Those Pesky Persians

Welcome to the party, Steven Weisman! The New York Times has finally deigned to acknowledge Iran's recent and unprecedented diplomatic overtures to the United States, but instead of framing them as an opportunity to start repairing thirty years' of mistrust and mutual invective, or even accurately backgrounding the story by examining Iran's massive policy realignment, Weisman's piece tells of yet another pesky argument in the White House, with the Troika + 1 (Bush/Cheney/Rummy/Rice) dead set against anything requiring words, arrayed against most of the United States' career foreign policy establishment, which sees this, at minimum, as a chance to peacefully end a confrontation over nuclear weapons.

One reason senior administration officials do not like the idea of talking with Iran, many of them say, is that they are not certain Iranian leaders would respond positively. A rebuff from Iran, even to a back-channel query, is to be avoided at all costs, various officials agree.

No such similar commitment, however, has been expressed by the Bush administration to avoid war at all costs.

The Times' other top Iran story today is the ominous "Iran Chief Eclipses Clerics as He Consolidates Power," which paints the picture of a "clumsy" leader heading "'a government with no experience running a country and dealing with foreign policy,'" "without a strong grasp of economics" pursuing a "risky strategy" to "consolidate power in the office of the presidency in a way never before seen in the 27-year history of the Islamic Republic." Well, gosh, that sounds awful! It sounds like a government run by bunch of crazy villagers who don't know what they're doing! Why are we even pretending to bother with diplomacy? Thanks, Michael Slackman, for setting us straight.