Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificually induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear.
General Douglas MacArthur
Original Blog US Casualties Contact Donate

March 1, 2007

Bush Backing Into Baker-Hamilton After All?

by Jim Lobe

Two weeks after making major concessions for a nuclear accord with North Korea, the administration of President George W. Bush said Tuesday it was prepared to sit down with Iran and Syria as part of a regional conference to stabilize Iraq.

In testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, widely considered the leader of the "realist" faction within the administration, announced that Washington will join a "neighbors’ meeting," convened by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and scheduled for the first half of March, to be followed by ministerial talks one month later which she would attend.

"I would note that the Iraqi government has invited all of its neighbors, including Syria and Iran, to attend both of these regional meetings,’’ she said. "We hope that all governments will seize this opportunity to improve (their) relations with Iraq and to work for peace and stability in the region."

She also described the proposed regional talks that would explicitly embrace Iran and Syria as consistent with a key recommendation last December of the Iraq Study Group (ISG), a bipartisan task force co-chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton, that had previously been all but rejected by Bush.

"This is one of the key findings, of course, of the ISG, and it is an important dimension that many in the Senate and in the Congress have brought to our attention, and I've had very fruitful discussions about how to do this," said Rice, who referred to the Iraqi initiative as a "new diplomatic offensive," a phrase lifted directly from the report.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormick later stressed that the proposed talks would be confined to Iraqi security, reconstruction, and national reconciliation, although he did not rule out bilateral talks on other issues. At the same time, he insisted that direct talks with Iran on its nuclear program remained conditional on Tehran’s suspending its uranium enrichment.

But both sets of talks, according to Rice, will also include members of the UN Security Council Permanent Five (P-5), which are currently engaged in discussions over possible sanctions against Tehran for rejecting their demand that enrichment be suspended, and possibly members of the Group of Eight. That would set up at least the theoretical possibility of Rice and her counterparts from Russia, China, Britain, France, and Germany – all of which have long urged Washington to sit down with Iran – from holding informal discussions on nuclear issues with Tehran’s representatives in April.

Tuesday’s statements came amid growing public and Congressional concern about the administration’s intentions toward Iran, particularly in light of its recent deployment of two aircraft carrier groups to the Gulf and charges by Bush and other senior officials that Tehran is secretly providing deadly explosive devices to its allies in Iraq that have allegedly killed some 170 U.S. soldiers there since 2004.

A number of analysts, including some retired military and intelligence officers, have told reporters they believe the administration may be trying to provoke an incident that would provide a pretext for Washington to launch attacks on Iran’s suspected nuclear sites and other targets as early as next month as a way of both setting back Tehran’s nuclear program and limiting its ability to retaliate against the U.S. or its regional allies.

Such speculation has been vigorously denied by senior officials, particularly Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, even while Vice-President Dick Cheney and other hawks have continued to insist that "all options are on the table" in dealing with Tehran’s nuclear program or its alleged support for anti-U.S. Shi’ite militias in Iraq.

At the same time, Democrats – including leading presidential candidates, such as Senators Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joseph Biden – as well as some influential Republicans such as Senators John Warner and Chuck Hagel, have been pressing hard on the administration to embrace the ISG recommendation for direct talks with Iran and Syria to help stabilize Iraq and thus permit Washington to begin extracting its troops from what most analysts and an ever-larger majority of the public has come to see as a quagmire.

Any diplomatic engagement with Iran, however, has been strongly opposed by administration hawks, particularly in Cheney’s office and the National Security Council, as well as their mainly neoconservative supporters outside the government who led a carefully orchestrated effort to discredit the ISG even before it released its recommendations in early December.

But the hawks suffered a major defeat over the past month when, at Rice’s behest, Bush authorized direct bilateral talks between the U.S. and North Korea for the first time and then signed off on a multilateral accord whereby Pyongyang agreed to shut down its main nuclear facility and permit the return of inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in exchange for economic aid, the lifting of some financial sanctions, and the launch of a process that, if completed, would lead to U.S. diplomatic recognition – effectively giving up on a "regime-change" strategy urged by the hawks.

They have since complained that Rice short-circuited the normal policy-making process by going directly to Bush to gain approval of the North Korea initiative without any major inter-agency review that would have given them an opportunity to modify or shoot down the deal.

The question now is whether Rice’s ostentatious endorsement of the ISG’s call for engaging Iran – even if it is nominally at the Iraqi government’s initiative and within the narrow framework of Iraq’s security – marks a similar strategic shift that could reverse the recent trajectory toward confrontation with Tehran, or whether it represents a mere tactical maneuver designed to soothe an increasingly anxious Congress and pre-empt any move on its part to rein in the administration.

