February 25, 2005

Iran Watch

"Q Mr. President, you've talked a lot about Iran in many of your meetings on this trip, and we understand that you did a lot of listening about incentives for Iran, using them as negotiating tools, if you will. And first I'd ask you, why will you not join the EU 3 in direct talks with Iran? And then, what would you approve of as possible incentives? Did you hear anything that you liked?

"PRESIDENT BUSH: I appreciate that. First of all, we talked about Iran here, with our great friend. The reason why we talked about it, because it's a world problem. And one of the things I wanted to make sure I heard clearly from our friends in Europe was whether or not they viewed the Iran problem the same way I did. And they do. Chancellor Schröder and Prime Minister Blair and President Chirac [ed. note: Add Putin too as of today] all said loud and clear that the Iranians should not have a nuclear weapon.

"And secondly, I was listening very carefully to the different ideas on negotiating strategies. We have a common objective, which is to convince the Ayatollahs not to have a nuclear weapon. And I'm going to go back and think about the suggestions I've heard and the ways forward. But the key thing is, is that we're united in our -- in the goal.

"The most effective way to achieve that goal is to have our partners -- Great Britain and France and Germany -- represent not only the EU, not only NATO, but the United States. And hopefully we'll be able to reach a diplomatic solution to this effort. We're more likely to do so when we're all on the same page. And I know we're on the same page on this issue when it comes to a common goal." [emphasis added]

More here.

Is it just me, or is the Iran track almost starting to take on the trappings of the six party North Korean talks? Next thing you'll know there will be talk of whether U.S.-Iranian bilateral break-out sessions should take place apart from the Euro troika! Yes, I jest, but clearly Bush-Rice (even Cheney!) continue to push for a diplomatic outcome. Everyone is either a damn good liar and getting the war plans teed up behind the scenes--or Sy Hersh is full of it. I'm betting on the latter.

Posted by Gregory at February 25, 2005 02:02 AM | TrackBack (3)
is that we're united in our -- in the goal.

Notice how he stumbled in the midst of that sentence. I suspect he wanted to say "in our efforts." but that wording would have been a bit too strong, seeing as how the surrender monkeys, the krauts and the reds have been obstructing this the whole way.

Posted by: Peter Alfredsen at February 25, 2005 10:31 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Well they're probably both true, right? Pushing for a diplomatic solution, but concurrently planning the military solution. Wouldn't the Pentagon be negligent if they didn't? I mean they have plans for defending Canadian invasions and every theoretical situation imaginable, right?

Posted by: TG at February 25, 2005 09:55 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink
Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch
--New York Times
"Must-read list"
--Washington Times
"Pompous Ass"
--an anonymous blogospheric commenter
Recent Entries
English Language Media
Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Non-English Language Press
U.S. Blogs
Think Tanks
Law & Finance
The City
Western Europe
United Kingdom
Central and Eastern Europe
East Asia
South Korea
Middle East
B.D. In the Press
Syndicate this site:


Powered by