So far, the Bush Administration has taken no effective, concrete steps to put an end to the Iranian nuclear program. This administration seems to have neither the ability to leverage the reservoir of goodwill that millions of Iranians have towards the United States, or to empower the justified discontent with the regime, or to provide an effective military solution.

The choices do not, at this point, lie between talking and something else. So far, the options the Bush Administration has publicly mustered run the gamut from doing nothing but talk and doing nothing.

If you don’t agree, please explain exactly what the Bush Administration could do during or after talks, that they could do if they didn’t talk.

it doesn’t do to argue that negotiations with Iran don’t accomplish anything; you also have to make the case that they cost something.

John, it costs time.

Time before they have nukes, time that is running out.

Let them count, and recount if it makes them happy. I really think if Obama isn’t ahead by 25 points, it is going to be a squeaky deal, if not a reverse landslide (and no, I am not a Mcainnanite). Worse, all of the reps and senators had best be checking their fourty, whether RHINO or Democrat, even conservatives if they have been too wobbly.

You’ll forgive me if I agree with the Americans who want to see something that looks a bit more like success before they vote another Republican into the White House.

Golly gee whiz, Mr. S., why am I not surprised at the latest news?

GENEVA – A U.S. decision to bend policy and sit down with Iran at nuclear talks fizzled Saturday, with Iran stonewalling Washington and five other world powers on their call to freeze uranium enrichment.

In response, the six gave Iran two weeks to respond to their demand, setting the stage for a new round of U.N. sanctions.

Iran’s refusal to consider suspending enrichment was an indirect slap at the United States, which had sent Undersecretary of State William Burns to the talks in hopes the first-time American presence would encourage Tehran into making concessions.

Officials and diplomats refused to characterize the timeframe as an ultimatum, but it appeared clear that Iran now has a de-facto deadline to show flexibility.

Might it just possibly be because of the previous track record of negotiations with the mullahs? Just perhaps?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,386542,00.html

What is the likelihood negotiations with Iran will succeed?

Not very good, experts say. “The negotiations have not been satisfactory in terms of giving [the Iranians] what they want,” says Lawrence Scheinman, a nonproliferation expert at the Monterrey Institute of International Studies. “I think we’re just treading water.”

That was an assessment THREE YEARS ago.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/7730/

Bush responded by gratuitously declaring the Iranian state enemies, for no apparent reason other than to fill up the required number for an analogy to World War II.
And where have you been the last 29 years? If you need convincing that the mullahs have acted as enemies of the US for that last 29 years, and that the mullahs have considered the US its enemy for the last 29 years, such woeful ignorance cannot be changed by several sentences.

1) Even assuming the accuracy of all your claims, doing nothing but talking still beats doing nothing at all. You say the Iranian government uses negotiation as a delaying tactic; what exactly have they “delayed”? Do you have any doubt that if the Bush Administration had solid evidence the Iranian government had a nuclear weapons program, and the means to end it, that they would hesitate to do so?

2) During the period 2001 to 2003, the Iranian government came close to making concessions which, had they gone through, would have amounted to democratic reform. During this period, the Iranians cooperated with the invasion of Afghanistan and approached the American government for talks. Bush responded by gratuitously declaring the Iranian state enemies, for no apparent reason other than to fill up the required number for an analogy to World War II. The speech had the predicable result of outraging the Iranian people and undermining support for reform and for better relations with the United States. Unless and until the Bush government makes it clear in word and deed that they value the friendship ordinary Iranians have risked beatings or worse to display, then I suggest that claiming an appeal to the Iranian people will not work has little in the way of evidence to back it up. Talking to Iran seems the simplest and smallest step possible in that direction.

In any event, the irony will not have escaped you that I suggest talking, and the Bush Administration has begun to talk. Do you disagree with this decision? On what grounds? Why do you think your president has made a mistake? If you think that Mr Bush has done wrong to change course, and if so, how can you justify endorsing a Republican candidate who has changed course on so many other important issues (the Bush tax cuts and immigration reform, to name two).

Vince P.: If you have no argument to offer, may I suggest you avoid making that fact clear?