USA to open office in Terhan, Iran

[Thunder]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080716/pl_nm/iran_usa_presence_dc;_ylt=AmmOe443_F51Pv22XmKuGBdZ .3QA


You know what this means? Israel better attack soon. The last thing they want is to accidentally kill American diplomats when they bomb Iran.

[Ziggurat]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080716/pl_nm/iran_usa_presence_dc;_ylt=AmmOe443_F51Pv22XmKuGBdZ .3QA


You know what this means? Israel better attack soon. The last thing they want is to accidentally kill American diplomats when they bomb Iran.

Why? Because you think Israel would carpet-bomb Tehran? Or perhaps you think that we would station our diplomats right next to their nuclear facilities.

You're sadly predictable, parky.

[Beerina]

You know what this means? Israel better attack soon. The last thing they want is to accidentally kill American diplomats when they bomb Iran.

Which do you prefer?


USA to open office in Tehran, Iran
USA to open office in Tehran, Iran, "if you know what I mean..."

[King of the Americas]

What does this mean for the "We will NOT meet with Iranians, unconditionally", argument?

[Ziggurat]

What does this mean for the "We will NOT meet with Iranians, unconditionally", argument?

Do you have a source for that quote? Or are you paraphrasing? Because the Bush administration, and every administration previous to it, has always had contact with the Iranians. What they have not had is top-level contacts: no meetings between our president and theirs, for example. This move means increased contact, but it does not mean top-level contacts, and I think that's the only sort of contact the administration has ever refused.

[King of the Americas]

Do you have a source for that quote? Or are you paraphrasing? Because the Bush administration, and every administration previous to it, has always had contact with the Iranians. What they have not had is top-level contacts: no meetings between our president and theirs, for example. This move means increased contact, but it does not mean top-level contacts, and I think that's the only sort of contact the administration has ever refused.

Admittedly, I was paraphrasing.

But the talk radio right, was constantly bashing Obama for his 'more diplomacy without conditions' stance. And now we are going to send in more diplomats? Where is the outrage from the right now?

From where I sit, it was as though the right didn't want ANY public contact between us and them, UNLESS Iran back off of some of its hardline stances.

[Darth Rotor]

Do you have a source for that quote? Or are you paraphrasing? Because the Bush administration, and every administration previous to it, has always had contact with the Iranians. What they have not had is top-level contacts: no meetings between our president and theirs, for example. This move means increased contact, but it does not mean top-level contacts, and I think that's the only sort of contact the administration has ever refused.
For some people, unless the show goes on the TV, nothing happens.

Ya see, those submarines aren't really at sea, carrying SLBM's, because they didn't see it on the news on TV. Also, Armstrong didn't really land on the moon . . . :rolleyes:

[Ziggurat]

But the talk radio right, was constantly bashing Obama for his 'more diplomacy without conditions' stance.

Obama said that he would be willing to meet with Ahmadinejad. That is ideed a different course of action than the administration is engaged in, and represents more than simply "more diplomacy". Whether or not you think that's the right thing to do, it very much is different (which is why Obama said it: he wanted to distinguish his position from Bush's), and there's no hipocricy at all in criticising Obama's position but not the current administration.

From where I sit, it was as though the right didn't want ANY public contact between us and them, UNLESS Iran back off of some of its hardline stances.

Perhaps some on the right want that, but it's certainly not universal, and it's delusional anyways given that we've always had contacts with them. We kind of have to, since we host the UN and they're a member state.

[King of the Americas]

Obama said that he would be willing to meet with Ahmadinejad. That is ideed a different course of action than the administration is engaged in, and represents more than simply "more diplomacy". Whether or not you think that's the right thing to do, it very much is different (which is why Obama said it: he wanted to distinguish his position from Bush's), and there's no hipocricy at all in criticising Obama's position but not the current administration.



Perhaps some on the right want that, but it's certainly not universal, and it's delusional anyways given that we've always had contacts with them. We kind of have to, since we host the UN and they're a member state.

