by Frank James, with correction
There was a lot of surprise in Washington and beyond when the news broke that U.S. State Department official William Burns will be meeting in Geneva, Switzerland with Iranian officials over the weekend as part of an international group attempting to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear-weapons development efforts.
What raised so many eyebrows was what appeared to be seeming reversal in the Bush Administration's position that it wouldn't engage in direct talks unless the Iranians ceased and desisted in their nuclear enrichment efforts.
It's no reversal, said the White House which insisted that just because a senior State Department official will be in a room with Iranian officials where a lot of talking will be taking place, that's not the same as negotiations.
Here's a lengthy exchange White House Press Secretary Dana Perino had with reporters this afternoon:
Q But you're saying this isn't negotiated? Is this negotiating with the Iranians?
MS. PERINO: Our principle remains the same, and the strategy and the goal remain the same, that they must halt the enrichment of uranium in order for there to be negotiations. And Secretary Rice has long said that that is her position, that if they were to suspend, that Secretary Rice would meet her counterpart anyplace, any time, and start to have negotiations, once it was verified by the IAEA that they had suspended. Nothing has changed in that regard.
Q Well, how can you say nothing has changed if you're sending over Bill Burns to even sit there? I mean, that certainly gives the Iranians --
MS. PERINO: -- different tactic. I said that the substance remains the same, but this is a new tactic. And we believe that -- this follows up on another new tactic that we used with Iran this summer when we sent over the incentives package, which is that Secretary Rice signed the letter, along with the P5-plus-1. The next step is for the political directors, of which Under Secretary Burns is one, representing Secretary Rice, will join in attendance with his partners at this meeting to receive the response from the Iranians.
Q Why is this different from what Senator Obama has suggested, sitting down and negotiating?
MS. PERINO: Well, our condition remains the same that there will not be any negotiation unless they suspend their uranium enrichment.
Q And you just flat out say this is not negotiating, even though there's someone sitting there in the room with the Iranians?
MS. PERINO: The underlying -- absolutely, because he's going there as a part of the international community showing their unity when it comes to the underlying fundamental principle, which is that there will not be any negotiations unless Iran suspends its nuclear -- uranium enrichment.
Q Can you understand why people might look at what's happening now and go back and think about what the President said in the Mideast about those who negotiate with terrorists or talk to terrorists --
MS. PERINO: As I just said --
Q -- as an appeaser?
MS. PERINO: As I said, there is no negotiation here. We are going there. Under Secretary Burns will be there as a part of the international community showing our unison that we are going to provide two paths for the Iranians from which to choose -- one, that they could accept the incentives package, and then if it's verified that they have halted their uranium enrichment, then there will be negotiations. And that's what I would seek to explain to the American people.
Q Just one last one -- I won't hog it here -- but you don't see that for the Iranian regime, this has got to be a pretty big deal, finally getting someone from the U.S. even sitting down there.
MS. PERINO: I think it shows the seriousness from which we've been trying to tell all of you for many months, which is that we want to solve this issue diplomatically. We seek to do so. We are going to continue to work with our international partners in unison, which is what we are going to do on Saturday. But the fundamental, underlying principle is that there will not be any negotiations unless Iran suspends its enrichment of uranium.
At the State Department, a reporter asked what would happen if an Iranian offiical tries to get Burns off to the side to talk about the real nitty gritty.
Q What happens if the -- if Jalili tries to engage Ambassador Burns in some kind of a negotiation or drag -- take him off to the side and have some kind of a private meeting? Is he under instruction that he cannot do so?
MR. MCCORMACK: There aren't going to be any one-on-one meetings.
Look, I'm sure that Ambassador Burns will be polite, as we have been in other encounters with Iranian diplomats in a variety of different venues when we have encountered them.
And just as an aside, you know, the instructions to U.S. diplomats, if you do find yourself in a position of encountering an Iranian diplomat, is that you are to be polite but not engage in any substantive discussion. And that, I assume, will be Bill's instructions here.
And I'm sure -- you know, look, Bill Burns is an -- one of our most experienced diplomats. And I'm sure that should the event occur that you have described, where, you know, Mr. Jalili tries to engage him, I think Bill will make a strong point of highlighting to him: Mr. Jalili, if you want negotiations, you know what to do. You can advise your government to suspend its enrichment-related activities. Then you'll see the secretary of State at the table, along with other ministers from the P-5 plus one.
But you know, again, Bill is an experienced diplomat, and I'm confident he'll be able to handle (himself) --
So this is basically just a get together more, for the nations that have been leading the effort to pressure Iran to show a united front, nothing more, according to Bush Administration officials.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This posting was corrected because it previously said the meeting was taking place in Tehran, Iran. How stupid was that? It's highly unlikely a senior State Department official would go to Iran given the current state of relations between the U.S. and Iran and the still strong memories of the hostage crisis of nearly 30 years ago. Sorry for the mistake.
