The MSM is abuzz with the fact that the Bush administration has consented for the State Department to hold talks with Iran's theocracy on the issue of Iraq. The Washington Post and much of the rest of the MSM has portrayed the U.S. as going to these talks with hat in hand and engaging from a position of weakness. Jules Crittenden thinks otherwise. He thinks that we are going into the talks with a stick, not a hat, and from a position of strength. He lays out a very convincing set of rationales in support of his conclusions:
. . . [W]hy would the Bush administration, always so obstinate, now seek to sit down with Iran, and why might those talks be useful? What has changed?Read the entire post here. Ultimately, Mr. Crittenden concludes that the purpose of the meeting will be to "deliver notice to Iran, face to face, that there will be a severe price to pay for continuing to meddle with murderous intent in its neighbors’ affairs, for failing to act in its own interest."
Short answer: Everything.
Here’s a quick review, in case you’ve been discouraged by the news media’s fascination with daily body counts and car bomb roundups as measurements of progress:
1) Since the ISG’s call for appeasement was issued five months ago, the Bush administration’s surge strategy has been brought to bear, and it has produced results. Sectarian violence in Iraq has been sharply curtailed, terrorists put on the run and killed and captured by the hundreds.
2) Anbar province, as recently as six months ago thought to be a lost cause, is turning to the government, and there are indications Diyala province, where many of the terrorists fled, may do the same.
3) Thousands of Sunni tribesmen in Anbar have turned on al-Qaeda, are actively attacking al-Qaeda, and want to join the Iraqi security forces.
4) Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who met with Sunni tribal leaders in a gesture of reconciliation earlier this year, has been compelled to assure them a role in the security of their own areas.
5) The Iranian-founded and affiliated Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, despite its insistence that it has not repudiated Iran, has in fact publicly distanced itself from Iran, becoming the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, overtly an Iraqi organization under the spiritual guidance of Iraqi Shiite Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who has counseled against and largely avoided religious interference in government.
6) The Mahdi Army, having largely stood down during the surge, is in disarray, reportedly divided between those eager to avoid conflict and extremists being trained and armed by Iran. Moqtada al-Sadr, in hiding in Iran, has been unsuccessful in his efforts to control and undermine Nouri al-Maliki’s government.
7) Mounting evidence has emerged of Iranian support for both Shiite and Sunni terrorists targeting both American and British soldiers as well as Iraqis. The evidence includes both weapons and the seizure of Iranian agents engaged in supporting the insurgency.
Iran still faces a united international front against its nuclear ambitions, with sanctions added.
8) Despite the public perception of an Israeli disaster in Lebanon last summer, in fact Iran’s proxy, Hezbollah, was decimated and marginalized.
9) Iran has suffered an embarrassing defection of a high-level general.
10) While the taking of British hostages by hardline elements gave Iran an opportunity to crow publicly, Iranian moderates forced the hardliners to back down.
11) Meanwhile, hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s international antics have brought him under heavy domestic pressure over the price of tomatoes.
12) Domestically, President George Bush continues to prevail against the efforts of an increasingly divided and ineffective Congress to curtail the war.
None of this means conditions are ideal for talks. They could have been better.
The Democratic leadership of the United States Congress, agitating for talks, hasn’t helped. They could have significantly advanced their pro-dialogue agenda by remembering that partisanship stops at the water’s edge, and helping to present a united front in our national interest.
The Royal Navy could have resisted the humiliating seizure of its seamen, and the British could have avoided appeasing Iran’s act of war.
Aggressive cross-border U.S. raids could have been staged on Iranian terrorist training camps and supply routes, and Iran’s military and nuclear weapons infrastructure could have been reduced.
As a result, the United States is in a position it was not in five months ago. A position of strength.
Nevertheless, Iran’s ability to influence events in Iraq and throughout the region has been compromised. And Iran can be reminded that the reduction of its capacity for causing trouble remains on the table. Iran can be encouraged to quit while it is ahead.
Update: Ahmedinejad is continuing with his usual bombast, threatening massive retaliation if the U.S. strikes Iran and at the same time telling us to pack our bags. He also stated that has agreed to talks with the U.S. "for the good of the Iraqi people." See here.
(H/T Steve Halter)
