...but not to negotiate. This is weird. I mean, I understand it--the White House and Dana Perino can't call this negotiation with a member of the "axis of evil" a negotiation, because the White House has always assured its conservative base that it does not negotiate with terrorists.
But--if they're not going to negotiate, why did the White House ask for a meeting with "Tehran's nuclear negotiator?" Let's look at the story and try to figure this out:
In policy reversal, US envoy to meet Iran's nuclear negotiator
15 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AFP) —
In a major policy shift, the White House and State Department said Under Secretary of State William Burns would attend the Saturday talks with Iran on a "one-time" mission to underline US conditions for ending the atomic stalemate.
"We are not there to negotiate," (White House spokeswoman Dana Perino) stressed.
The story explains how State Department Under Secretary Burns will be meeting "Tehran's nuclear negotiator" Saeed Jalili. Burns will "clarify the consequences" -- more sanctions -- if Iran rejects the White House proposals.
Why does Burns have to get on a plane to go all the way over there to make the same threats he could make via email or a press release? Why does he want to meet with a guy whose job title is "Tehran's nuclear negotiator" if he doesn't want to negotiate?
The puzzling part is Perino telling the press that Burns may repeat Condoleezza Rice's offer to "meet with her (Iranian) counterpart anytime, anywhere, to move forward on negotiations if they would halt uranium enrichment." Remember that Rice came in for heavy criticism for that offer--it sounded like she was saying "we don't negotiate with states that sponsor terror, but we ready to do so anytime, anywhere, if you'll puh-leeze, puh-leeze, puh-leeze stop enriching that uranium."
And even though they say their not negotiating, they're offering the Iranian government all this "stuff" if they'll cooperate: an "incentives package" that includes benefits in nuclear energy, trade, finance, agriculture and high technology if they stop their enrichment program.
The mission to Geneva by the number-three US diplomat comes with time fast running out for a solution before US President George W. Bush's term ends in January 2009.
Citing a "new tactic" but no change in substance, Rice's spokesman Sean McCormack said Washington decided to send Burns to Geneva to try to shape the outcome of a new "debate" in Iran partly prompted by the offer.
He said it amounted to sending a "signal" to "reasonables" who might "start to win some of the arguments within the Iranian political system" and eventually accept the incentives package.
It offers Iran benefits in nuclear energy, trade, finance, agriculture and high technology if it halts enrichment -- in sharp contrast to international sanctions which McCormack says have hurt the Iranian economy and business.
And the Iranian government is under the impression that they're going to negotiate:
"No power can deprive Iran of nuclear technology," state television quoted supreme leader Khamenei as saying. "Iran has decided to take part in negotiations but it will not accept any threat."
Okay. No threats, but this member of the axis of evil--like the North Koreans--will consider any benefits package that the Bush administration is willing to offer this terrorist nation as part of a "deal." But that's not a negotiation, because the Bush administration says it doesn't negotiate with terrorists. But during the Reagan administration, Bush's dad sat at a conference table where they decided to trade arms for hostages, and Bush Junior authorized a benefits package for Kim Jong Il if he'd stop screwing around with their nuclear program.
But none of that is considered "negotiating with terrorist nations." And conservatives rail at Barack Obama for suggesting meetings with heads of unfriendly governments. Boy--Republican foreign policy is hard to understand.
http://afp.google.com/...