Bagdad meeting: the US will meet Syria and Iran

[Shah Massoud]

Whatever loud talk Jumblatt , Hariri and Gemayel are trying to express in europe and the US , the truth is there: the US called them to inform them that the US finally decided to drop the political boycott of syria and Iran and to talk with them around the bagdad peace plan......
Jumblatt said that Rice assured him that Lebanon will not be discussed in the meeting.....yeah sure....Iran , syria , Saudi Arabia and the USA have a high level political meeting without talking about Lebanon ??? I would be surprised if they talked something else then Lebanon.......
Jumblatt is playing his last card by saying to the americains that Khaddam will give you a better deal in Irak.....but my opinion is that it is too late......

ALL the media keep saying that the lebanese situation is related to the irak and middle east situation....my analysis is the opposite: Irak will not find any solution without compromises from all the parties concerning the lebanese problem.....and the loosers in all that ???? The lebanese , all of them maybe because they let the others solve the inner problems.....but one thing is sure: if the some lebanese will loose a little , some of them will loose everything they thought they gained by serving tea , crocodile tears , and abusing the blood of martyrs.....

[Chief]

Originally Posted by Shah Massoud

Whatever loud talk Jumblatt , Hariri and Gemayel are trying to express in europe and the US , the truth is there: the US called them to inform them that the US finally decided to drop the political boycott of syria and Iran and to talk with them around the bagdad peace plan......
Jumblatt said that Rice assured him that Lebanon will not be discussed in the meeting.....yeah sure....Iran , syria , Saudi Arabia and the USA have a high level political meeting without talking about Lebanon ??? I would be surprised if they talked something else then Lebanon.......
Jumblatt is playing his last card by saying to the americains that Khaddam will give you a better deal in Irak.....but my opinion is that it is too late......

ALL the media keep saying that the lebanese situation is related to the irak and middle east situation....my analysis is the opposite: Irak will not find any solution without compromises from all the parties concerning the lebanese problem.....and the loosers in all that ???? The lebanese , all of them maybe because they let the others solve the inner problems.....but one thing is sure: if the some lebanese will loose a little , some of them will loose everything they thought they gained by serving tea , crocodile tears , and abusing the blood of martyrs.....

The way I see this meeting is either a final breakdown between US & Iran/syria or a final solution between these entities

[Shah Massoud]

Originally Posted by Chief

The way I see this meeting is either a final breakdown between US & Iran/syria or a final solution between these entities

Ahmadi najad is going tomorow to saudi arabia.... yesterday's hariri conference in bruxell was hilariously funny talking about the goodwill of Iran and Saudis concerning Lebanon (while still few days ago , his barking dogs where still shouting about the bilad faress and hilal shii disaster coming to the region)


the winds are blowing away from the 14marcher boat.... I think they should start swiming

[Dry Ice]

Who's attending this meeting?

[Shah Massoud]

Originally Posted by Dry Ice

Who's attending this meeting?

Iraq , Iran , Saudi Arabia , Syria , USA ( and i guess Turkey)

[Dry Ice]

Originally Posted by Shah Massoud

Iraq , Iran , Saudi Arabia , Syria , USA ( and i guess Turkey)

Thanks, but do you have an idea of the people involved?

[Shah Massoud]

Originally Posted by Dry Ice

Thanks, but do you have an idea of the people involved?

You mean on the political level...? it surely won't be rice , but maybe her secretary for middle east affairs

[Dry Ice]

Decision to join Iraq conference a positive move

The Bush administration's decision to participate in a regional conference on Iraq that could include Iran and Syria is a welcome way to strengthen U.S. diplomacy at a crucial moment in the Middle East. Iraq teeters between civil war and steps toward a political settlement; so do Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority.

Regional talks aren't likely to settle any of these crises, but they are a necessary part of any solutions. By participating and opening the way for conversations with the Syrian and Iranian governments, the administration will extract itself from a diplomatic corner and gain some fresh opportunities.

It's quite possible that neither Syria nor Iran will prove cooperative on Iraq -- Tehran has yet to say whether it will attend the conference -- but there are some positive signs. Iran's hard-line president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has come under attack at home for his confrontational style.

In recent weeks, Ali Larijani, Iran's national security adviser, who reports to supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has been quietly negotiating with senior Saudi officials on Lebanon and Iraq.

Though there have been no breakthroughs, the talks helped to stop street fighting in Lebanon; Iran seems to be interested in heading off a regional conflict between Sunni and Shiite movements. Syria, desperate to end its own isolation, has been advertising its willingness to help calm Iraq and to open peace talks with Israel.

Larijani and other Iranian officials have been hinting that Iran is interested in striking a deal to end its confrontation with the U.N. Security Council over its nuclear program.

It's at least possible that Tehran is looking for a way, without appearing to be capitulating, to accept the U.N. demand that it end uranium enrichment. That's why administration officials were wise not to rule out side talks between U.S. and Iranian officials at the upcoming Baghdad meetings, while sticking to the administration's position that formal negotiations with Iran will depend on an enrichment suspension.