Well Dana Perino was VERY careful to say that there were NO NEGOTIATIONS going on between us and Iran.

So the 'contact' between us and Iran is or has been very limited.

When did Obama say, "I'd meet with Ahmadinejad."?

I recall him saying only that we NEED to be more diplomatic with all nations, including ones on that Axis of Evil list, which really pissed of a lot of talk radio hosts and the President himself.

[Ziggurat]

When did Obama say, "I'd meet with Ahmadinejad."?

During the democratic primary debates in answer to a direct question on the topic. To be a little more precise, he did not name Ahmadinejad: the question regarded "the leaders" of various countries including Iran (which would at present include Ahmadinejad). The question also specified "without preconditions", and Obama said he would.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSFSUbMWenU

[egslim]

I recall him saying only that we NEED to be more diplomatic with all nations, including ones on that Axis of Evil list, which really pissed of a lot of talk radio hosts and the President himself.
To quote Otto von Bismarck:
Be polite; write diplomatically; even in a declaration of war one observes the rules of politeness.” (http://thinkexist.com/quotes/otto_von_bismarck/2.html)
And Bismarck was a more effective hawk than anyone in the current US administration, who seem to prefer unproductive insults.

[Thunder]

Why? Because you think Israel would carpet-bomb Tehran? Or perhaps you think that we would station our diplomats right next to their nuclear facilities.

You're sadly predictable, parky.

try learning to attack the message..and not the messenger...sometime.

[Ziggurat]

try learning to attack the message..and not the messenger...sometime.

I also attacked the message, and you noticeably have no response. Which suggests to me that my criticism of you was not misplaced. So do you expect Israel to carpet bomb Tehran?

[King of the Americas]

During the democratic primary debates in answer to a direct question on the topic. To be a little more precise, he did not name Ahmadinejad: the question regarded "the leaders" of various countries including Iran (which would at present include Ahmadinejad). The question also specified "without preconditions", and Obama said he would.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSFSUbMWenU

Alright, so my next question is, "What 'pre-conditions' has Iran met, to result in sending these diplomats into Iran?"

[WildCat]

Alright, so my next question is, "What 'pre-conditions' has Iran met, to result in sending these diplomats into Iran?"
When has anyone claimed that Iran would need to meet any conditions for low-level diplomatic contacts? We've always had such contacts with them.

[corplinx]

Does this mean the US isn't about the invade Iran after all? Like I've been telling some of the kooks and wingnuts for months here?

[Ziggurat]

Alright, so my next question is, "What 'pre-conditions' has Iran met, to result in sending these diplomats into Iran?"

None. But seeing as how this does not represent high-level contacts, it's also not what Obama said he'd be willing to do. He said he would be willing to meet with the leaders of Iran without precondition, not simply that someone in the government would. Did you miss that distinction? Because it sure looks like it.

[Gurdur]

Alright, so my next question is, "What 'pre-conditions' has Iran met, to result in sending these diplomats into Iran?"


Being a sovereign country. Welcome to the big wide world of rationality.

[King of the Americas]

None. But seeing as how this does not represent high-level contacts, it's also not what Obama said he'd be willing to do. He said he would be willing to meet with the leaders of Iran without precondition, not simply that someone in the government would. Did you miss that distinction? Because it sure looks like it.


No I got that, my point was that this action is a 'change' from the status quo. We have not had official diplomates station IN Iran for decades.

So what did Iran do, or stop doing, to deserve this 'change' in our diplomatic policy toward them?

[King of the Americas]

Being a sovereign country. Welcome to the big wide world of rationality.

Pardon me, but we don't have diplomates in ever sovereign country...

[WildCat]

No I got that, my point was that this action is a 'change' from the status quo. We have not had official diplomates station IN Iran for decades.

So what did Iran do, or stop doing, to deserve this 'change' in our diplomatic policy toward them?
Maybe they promised not to overun the place and hold everyone hostage for a year and a half...

[King of the Americas]

Maybe they promised not to overun the place and hold everyone hostage for a year and a half...