On this question, some critics were cautiously optimistic Tuesday, with Hagel calling the proposed meetings "an important first step" and Biden expressing the hope that "clearer heads in the administration are beginning to prevail."

More skeptically, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid also described the announcement as "a first step, but …not enough on its own. Our national security requires a robust diplomatic effort in the Middle East, and the Bush administration cannot again settle for mere half measures," he said.

Noting recent changes in key policy-making positions that have favored "realists" over administration hawks, as well as strong indications that the military brass is "very, very, very opposed …to picking a fight with Iran," one acute observer of U.S. policy suggested that Tuesday’s statements could indeed signal a strategic shift.

"Since President Bush has shown the ability to change his mind, if not his heart, on North Korea," noted Chris Nelson, publisher and editor of insider newsletter The Nelson Report, Tuesday night, "one must ask if Rice’s announcement today shows that the President realizes...at a minimum...that if he has a chance to resolve Iraq, it cannot come while pursuing a crisis with Iran. One crisis at a time, in other words.’’

(Inter Press Service)

comments on this article?

  • US Jews Open to Palestinian Unity Govt

  • Bipartisan Experts Urge 'Partnership' With Russia

  • Obama Administration Insists It's Neutral in Salvador Poll

  • NGOs Hail Congressional Moves to Ease Embargo

  • Call to 'Resist and Deter' Nuclear Iran Gains Key Support

  • Washington Ends Diplomatic Embargo of Syria

  • Diplomatic, Aid Spending Set to Rise Under Obama Budget

  • Many Muslims Reject Terror Tactics, Back Some Goals

  • Lugar Report Calls for New Cuba Policy

  • U.S.-Israel Storm Clouds Ahead?

  • Calls Mount for Obama to Appoint 'Truth Commission'

  • Washington's Praise of Venezuelan Vote Suggests Détente

  • Rightward Shift in Israeli Polls Creates New Headaches

  • US Advised to Back Somalia Reconciliation Efforts

  • Hawks Urge Boosting Military Spending

  • More Troops, More Worries,
    Less Consensus on Afghanistan

  • Report: Most Citizens Kept in Dark on Govt Spending

  • Obama Raises Hopes of
    Mideast Experts

  • Obama Picks Israel-Arab, Afghanistan-Pakistan Negotiators

  • Rights Groups Applaud Move to Halt Gitmo Trials

  • Obama Offers Internationalist Vision

  • Around the World, High Hopes for Obama

  • Liberals, Realists Set to Clash in Obama Administration

  • Obama Urged to Take Bold Steps Toward Cuba Normalization

  • Clinton Stresses 'Cooperative Engagement,' 'Smart Power'

  • Bush Foreign Policy Legacy Widely Seen as Disastrous

  • Networks' Int'l News Coverage at Record Low in 2008

  • Amnesty Calls on Rice to Drop 'Lopsided' Gaza Stance

  • Israeli Attack May Complicate Obama's Plans

  • Report: Recognizing Hamas Could Help Peace

  • Business Groups Support Dismantling Cuba Embargo

  • Mumbai Massacre Seen as Major Blow to Regional Strategy

  • Obama Urged to Quickly Engage Iran, Syria

  • Diplomacy, Multilateralism Stressed by Obama Team

  • Obama Foreign Policy: Realists to Reign?

  • Hemispheric Group Calls for Major Changes in Americas Policy

  • Greybeards Urge Overhaul of Global Governance

  • Intelligence Analysts See Multi-Polar, Risky World By 2025

  • Obama Urged to Strengthen Ties with UN

  • Obama-Tied Think-Tank Calls for Pakistan Shift

  • Obama Advised to Forgo More Threats to Iran

  • First, Close Gitmo,
    Say Rights Groups

  • Obama's Foreign Policy:
    No Sharp Break From Bush

  • Coca Cultivation Up Despite Six Years of Plan Colombia

  • Obama to Seek Global Re-engagement, But How Much?

  • Two, Three, Many Grand Bargains?

  • Moving Towards a 'Grand Bargain' in Afghanistan

  • Top Ex-Diplomats Slam 'Militarization' of Foreign Policy

  • Bush Set to Go With a Whimper, Not a Bang

  • Pakistan 'Greatest Single Challenge' to Next President

  • Senate Passes Nuke Deal Over Escalation Fears

  • Brief Talks With Syria Spur Speculation

  • Iran Resolution Shelved in Rare Defeat for AIPAC

  • Bipartisan Group Urges Deeper Diplomacy with Muslim World

  • White House Still Cautious on Georgia
  • More Archives

    Jim Lobe, works as Inter Press Service's correspondent in the Washington, D.C., bureau. He has followed the ups and downs of neo-conservatives since well before their rise in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks.

    Reproduction of material from any original Antiwar.com pages
    without written permission is strictly prohibited.
    Copyright 2017 Antiwar.com