A visit by Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki to Washington, D.C., on the eve of the big talks in Geneva has our antennae twitching.
The State Department says Mottaki was just in town to inspect Iran’s unofficial diplomatic office at the Pakistani Embassy and nothing more (since the severing of diplomatic ties, Iran does not have an embassy in Washington).
Mottaki was apparently not in town for any back channel meetings with U.S. officials in D.C. ahead of talks in Geneva on Thursday between Iran and the United States and other powers.
“I wouldn’t read too much into this … it was a straightforward request and we granted it,” State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said.
Hmmmmm….
It just seems like an incredible coincidence. Why the sudden urge to inspect the office? New furniture? Perhaps some paperwork that needed to be hand-carried?
Mottaki had to get special U.S. permission to come to Washington from the United Nations in New York. And this was the week after Iran was blasted by President Barack Obama for building a second nuclear enrichment site and a day before the Geneva talks.
So it had us wondering why? The U2 concert was last night, the cherry blossoms are long gone, and the shopping is better in New York.
We asked some Washingtonians, who knew as much as we did about the visit, to guess what it might be about and got some creative responses.
The bottom line, one longtime Washington insider says, “If you were intent on having secret talks, the last place you would want to have them would be D.C.”
That doesn’t solve the mystery. What do you think?
Photo Credit: Reuters/Khaled Abdullah Ali Al Mahdi (Iran’s foreign minister Mottaki in Sanaa in June)
Trackback
36 comments so far
Previous | 2 | 1 | Next
even though I’m not a cynical person i have to say i agree with Ali on this.
- Posted by Mr CardWe need new thinking guys, we’re just being reactive, think fresh and think proactively, lead and effect rather than react and be on the defensive.We should learn something from the Bush years.
- Posted by Mr ShopDisplaysPolly.
You seem to misunderstand the concept of nuclear warfare. Half of a nuclear weapon’s use is destruction. The other is deterrance.
Israel has been attacked by the Arab nations several times in the last fifty years. In all those times, it was critical for Israel to finish the wars quickly and with maximum gain.
Now that Israel has a (widely accepted) nuclear capability, the Arab nations can no longer attack conventionally. Because any successful war against Israel would likely end in the limited use of nuclear weapons by Israel on the hostile attackers.
But what happens if Iran gets nuclear weapons? Now the deterrance is lost.
The Arab nations can once again attack Israel. Because if Israel is forced to use nuclear weapons, it knows that Iran will be able to respond. Israel’s nuclear weapons will no longer deter further invasion.
And in fact, the Arab nations could attack Israel whenever they please. And whenever the war goes against them, they wave their nukes around and get an instant ceasefire. And because nobody likes nuclear war, this will always work.
These are the things which you fail to account for, in your analysis of nuclear politics. Iran, however, is fully aware of these things. This is why they seek nuclear weapons. Something even the IAEA is beginning to realise.
And that is why Iran will not be given the opportunity.
- Posted by DefconOf course it would be best for the world if Iran (and other) nations would stop seeking nuclear arms and if those so armed would start destroying their nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, whom exactly would Iran use them on? The Israelis, to help the Palestinians?–a bit of geography training is in order if you think so. Iraq, the next-door neighbor?–well, then duck and cover. The U.S.? Yeah sure. Or slowly Iran will build up into a major power, even under extreme economic sanctions in a world turning fast as possible from oil dependency, with desert areas like much of Iran growing hotter and even drier? Right.
- Posted by PollySydney. Your answers:
1) Hizbullah no longer launches any missiles at Israel. Lebenon ended up being bombed without opposition for the entire conflict. Areas of Lebenon are now occupied by the UN forces. And Hizbulla didn’t lift a finger to help Hamas during the bombing of Gaza. Does that sound like Hizbullah won a war with Israel?
2) Insurgents are simply small groups who dart around, sniping a soldier occasionally. Iran is a nation with vulnerable conventional targets and a conventional army, and can easily be bombed until it is completely defeated.
The bombardment which will happen to Iran if it resists will be much worse then what happened to Iraq (which if you recall had little bombing needed, because the military collapsed almost immediately)
3) If America is simply bombing Iran to bits, they will not need to invade the country. Meaning no actual fighting with the Iranian army, no American casualties and no need for the draft.
Any attempt by Iran to shut off the straits from trade will not succeed for long, especially after their nation is collapsed from bombing. Other oil exporting nations will be happy to see Iran fall, if Iran does such things.
And while Iran can choose to launch missiles at oil facilities and American bases (which means attacking non-participant nations) all it will do is lose whatever little international support it has and retrospectivly justify America’s actions further.
So. Logical or intellectual enough? If you believe there are logical flaws, then point them out. I will be sure to reply.
- Posted by DefconSydney
Israel will not need to attack Iran. America will be more then willing to do so if Iran refuses to play ball.
Now imagine the following. America launches an attack on Iran. Think about what will happen when:
-The top levels of Iranian government.
-The supreme leader.
-Economic targets.
-Power and infrastructure.
-Military bases.
-Nuclear facilities
Are all completely destroyed by a month of missiles and bombs?
How can Iran stop that? How will it’s supposed “massive army” stop this? Are they going to shoot missiles out of the sky? How do you think Iran will supply or even feed it’s army once all this is done?
