preventing any sort of meaningful discussions," Takeyh said.

Still, any direct talks are rare. Even fleeting encounters at larger gatherings or diplomatic dinners are scrutinized for clues to the future of a troubled relationship.

The Baghdad talks are the first of their kind and a small sign that Washington thinks rapprochement is possible after nearly three decades of animosity. Iran, angry over the blunt show of U.S. military power off its coast, almost refused to come.

Bush agreed to the dialogue in hopes it could do some good inside Iraq and perhaps beyond. Despite ambivalence within the Bush administration, U.S. diplomats hope this kind of limited conversation can build confidence on both sides and lead to something more substantive.

Diplomats hope for a full airing of views Monday and perhaps an agreement to meet again. Cancellation of the talks, even for reasons that sound plausible, would spell failure.

"The ball really is in their court," State Department spokesman Tom Casey said Friday.

There is plenty to talk about, even within the confines both sides have laid out.

The United States accuses Iran of supplying Iraqi Shiite militias with deadly roadside bombs that kill American troops in Iraq and of political meddling in Shiite-led Iraq.

Iran accuses the United States of improperly seizing five Iranians in Iraq this spring. The U.S. military is holding the five. Iran says they are diplomats; Washington contends they are intelligence agents.

The United States also has complained about the detention or arrest of several Iranian-Americans in Iran in recent weeks. Casey said that issue is not on the U.S. agenda for Monday.

Iran contended on Saturday it had uncovered spy rings operating inside the country that were organized by the U.S. and its Western allies. The White House said it does not confirm or deny allegations about intelligence matters. However it might affect the talks, the allegation reflects a toughening of Iran's stand.

On Sunday, Iran summoned the Swiss ambassador in protest and demanded "necessary explanation" about the claims, Iran's state television reported. Switzerland represents American interests in Iran.

The United States wants to keep the window for the talks small, for fear Iran would use the opportunity to try to bargain over its disputed nuclear program.

That was the rationale the administration used for resisting for months any discussion with Iran about Iraq despite entreaties from Congress, allies and the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.

The current outreach represents a softening of that hard-line, but progress toward better relations is halting.

U.S. and Iranian diplomats met briefly in March on the sidelines of an international conference on Iraq. But Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki balked at the expected next step, passing up serious talks during a similar gathering this month.

A year ago this week, the U.S. made its most dramatic overture to Iran in years.

Rice said she would participate in international negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, on condition Iran halt disputed nuclear work that could produce either nuclear energy or a weapon. Iran called the condition an affront to its rights and sovereignty; the offer has gone nowhere.

The U.S. cut off diplomatic ties with Iran over the 1979 storming of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. U.S. diplomats were held hostage for more than a year.

Since then, name-calling, accusations and finger-jabbing lectures by U.S. and Iranian leaders largely have defined the relationship.

"Eventually the U.S. and Iran will have to engage across the board on a whole range of issues if they are to make progress," said Robert J. Einhorn, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and former assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation.

"The Iraq issue is one on which many people have assumed some commonality of interest because at a certain level the Iranians want stability," just as Americans do, although for different reasons, Einhorn said.

[hamiltongrad]

While you may be on to other subjects, you will note ( to Randala et al) that my postings are virtually always a factual challenge, a presentation of information, or a direct response to "facts" presented by others. I also try to offer a balanced approach, and new ideas, such as Nuclear Energy, Hybrid cars, Alaska Oil etc which can help us be much less dependent upon Arab and Arab sick societies, culture and morality for our energy. I do not name call, when I state that LEFTIES are not able to confront EVIL in the modern world, but would much rather consult their FEELINGS, and go after smoking, pollution and "global warming ( I have no idea if global warming is true, other than we had a very cold winter and a very late winter storm in Chicago!) . Be that as it may, I believe that CBS has open this forum to be used, in part, for SERIOUS discussion, and I would hope that from time to time people in authority or who influence to those in authority may read to get an idea of what others are saying. That is why I believe that the LEFTIES NAME CALLING is in rather poor form and a poor reflection upon the Liberals. The tradition of JFK should be the tradition of the Democrats, but sadly is not.

[grazinggoat]

Go back to Hamilton (if indeed you ever really did attend there....doubtful), because it's obvious that you skipped every class that had anything to do with humanity.

Ask for your money back because you obviously learned nothing.
Posted by RandalDS at 02:22


-I see you worked for Better Business Bureaus, too

[grazinggoat]

To lars008 - I firmly believe there is a genuine war on terror but I also believe we are fighting it in the wrong way. We are using a tank to kill a very dangerous mosquito. But, as a vet, I also believe that active duty military had a duty to back their designated leaders whether they agree or not. So, your posting worries me. We have survived for over 220 years because of the fact that the military is subservient to the civilian. This issue is larger than Iraq. God Bless and I hope Congress does carry out the will of the people soon and finds some good way to withdraw.
Posted by ramos937 at 04:20 AM : May 28, 2007

-Pretty wise ramos937, pretty wise.

