Why is Bush suddenly opening "face to face" dialogue with Iran?

After 30 years or so, now he is ready? I have a theory why this is being done... When these "face to face" talks occure, it will give Bush a reason to tell the American people "See, we tried but they wouldn't go along with our program, so now we have to bomb the craip out of them".





Expect for US, Russia, and China to battle for Iranian oil.. Sure hope I am wrong.

Why is Bush suddenly opening "face to face" dialogue with Iran?
God - I hope you're wrong too.





This Administration is the scariest thing I've ever witnessed in politics!
Reply:The same reason we are arming Sunnis in Iraq....desperate measures to try and revive a failed policy
Reply:He meant to say "two-faced"
Reply:In 1951, Mohammad Mossadegh became Iran’s democratically elected prime minister. To alleviate the abject poverty of many of his people, he quickly moved to nationalize the oil industry to utilize the profits to benefit Iranians. The British, who had significant oil interests in Iran, raised serious objections to Mossadegh’s actions despite the obscene oil profits they had made over the years in Iran, his offer to compensate them for the oil infrastructure they had built, and the British government’s recent nationalization of its own coal and steel industries.





While the existence of the Soviet Union as a rival world power precluded the use of direct military intervention by the United States, John Foster Dulles contrived a plan to crush the Socialist “ambitions” of Mossadegh. Disseminating propaganda through America’s mainstream media (including the New York Times and Time Magazine) which portrayed Mossadegh as a Communist while simultaneously utilizing the CIA to create a subversive environment in Iran, the United States succeeded in toppling Mossadegh and replacing him with the Shah of Iran. Representing US and Western business interests with great enthusiasm until he was deposed by radical Islamic elements in 1979, the Shah ruled Iran autocratically. SAVAK, his intelligence agency, tortured and murdered thousands of Iranian dissidents.





Like Hugo Chavez is in Venezuela, Mossadegh was anathema to American Capitalism. Leaders of developing countries who threaten the flow of capital to the Empire by diverting it to their own people quickly become enemies of the United States. The irony is that the replacement rulers America installs to preserve its economic interests are almost always corrupt and murderous dictators who foster deep hatred of the United States. Ultimately, Washington finds itself grappling with reactionary regimes which are overtly hostile to the United States, like the current leadership in Iran.
Reply:there are several factors to consider. bush is being forced to reflect on his legacy. the public is, despite which side of the fence you're on, growing impatient and becoming more disaffected with his policies, at home and abroad. DIPLOMACY is one avenue open to the president. it shows america and the world that he is interested in talks--whether they take place or not, his legacy will reflect that an offer was tabled. whatever happens with Iran in the future will be left to the next president. we are not in a position to do more at this time. the three evil empires, as pointed out by bush in his very first presidential address, were Iraq, Iran and N. Korea. he has consistently put off any contextual measures that would address the other two. his plan is clear--especially considering the quagmire in iraq--to stall, to feign meaningful dialogue, and when necessary, issue confounding statements that are never clarified. the plan at this point is to keep people believing that we have an interest in Iran, while doing everything possible to avoid concrete decisions. it's a policy that saves part of the president's legacy, while at the same time leaving real decisions for the next administration--and it does nothing to preserve world order.





understanding the Persians is key here:


reflect upon how angry democrats and republicans get at each other, and we have the same news sources in this country. try to understand the average Iranian on the street. where do they turn for news? what do you suppose are their conversations between friends, loved ones, local bureaucrats? I'm sure that they are not greeting the subject of talks with our president as readily as we are.





Diplomacy is our best option. but in the hands of a president who has invaded a neighboring country, and who has criticized and villified the nation of Iran, diplomacy is almost assuredly out of the question for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Reply:They're on the verge of both nuclear weapons capabilities and full out civil war. The people of Iran want change and the rest of the world want change in Iran. If ever there was a better time to pressure the government it's now.





Instead of militarily striking which could be backed by the Iranian people, or unite them to fight against us. Talk is the better option right now.
Reply:Huh-nyuk, huh-nyuk! Dubya's Okee Dokee wit may y'all.
Reply:cause he want that dude in Iran to beat you up
Reply:The reason is simple. Bush has to do face to face talks because he's pissed off every nation who could have acted as a go between.





He's only talking at all, because there aren't enough uncommitted troops left to pull off more than a panty raid, much less an invasion.
Reply:This will be our second meeting in a little over a month. What are you talking about?
Reply:He will say he tried talks, they failed so he had to attack.
Reply:Jesus, give the man a break. Before liberals were crying that "Bush wont talk to Iran". We broke diplomatic relations with Iran when Carter let them take our citizens hostage.





Now hes willing to talk and try diplomacy and you flag burners still cry about it. Ridiculous....





Your words speak for themselves genius. Your "theory" is comical. My 5 yr old could have been more creative....





Last book I read was about you. "Liberalism is a Mental disease". Michael Savage