America will not even need to invade. Why invade a nation that has lost everything of value from bombs?
You think this is a videogame? It is real. Generals study for years learning how to destroy the ability of the enemy to wage war.
Bombing the taliban doesn’t work, because the taliban is unconventional. But Iran is a conventional nation with many valuble targets. American bombing will tear it to pieces in weeks. The nation will fall apart.
I have questions for you, Sydney:
If Hezbulla won the war against Israel,
-Why are there no more rockets coming from lebenon?
-Why did Hezbulla not help Gaza during the last war?
-Why are UN peacekeepers now on land that was formerly held by Hezbulla?
And: If Iran attacks oil facilities and other countries with missiles, how will this stop the falling of American bombs?
- Posted by AnonSidney,Israel showing against hesbullah was hindered by a leader who is now being charged with corruption.Another example of a liberal appeaser who tried to limit the impact of the retaliation hoping it would have gained world wide support,with was a total impossibility.If Israels enemies thought for one minute they could defeat Israel they would attack them tomorrow.Iran have no stomach for a all out war with Israel because they know they would be routed,they prefer to finance small groups of terrorists,that is their token response apart from threats,any direct confrontation is not a reality even if they get the weapons. If Obama keeps up his procrastination then Israel will take out Iraq that is not even a question they have the contingency plans already drawn.The geographical position of Israel because it is near other nations atomic bombing would be difficult,but Iran is isolated and strategic bombing would a lot easier.
- Posted by brian leeI do think Mottaki is here for back-channel talks. With whom? I can only guess it is Hillary, or perhaps Bill Burns, though he has left for Geneva today. The fellow the Iranians sent to Geneva, Jalili, is a hard-line light-weight with little experience and is a lousy negotiator. He is an old friend of Ahmadinejad. Mottaki, on the other hand is the anti-Jalili, experienced, moderate, and a good negotiator. He is an old friend of Ali Larijani, the MP from Qum who is a potential rival to Ahmadinejad. Who would you rather talk to, if you were Obama?
- Posted by Gordon Newwhen is this going to be clear to world these people are american agents and always been meeting always going to protact their interest only one thing is not clear when is their contract expires.
- Posted by tonyas humorous as it is to read some of the comments by these “experts” in these commentaries, i would like to present a series of questions and would love to see if any logical answers can be given?
1.) if Israel can barely handle a small band of street thugs like hezbullah in a tiny country like lebanon, how are they going to handle a nation 10 times bigger with a population 10 times bigger then lebanon with a military 10 times bigger then hezbullah which also happens to be 10 times further then lebanon? and they would this while trying to fly over arab countries who although despise iran, hate israel even more.
2.)just recently our america generals have presented the idea of us loosing in afghanistan, to a group of hoodlums with donkeys, pick up trucks, and 1980 soviet weapons. we are being forced to leave iraq with a pro-iranian government in place. so how exactly do u think we can fight another much bigger and tougher war with a much stronger and bigger opponent?
3.) you can propose to drop all the bombs you want no matter how “precise” or how big you think they are, the only result will lead to attacks on oil facilities and military bases around the region. so are we ready to pay $10 for a gallon of gas especially in this economic climate? and what about the losses our military men and women who are already over worked will face? are we ready to re-instate the draft or sign up for tours??
I look forward to seeing logical and intellectual responses to these questions, however will not have high hopes
- Posted by sidneyIraqi WMD’s were moved to Syria 30-60 days before the US invasion — I thought everybody knew this now …. listen to the once exiled General Sadr - formerly Head of the Iraqi airforce. As for Iran ….. the US needs them for Afghanistan, among other things, they are pretty much a nuclear power and it’s simply a question of continuing the facade until the media and the public lose interest. Iran will have an embassy in Washington. Nothing will be done. The wild card is Israel. They will be left with no choice but to act on their own — and it will be soon.
- Posted by Rick>And even without sanctions, America can easily steamroll Iran if it comes to war. All it needs to do is bomb all of Iran’s government, supreme leader, economic and military targets.
Not necessary. Just sink some crude carriers in the gulf of Hormuz and Iran’s oil export and gas import slide to a halt, and with them the whole economy.
- Posted by RHSIf you push the dog to the end of the robe, it will bit you back…. Iran is no different.
- Posted by keithcarrot and stick are more appropritate.
I think the Foreign Minister is planning to defect !! Sounds credible eh ?
- Posted by mohammed RashidZING!
- Posted by Jack@8:26 am
- Posted by jonathanJust a correction to your note. Actually precision bombing is exceptionally precise and has been used to good effect in Pakistani. It has been little used in Afghanistan as there is little to bomb…the Taliban’s assets are limited to donkeys, toyota pickups, and people; all of which are scattered over a wide area. Afghanistan is an infantry war and bombing there is virtually all of the close air support (CAS) variety to help troops in contact.
Conversely Iran is a (partially) developed country with dense cities, significant infrastructure, an economy built largely around natural resource development (oil et al), a fixed and well-known leadership structure with palaces et al, and strategic targets (the nuclear facilities) that are immobile. Precision bombing could be used very effectively in Iran.
Whether we should or not is a different question of course.