AP Reports Calling Bluff as U.S. Concession
More and more I have to wonder if the AP's problem isn't partisanship so much as that its reporters have, er, special needs?
Case in point: Today, the AP trumpets the headline, "U.S. says it's prepared to talk to Iran." Which is true except that it's not true. What the U.S. has done is to put the ball back in Iran's court:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said at the State Department that the United States will come to the negotiating table as soon as Iran fully and verifiably suspends its enrichment and reprocessing activities. She said the United States was taking the move to underscore its commitment to a diplomatic solution and to enhance prospects for success.
Translation: The U.S. will talk just as soon as Iran has made the major concession of verifiably freezing its nuclear weapons program. In making this statement, the U.S. is letting the world know that it refuses to be portrayed as the bad actor in this dance.
The press, however, is stuck on stupid:
Asked at a news conference whether the United States would be willing to re-establish diplomatic relations with Iran, Rice ruled out a "grand bargain" and cited major disagreements between the two countries on many issues. However, Rice said a negotiated solution to the nuclear dispute could "begin to change the relationship."
Why would a reporter even bother to ask such a ridiculous question, unless all that reporter wanted was to (a) hear herself talk; or (b) drum up a lead that reads, "U.S. say 'no' to re-establishing Iran diplomatic ties"? Could there be any other point?
The slightly more revealing quote in the article is from President Bush:
"Our message to the Iranians is that one, you won't have a weapon, and two, that you must verifiably suspend any programs at which point we will come to the negotiating table to work on a way forward. . . . I believe this problem can be solved diplomatically and I'm going to give it every effort to do so."
(emphasis mine).
Translation:
- Iran "won't have a weapon." No translation needed. I take him at his word.
- Iran must verifiably suspend its nuke programs if it wants the U.S. to come to the bargaining table. Again, no translation needed. What part of this does the AP fail to understand?
- The U.S. is making every good-faith effort to give diplomacy a chance, but its patience is not limitless.
The upshot is the opposite of the AP's headline -- i.e., that the U.S. not going to talk to Iran unless Iran meets the condition of suspending its program. This is nothing particularly new.
What has happened is that the U.S. has responded to criticism that it wasn't giving diplomacy a chance by calling everyone's bluff and putting the onus back on the Iranian government to prove that it is willing to proceed in good faith. This is in marked contrast to the Europeans, who have been negotiating from a position of weakness for years and have gotten nowhere.
That the AP reports this as a concession says more about the AP than it says about the Bush Administration's Iran policy.
UPDATE: The reaction from Iran came swiftly, but as expected:
The official Iranian news agency said Wednesday the U.S. offer to join in direct talks with Iran about its disputed nuclear program was "a propaganda move."
The American proposal, a major policy shift after decades without official public contact between the two countries, was made conditional on Iran agreeing to stop its uranium enrichment activities.
"It's evident that the Islamic Republic of Iran only accepts proposals and conditions that meet the interests of the nation and the country. Halting enrichment definitely doesn't meet such interests," IRNA said at the end of a dispatch reporting the offer of talks by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
As predicted: Iran won't stop enrichment, so there will be no direct talks. Everybody returns to their corners.
Comments