Iran - Overture, Respect and Pragmatism

The New York Times is not alone in this "analytical," assessment (italics mine):

“Administration officials insisted Wednesday that the new overtures, including an agreement to join Iran and Syria in talks on Iraq, did not mean there had been a change in policy. “There is no crack,” the White House spokesman, Tony Snow, said. “A number of people have been characterizing U.S. participation in a regional meeting as a change in policy; it is nothing of the sort.”

“But foreign policy experts, administration critics on Capitol Hill and former diplomats disagreed, saying the administration appeared to have recognized the extent to which it had tied its own hands by insisting on talking only to friends. Even Ms. Rice had called the opening to Tehran and Damascus a “diplomatic initiative.”’

How “diplomatic.” They are listed as experts, critics and diplomats; is it possible they might all more appropriately be referenced as “critics?” Aren’t many of the players adherents of “realpolitik,” pooh poohers from the get go, that do not think any way other than how it has always been done is apostasy? The “pragmatism,” in the title and their minds is that the practical approach to problems is the only way. They’ve been vindicated for their unbending stance of the past 50 years in only six; not exactly time for truly trying a different approach.

Diplomats have a different definition of “success,” and can be defined through their regular, daily accomplishments.

Experts are considered “experts” in their field, but aren’t “experts,” ever wrong? The “intelligence” prior to 9/11 and the Iraq theater hardly brought to mind the term “expert.” If it was, it was more in disbelief; ‘these are our “experts?”

Administration critics are just that, critics, regardless of whether or not the criticism is warranted? This has been the way of the nation since roughly January 2001.

Obviously people are going to have different points of view. But in this media age, cannot we, the readers hope for something a little different in the way of analysis? The administration has been on an experiment from the beginning; addressing the “enemy” in different terms than we have been used to. You will not be rewarded for making threats, being intransigent, or bullying; we have nothing to say to you in the diplomatese you are familiar with. Unfortunately, those that are well versed in diplomatese were not and are not interested in learning a new language.

What is a carrot to Iran or North Korea? What is a “deal-maker” to them? If the old way of doing things is so “on target,” why are we dealing with situations that had previously been resolved?

Said Daniel P. Serwer:

“The question isn’t whether the axis of evil is dead; it’s alive as it was yesterday,”

And only by doing as we have done previously, can we expect to be able to relax and ignore the problem for another five to ten years. Odd that we're dealing with the problem again, but not to "professionals."

Doing things the same way, yet expecting different results is what many seem to expect of our leadership. Doing things the same way as the “experts,” “critics,” and “diplomats,” and getting the same result is acceptable and the way of the world isn’t any better. But try to teach an old dog a new trick and you’ll see what I mean.

There is pretty much only one tried and true way to reach the right time to speak, but we’re not on our way there as the political will is non-existent. The “intellectual elite,” believes in their own greatness and wisdom and lacks the nerve and interest in even considering this nation and ideals worth defending or surviving.

___________

Key definitions to keep in mind when dealing with negotiations:

Action

Accomplish

Justice

“In Middle East, Third Way is a Myth”

"Critical Phase in Iran Stand-off"

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Trackback for this post: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/6845116710488729819