[socrates392]

"I am shocked by the consistent voices expressed her by the LEFT - such as Randala et al- there are so little facts, just FEELINGS and NAME CALLING and juvenile SWEARING."

Posted by HAmiltongrad at 01:42 PM : May 28, 2007

I'm not going to defend leftys who resort to ad hominem attacks, but really, what do you think these forums are about? This isn't a newspaper. This forum is a place to express feelings and interpretations-- case in point, your own post! Your own post is hardly chalked full of facts, my friend . . . unless you stating that you're going to the beach counts as a fact.

Watch what you say or you just might come off sounding like a hypocrit.

[hamiltongrad]

To Ramos: What makes you think that we are only using tanks? But..When we do use innovative methods, perhaps monitoring e mail to disrupt terrorist plans, or monitor cell phones, or have "moles" inside of mosques, You and your ilk are the first to bray bloody murder. For some strange perverse reason you feel that our enemy in mufti ( otherwise would be "spys" and open to firing squad without much fanfare- deserve full ACLU and US constitutional rights. This is absurd and a *** good recipe for defeat, if that is what you really are after ?
I am shocked by the consistent voices expressed her by the LEFT - such as Randala et al- there are so little facts, just FEELINGS and NAME CALLING and juvenile SWEARING. No deep thought, a lot of wishful thinking and attempts to point our hypocrisy,as though that is an end goal. Perhaps in Grad School, but not in real life. I plan now to go the the beach, relax and forget about you yahoos on the left, and also VISIT and say a prayer at a VA ceremony later today for our soldiers, past and present.

[tbweb]

ramos937 wrote:

Like it or not, Iran is a major player in Iraq for better or worse. There are no guarantees but we are not worse off if we do talk to Iran. Maybe, they can help end the violence?

Posted by ramos937 at 04:12 AM : May 28, 2007

ramos937,,,

This issue is between the U.S. and Iraq, had Iran and Syria stayed out of it in the first place, Iraq and the U.S. would be further along in stabilizing the situation. Too many cooks spoil the meal and all Iran and Syria have done is complicate matters. Iran is after status and to been seen as a U.S. equal and major player on the world stage, Iran is not looking to solve anything because the best thing Iran can do to support the situation is to stay out of it altogether! The real negotiations will still be at the U.N. with the U.S. pressing for further U.N. sanctions against Iran. The best outcome from those negotiations is for the U.S. to win Russian and Chinese support for them to look the other way while the U.S. spanks Iran's A S S and setback Iran's nuclear program. Hopefully Iran will negotiate with the U.S. for real and get something meaningful done, since in the end the focus needs to be on helping the Iraqi people and not on Iran's status ambitions.

[ramos937]

To lars008 - I firmly believe there is a genuine war on terror but I also believe we are fighting it in the wrong way. We are using a tank to kill a very dangerous mosquito. But, as a vet, I also believe that active duty military had a duty to back their designated leaders whether they agree or not. So, your posting worries me. We have survived for over 220 years because of the fact that the military is subservient to the civilian. This issue is larger than Iraq. God Bless and I hope Congress does carry out the will of the people soon and finds some good way to withdraw.

[vinepetal904]

if there's, for example, ten 'characters' (icons, links, wutevr) across the top of this webpage and ten along the side, then can i 'dial' (access), for example, (roughly) 10 billion people each with 10 billion web pages each?? hmm, if god and congress DO want a terrorist on every street corner: perhaps they should spank and tax, without fair trials, lazy ignorant naked profane kids and other civilians, and if they DON'T want a terrorist on every street corner, perhaps they should give each kid and other civilian 10 billion spore bloom weed dragon trail fickle first aid lunch farm cottage studio trail educational props with accents, dances with jingles, arts and crafts, and knick knacks with which to clutter up all the trail crossings???

[ramos937]

Like it or not, Iran is a major player in Iraq for better or worse. There are no guarantees but we are not worse off if we do talk to Iran. Maybe, they can help end the violence?

From what I know Ryan Crocker is a career diplomat respected by just about everyone for his professionalism. My earnest hope is that everyone - the USA public and especially the administration - just stays out of the discussions and let him do his thing. Since it is now public that we sponsor raids into Iran, we should refrain from casting stones while Amb. Crocker is trying to do his best for his country. Let us see what he can do.

[tbweb]

U.S. Negotiations with Iran is the mental equivalent of driving a Humvee down and IED laden road. As long as the U.S. wears its mental body armor and place extra thick metal plates around its brain, the Iranian blast will do little damage. This will be anything but a negotiation; it will be more like each side airing a long laundry list of complaints against the other! Is Iran speaking for Syria? The Syrian 1st Lady is British born, yep, Syrian Pres. Assads wife is British and she is a real charmer, maybe Syria should send her to negotiate, she%u2019s a good negotiator and understands the West and something might actually get accomplished!