DID they...?

If they made NO such promise, then why should we have changed our policy?

Moreover, isn't doing so without such assurances from Iran, putting these diplomates in danger?

[WildCat]

DID they...?

If they made NO such promise, then why should we have changed our policy?

Moreover, isn't doing so without such assurances from Iran, putting these diplomates in danger?
This passage from the Guardian article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/18/iran.usforeignpolicy2) is enlightening:
The US has to decide where to house the interests section. Having an independent office is problematic: the British embassy, established 10 years ago in central Tehran, is frequently a target for demonstrations, stone throwing and even gun-shots. US diplomats could operate out of the Swiss embassy, which looks after US interests at present, but the Swiss might not welcome the prospect of becoming a target.
Basically, this may amount only to the diplomats operating through the Swiss embassy formally being named an office. It's not really a startling new development, just another incremental step.

[King of the Americas]

This passage from the Guardian article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/18/iran.usforeignpolicy2) is enlightening:

Basically, this may amount only to the diplomats operating through the Swiss embassy formally being named an office. It's not really a startling new development, just another incremental step.

I don't think you answered my question...

What assurances do we have that these diplomates, wherever they are stationed/officed within Iran, won't be taken hostage and held as prisoners???

Did Iran 'promise' not to do so?

Dana Perino has said there have been and will be NO negotiations with Iran.

So isn't putting U.S. diplomates into Tehran "dangerous"?

[Ziggurat]

What assurances do we have that these diplomates, wherever they are stationed/officed within Iran, won't be taken hostage and held as prisoners???

Did Iran 'promise' not to do so?

Strictly speaking, "Iran" didn't take our embassy staff hostage in '79. Rather a (non-government but also Islamist) faction within Iran did. If hostages were taken in the future, it would likely be under a similar scenario. The government of Iran itself has good reason not to do anything of the sort - it's exactly the kind of causus belli that could invite large-scale military action against the mullahs. I think it's a pretty good bet that they do not expect a Carter-like response from Bush.

[King of the Americas]

Strictly speaking, "Iran" didn't take our embassy staff hostage in '79. Rather a (non-government but also Islamist) faction within Iran did. If hostages were taken in the future, it would likely be under a similar scenario. The government of Iran itself has good reason not to do anything of the sort - it's exactly the kind of causus belli that could invite large-scale military action against the mullahs. I think it's a pretty good bet that they do not expect a Carter-like response from Bush.


Thank you for the clarification. And indeed I seriously doubt, that President bush would take a 'wait and see' approach to ANY hostile action taken by ANY Iranian.

That said, I don't see Iran rolling out the red carpet, and making assurances as to their safety, to 'welcome' U.S. diplomates back into Iran.

[WildCat]

That said, I don't see Iran rolling out the red carpet, and making assurances as to their safety, to 'welcome' U.S. diplomates back into Iran.
Iran has nothing to gain by allowing a repeat of the '79 hostage taking, and everything to lose. They're not going to let that happen when they're trying to convince the gullible that they're a peaceful country that would never, ever try to develop a nuclear weapon.

[King of the Americas]

Iran has nothing to gain by allowing a repeat of the '79 hostage taking, and everything to lose. They're not going to let that happen when they're trying to convince the gullible that they're a peaceful country that would never, ever try to develop a nuclear weapon.

I REPEAT:

"...I don't see Iran rolling out the red carpet, and making assurances as to their safety, to 'welcome' U.S. diplomates back into Iran."

To date, I have heard of NO REACTION(S) from Iran upon this story. Do you have a link to something I haven't seen perhaps?

[Ziggurat]

That said, I don't see Iran rolling out the red carpet, and making assurances as to their safety, to 'welcome' U.S. diplomates back into Iran.

They will likely not go out of their way to make us feel welcome, but there's a very good chance that they will try to ensure safety for US diplomats (precisely because they want to avoid a repeat of 79). But any security arrangements will not be publicized for the rather obvious reason that detailing security makes it easier to compromise.