Success with Iran will require a careful mix of diplomacy, economic sanctions and the threat of force. Since the beginning of the year, the United States has strengthened its military position in the Persian Gulf and arrested Iranian agents in Iraq. Now it has matched those necessary measures with a new diplomatic avenue.

What's needed next is a continued show of determination by the U.N. Security Council, whose latest deadline for an Iranian freeze on enrichment expired last week.

Britain and the United States have begun seeking a new resolution strengthening the mostly symbolic sanctions that the Security Council approved in December. Russia and European governments that have been urging more dialogue with Iran have just witnessed a rare show of flexibility by the Bush administration, but the dialogue will lead nowhere unless it is accompanied by continued and escalating pressure from a united Security Council.

Washington Post

[modesty]

<TABLE style="DIRECTION: ltr" width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>
Analysts: US Shows Willingness to Discuss Iraq with Adversaries


</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top>By Gary Thomas
Washington
01 March 2007

VOICE OF AMERICA
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

The announcement that the United States is willing to discuss the Iraq issue with Iran and Syria in a multinational forum came as a surprise. Until now, the Bush administration has steadfastly refused to talk to the two governments about the issue. As VOA correspondent Gary Thomas reports, administration officials insist there is no change in policy, but expert analysts disagree.
Earlier this week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice dropped what many observers considered to be a diplomatic bombshell. She said U.S. officials will discuss the Iraqi situation at an upcoming multilateral conference with, among other countries, Iran and Syria.
White House spokesman Tony Snow insists there is no change in U.S. policy on dialogue with the two countries, pointing out there have been conferences where U.S. diplomats have been in the room with their Iranian and Syrian counterparts.
"I mean, it's just - it's not new," said Mr. Snow. "What's going on here is something that has a long set of precedents. There are multilateral forums where, if the Iranians are there, we're not going to walk out. The Iraqis, we have always said, if they invite us to this regional forum, we will be there. They invited us. We're going to be there."
But at a January 12 Senate hearing, Secretary Rice said that after many years of hostility between Iran and the United States, for the U.S. to engage Iran on the Iraqi issue would indeed mark a policy change.
<TABLE class=APIMAGE style="DIRECTION: ltr" width=210 align=right><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD class=imagecaption></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>"There's a 27-year history of not engaging Iran," she noted. "So this would be a major shift in policy. Of course, we did talk to them about Afghanistan when that made sense."
Larry Goodson, a professor of Middle East studies at the U.S. Army War College, says the change represents the administration's desire to steer events not only in Iraq but in Afghanistan as well.
"This really, as far as I can see, represents a shift in thinking that is going on about what to do about Iran in the wake of what is going to come out of Iraq and, lesser so perhaps, out of Afghanistan," said Mr. Goodson.
Bringing Iran and Syria into a dialogue about Iraq was a key recommendation of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group last year. But the Bush administration rejected that idea, opting instead for an infusion of additional troops into Iraq to try to stabilize the deteriorating security situation.
Ken Katzman, a Middle East analyst for the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, says the shift came because the administration is looking for fallback positions if the troop surge fails.
"I think what is driving this apparent shift is that the options really in Iraq are narrowing," he said. "It looks very clear to many observers that this Baghdad security plan, the troop surge, so to speak, is not going to do what was anticipated. And the administration wants to say, 'no, we're not out of options, we have this diplomatic strategy, we have other options we can pursue, and it's not time to give up on Iraq.'"
Larry Goodson says the troop increase, which he calls "surge light," will not work, and the administration is now casting about for diplomatic options that may have previously been taboo.
"This is us trying to get some nations in the region that a couple of years ago the president and those around him were quite adamant that we just were not going to talk to, they were not going to be dealt with in that way," he added. "Now we're turning to them and trying to get them to assist us, really. I mean, from our point of view, that's the way it has to be seen."
There were in fact earlier feelers about engaging Iran on the Iraq situation. But, say analysts, Iran tried to be bring extraneous issues into the discussion, like the dispute over Iran's nuclear ambitions, so nothing really materialized.
Ken Katzman says Iran will likely try to gain some nuclear concessions in return for its help in Iraq. But, he says, the Bush administration will keep the focus only on Iraq.
"I suspect that in the context of this multilateral conference that Iran is going to try to do something like that again and try to get the U.S. to back off on the nuclear issue in exchange for being helpful at this conference and subsequent conferences on Iraq," he explained. "And I think the administration is not likely to go for that because I think President Bush wants to go out of office saying he did not allow Iran to become a nuclear power."
The conference is scheduled to be held March 10 in Baghdad.

[Observer]

Bush Shows New Willingness to Reverse Course

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 4, 2007; A05



He was against it before he was for it.

The same president who mocked the idea of talking with Iran and Syria as recently as two weeks ago is now sending emissaries to a regional conference to talk with Iran and Syria.

