Burns As Spoiler In Iran Negotiations?

Several bloggers have taken to the meme that Richard Burns is to play the role of spoiler in Europe's negotiations with Iran. I think they are wrong. (Lots of commenters too in this post disagree with my premise that this is a great first step.) The example to point to is what Chris Nelson mentions in regards to our negotiations with North Korea:

Will Burns be allowed to talk directly with the Iranians? Not officially...State and the White House today sounded very much like the restrictions initially put on lead N. Korea negotiator Chris Hill, that he couldn't meet bilaterally with his DPRK counterpart, had to have others in the room when he did, etc.
(There was a press rumor Burns would make a "surprise" follow-on visit to Teheran, but our sources say "highly unlikely at this time.")
But Burns, like Hill, is a pro with the requisite intestinel fortitude, so on balance the decision to allow him to participate within the European delegation...especially when paired with permission for State to establish an "interest section" in the Swiss Embassy in Teheran...is the first serious ray of light to shine on US-Iran dialogue in a long time.

They may be right. But I don't think so and I'd trust Chris Nelson on this any day. There has been a lot of behind the scenes talk going on for quite some time, talks that have flown way under the radar for obvious domestic political reasons. And now, as I commented elsewhere, "we might actually see this as a first, very small, tentative step in the right direction."

Of course there is the blindingly obvious: what's happening now is much, much better than the sabre rattling that was going on this time last year. Was it Churchill who said, "jaw-jaw is better than war-war"?

I would (cynically) note that the oil argument does have some merit and they might just be bying time for a McCain win, but still, these are extremely lengths to go in order to do so.

Comments: 15

Kerrell Goolsby Jul 19, 2008, 12:59am UTC

Burns should listen and not speak, judging from what I read.

reply to this comment

Sean Paul Kelley Jul 19, 2008, 1:18am UTC

Quite right, Kerrell, he should mostly listen to the Iranians and do his best to understand their needs both internationally and domestically. But, at the same time we do have some serious differences with the Iranians and needs of our own that they need to be told about as well. As with all diplomacy, it is about give and take and finally cutting a deal that both parties can live with--mind you, not a perfect deal, life is seldom so cut and dry.

Angel W. Jul 19, 2008, 1:42am UTC

These types of negotiations can take years... and definitely progress in baby steps... but any steps are better than fights... so I find it hopeful... and until the man is there... no one really knows what will be said or done or how to deal with the situation... There comes a time that you give guidelines to a person and let them go... We can always pray for peace.

Angel

Kathryn Flynn Jul 19, 2008, 4:57am UTC

What do you think about Obama landing in Afghanistan? That could be promising. Let's hope.

Your article is Featured in the Triple Name Club.

Sean Paul Kelley Jul 19, 2008, 5:17am UTC

Sadly, I don't think Obama going to Afghanistan is going to make much of a difference. I don't think he'll be able to do much if and when he is president, either. Afghanistan, as I have written elsewhere fell off the map for three or four years and in that time the Taliban regained necessary strength. We had a chance to make a real change in Afghanistan in 2002-2004 but Bush--and the international community with their promises of money but stingy follow through--all but blew it.

Now, in my opinion, it is is just a matter of time before the Taliban wears us down in a war of attrition, because we all know that the US will not attack the safe havens in Pakistan. Pakistan, as we would all be wise to remember is a.) a dictatorship b.) largely a fundamentalist state a la Saudi Arabia c.) has nukes and d.) is extremely unstable. Are we going to do anything to drastically imperil the relative stability in Pakistan now? I seriously doubt it and so we will just continue to bleed men, money and our allies will, once Germans, and Italians and Danes start dying, abandon us. Call it the legacy of Rumsfeld's smarminess towards old Europe.

Ladybounty ~. Jul 19, 2008, 8:56am UTC

I agree that this is a good first step as long as there are additional steps to follow. Talking is better than not in my opinion, Churchill was right on the money!

Alisa Kerwood Jul 19, 2008, 2:48pm UTC

I agree

Sharon B. Jul 19, 2008, 5:52pm UTC

thanks

Sandre M. Jul 20, 2008, 12:39am UTC

Sean-Paul,

I think any forward movement is hopeful at this point although our national reputation for follow-through is not great.

Sandi S. Jul 22, 2008, 12:03pm UTC

Great article. Interesting take on Afghanistan. Why did we not follow through with the money?

Sandi S. Jul 22, 2008, 12:04pm UTC

We seem to throw fistfuls of cash at everything else, why not Afghanistan?

Yum Chum Aug 7, 2008, 12:51pm UTC

Iran is run by fundamentalists. One common threads that run across all fundamentalists and fanatics is that reason does not work with them, if reason would have mattered they would not have been fundamentalists in the first place. Hence, successful culmination of negotiations only happen when both parties can reason. Negotiations and meetings are only a way for Iran to buy time and nothing else. 50 years of negotiation did not solve the Palestinian crisis, it will not change Iran. On another note, though a few days of gulf war did topple Saddam and our marines were able to dismantle the criminals in Afghanistan in a few days as well. No point comparing Iran with North Korea either. Koreans are known to negotiate well but not Arabs.

Burns As Spoiler In Iran Negotiations?

Comments: 15

Join the Conversation