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
I guess that photo-shopped missle test really got to old Georgie.
I am embarassed of our current administration.
Posted by: Susan | July 16, 2008 5:36 PM
"SUPREME ALLIED NATO COMMANDER SPEAKS"
THANK YOU BARRACK OBAMA! THE TROOPS THANK YOU. THE BRITISH THANK YOU. THE FRENCH THANK YOU. ALL OF NATO THANKS YOU.
FINALLY A "COMMANDER AND CHIEF" WANNABEE THAT HAS A CLUE!
FINALLY A "COMMANDER AND CHIEF" THAT HAS A "MISSION" FOR THE "MISSION"
FINALLY A "COMMANDER AND CHIEF" THAT READ THE "CONSTITUTION"
FINALLY A COMMANDER AND CHIEF THAT "READ THE GENEVA" CONVENTIONS
FINALLY A COMMANDER AND CHIEF THAT "HAS THE SECURITY OF THE NATION" AT HAND!
FINALLY, FINALLY, FINALLY, FINALLY, A COMMANDER AND CHIEF THAT UNDERSTAND THE OATH OF THE OFFICE, EVEN IF HE IS NOT IN THE OFFICE!
WHAT A MILITARY CONCEPT!
Posted by: Roger Morris | July 16, 2008 5:44 PM
So basically they are doing exactly what Obama suggested they do, which Bush and McCain were totally against a couple months ago. Gotta love it. Obama 08
Posted by: Jimi | July 16, 2008 5:54 PM
Looks like the reporters are fronting for Obama again, trying to credit him in some way with a low level State Department discussion. I really think Obama can handle his own campaign without the media speaking on his behalf. And in case anyone forgot, George Bush is the CIC, and Obama has not even won the nomination yet...and may not if the super delegates decide he's a drag on the entire ticket.
Posted by: Daryl | July 16, 2008 5:59 PM
Appeasers! How can these Democrats talk to a hateful Islamic Dictatorship that want's to obliterate Israel? Who's side are they on? How naive. We should bomb them, not talk to them!
What's that you say? They were Republicans?...Oh, ahh......What patriots! Brilliant! I'm all for Diplomacy.
Posted by: Typical Republican | July 16, 2008 6:02 PM
Givethe man his due - Obama was the only candidate who spoke of discussions with no pre-conditions with Iran. Maybe, his foreign policy instincts and his understanding of the human condition are more relevant than those so-called experienced politicians. Maybe the writing on the wall is finally being read by this foggy on foreign policy administration.
Posted by: the truth | July 16, 2008 6:27 PM
This is just cover for Bush's inevitable Iran invasion.
This way Bush can say "see, we TRIED negotiatin', even sent William Burnsy to do the talkin' fer us, nyuk nyuk."
Then the tanks roll in, more chaos ensues, the situation gets out of hand, and it all ends with our military high-tailing it back to Kuwait.
This situation is win/win, as far as the neocon warmongers (Bush, Cheney, McCain) on the right are concerned. Since Obama is in the lead, starting yet another war will allow the media to flog the old "Dems weak on defense/McCain the war hero" memes, and when Barack wins he'll be stuck with another in a long line of BushCo mess's to clean up after.
If the Neocons and their pals in Israel screw around and start another war (Iran) you can expect your gas prices to at least double, you can also say hello to $10.00 per gallon gas brought to you by the GOP warmongers.
Posted by: John E | July 16, 2008 6:53 PM
Some times you get more done by keep your mouth closed and your ears opened.
VJ Machiavelli
http://www.vjmachiavelli.blogspot.com
Posted by: VJ Machiavelli | July 17, 2008 1:42 AM
Now, I am confused! When Obama suggested meetings, Dubya and Company called it appeasing the enemy. So what does Dubya call this?
Posted by: Janstress | July 17, 2008 9:10 AM
It was my understanding that Iran requested that the U.S. be there. We are sending a surrogate.
I think that Iran is asking for a connection at this point because it scared them pretty good to find out we had plants in their country, able to tell them that the number of missiles they claimed to shoot off were NOT accurate, and them we told them exactly how many we saw go off ha.
Posted by: Teresa | July 17, 2008 9:48 AM
Keep your friends close and your enemies closer...
Posted by: lochnessmonster | July 17, 2008 12:30 PM
What the hell dubbya! 188 more days till Obama is sworn in as the 44th president of this great Republic! Yobama!!! whiteagle38
Posted by: Whiteagle38 | July 17, 2008 10:10 PM