For President Bush, last week's decision was the latest of several reversals on issues on which he once refused to budge. Since Democrats captured Congress, Bush has fired Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, authorized direct talks with North Korea, sent more troops to Iraq, agreed to discuss the contours of a Palestinian state in Middle East peace negotiations, and even proposed a tax increase for millions of Americans -- all ideas he rejected earlier.

"It's not really surprising to me that they're beginning to change," said former congressman Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.), co-chairman of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, whose report in December recommended opening talks with Iran and Syria. "The realities of the situation are becoming more apparent to them. . . . Presidents begin to focus very much on their legacy, and he recognizes that insufficient progress has been made on some of these international issues."

Some of Bush's shifts are being welcomed by Democrats and some Republicans, although often with the caveat that, in their view, he has not gone far enough. "Any administration, including this one, has to face reality that changes over time," said former senator Warren B. Rudman (R-N.H.), an ally of the president's father. "They should. Circumstances change. I'd hate to see an administration that was so rigid that it didn't react to that."

But it can be a bitter pill for a politician who got to the nation's highest office by stressing his unwavering fidelity to core principles and painting his opponents -- first Al Gore, then John F. Kerry -- as flip-floppers who changed their minds depending on the political currents. Now, suddenly, it is George W. Bush -- the stubborn, resolute, "never give in" leader -- who finds himself explaining how he can reject a position one moment and embrace it the next.

All politicians flip-flop at times, of course, though few characterize it that way. Governance sometimes requires it and, if skillfully presented, it can be seen as thoughtfulness or growth in office. As Gore and Kerry showed, though, it can be a political killer if it becomes central to one's image. That's why Republican Mitt Romney is struggling to explain his changing positions on abortion and gay rights, while Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton refuses to apologize for her 2002 vote for the Iraq war despite pressure from liberal activists.

In Bush's case, he sometimes acknowledges a shift and attributes it to evolving conditions, such as his decision to increase the number of troops in Iraq after years of insisting he had sent enough to do the job. In other instances, though, the White House denies any change of position at all, offering nuanced arguments for why the latest move is consistent with past statements.

Bush's new health-care plan, for example, would raise taxes on 30 million Americans. The White House says this is not a real tax increase, because the proceeds would finance tax cuts for 100 million other Americans and the overall plan would be revenue-neutral.

Likewise, after the announcement that U.S. envoys will attend an Iraqi-sponsored conference of its neighbors, White House spokesman Tony Snow complained that the move was being portrayed as a policy switch. At a briefing, he read a list of multinational meetings attended by U.S. and Iranian diplomats in the past and chastised reporters for mischaracterizing the situation.

"You guys are getting it wrong, and I don't know how to get you to get it through your heads that it's not new," Snow said. "I mean, it's not new. What's going on here is something that has a long-seated precedence. There are multilateral forums where, if the Iranians are there, we're not going to walk out."

The same list of past meetings, though, has been cited repeatedly by critics in recent months in asking why Bush has refused to talk with Iran and Syria lately. Until last week, the president had said he would not talk with either until Tehran suspended its uranium enrichment, Damascus stopped interfering in Lebanon, and both dropped support for terrorist groups.

He made his attitude abundantly clear at a news conference last month when he mocked those calling for him to negotiate. "This is a world in which people say, 'Meet! Sit down and meet!' " Bush said in a sarcastic tone. "And my answer is: If it yields results, that's what I'm interested in." Just two weeks later, he agreed to sit down and meet in the context of a conference of Iraq's neighbors and major powers -- even though none of his previous conditions has been met.

Conservatives expressed exasperation. "I have never seen an administration with such an enormous gulf between the president's public statements and its actions," said Michael A. Ledeen, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "Presidential statements should reflect policy. They don't seem to in this administration."

Ledeen said Bush should not talk with Iran, given the charges that it is arming Iraqi militants: "They're killing our kids. They're in open warfare against us. So we're going to sit around a conference table with them to talk about the security of Iraq, which they have no interest in?"

Other Bush allies say that the president flip-flopped on North Korea's nuclear program. Whereas he used to reject one-on-one talks with Pyongyang, insisting that negotiations take place in a six-nation forum, he reversed himself and authorized direct talks in Berlin in January, which ultimately led to a breakthrough agreement.

John R. Bolton, Bush's former ambassador to the United Nations, said the Berlin meeting "was clearly a shift" that yielded a deal rewarding North Korea for bad behavior.

Bolton was further disturbed by reports last week about administration officials backing off assertions about North Korea's uranium enrichment. "There's a risk that the administration looks weak through the media spin," Bolton said, "and if the president doesn't like the media spin, he should correct it immediately."

Bush has strategically changed positions in the past when it suited him, perhaps most notably when he embraced the creation of a Department of Homeland Security after initially opposing it. But he has cultivated an image of a leader who rarely veers from course -- to the point of irritating many who wish he would, particularly on Iraq.

That could immunize him now to an extent from charges of flip-flopping. "It actually may be greeted warmly, and you may see his poll numbers tick up," said Scott Reed, who ran Republican Robert J. Dole's 1996 presidential campaign.

More important to Bush, Reed added, is burnishing the record before his term expires:" They're really playing for the history books now."