The Swamp: Middle East diplomacy in Washington and Baghdad

Posted July 23, 2007 7:51 PM

by Mark Silva

President Bush will play host to King Abdullah of Jordan tomorrow, with a dinner for the Middle Eastern monarch at the White House. And in Baghdad tomorrow, U.S. diplomats will meet with Iranians.

Perhaps this is a glimmer of the broader Middle East diplomacy that the Iraq Study Group called for last year, suggesting that military solutions alone will not lead to peace in the region.

The Jordanian king had played host to Bush and to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki last fall in Amman. And Bush will meet King Abdullah again tomorrow evening – following a day-trip to Charleston (S.C.) Air Force Base, where Bush will inspect military shipments for Iraq, have lunch with troops and address a group.

It’s not only Iraq now, but also Israel and Palestine on the president’s agenda.

“It's an important chance for the president to sit down with somebody who is a key ally in the region,’’ said Tony Snow, the White House press secretary, “particularly as we are working again toward trying to find a way to empower a Palestinian government that can meet the Quartet principles and provide a basis for working with Israel, so that you can have a democracy in the region and fulfill the promise of democracy for the Palestinian people.

“King Abdullah has certainly been a very valuable and forceful ally in that, and I'm sure the conversation -- there will be plenty of conversation about that,’’ Snow said. “Whether it turns to other topics will be up to the king and the president.’’

Snow also calls the diplomat-level talks with Iranians in Baghdad “an opportune time, at the invitation of the Iraqi government, to revisit commitments Iran has made, saying that it believes in trying to stabilize Iraq. We have seen signs that we think need addressing,’’ said Snow, pointing to Iranian fighters and weaponry making their way into Iraq. “Those certainly do not help for the stability and security.

“So the purpose of these talks is to sit down and express concerns, and to see if there is some way to work forward toward providing real security for the Iraqis,’’ Snow said. “The Iranians have said that they want to contribute, and we will see what they have to say.’’

These talks will not cover Iranian-American scholars and activists being held in Iran.

“The conversations are restricted to security matters within Iraq proper,’’ Snow said. “That is the channel that has been opened up. This is not a way of broadening diplomatic contacts between the nations.’’

Comments

It's a good thing that Israel is on President Bush's mind because the church that Barack "Hussein" Obama belongs to,The Trinity United Church of Christ,is anti-Israeli.
Bush cares about our great ally Israel...Obama won't.

Paulo

Posted by: Paulo | July 23, 2007 8:15 PM

Paul O.,

I have seen the error of my ways. Your prose deserves a greater audience.

So, please send your middle name and religious observations of that same middle named individual to Voice of the People.

Just trying to help. No, thank you!

Posted by: Doug Zook | July 23, 2007 8:53 PM

Wow Paula, do you really think saying racist things about Senator Obama is actually going to help you Republican goofballs win an election in 08?

That might get you a couple of votes in Alabama....but overall the Republic Party is just a sinking "swiftboat", nice try chump.

P.S.- RNC Bruce want's to sign up for your newsletter.

Posted by: John E | July 23, 2007 9:41 PM

With friends like Bush, Israel has big problems.

But it's nice to see a king interested in bringing democracy to other nations.

Anyone who expects to see a Camp David-like agreement emerge during this administration should be tested for drugs.

There's a reason Iran wants stability in Iraq. 60 percent of Iraq is Shia. That's something the Bush administration didn't seem to understand when it invaded Iraq.

The reason Iran has guns in Iraq is to help its Shia brethren. It's like the U.S. helping Britain. A no-brainer.

By the way, I wonder if Bush ever approached Iran about being one of the coalition of the willing. Not.

Instead, he brought aboard the Philippines, a nation much further away which had 2 soldiers it could dress and send. The food and shelter would need to be provided by the U.S.

Bottom line in all of this: Iran isn't interested in helping the U.S. It's interested in helping itself. Any "deal" would be with that in mind.

Posted by: Bud McFarlin | July 23, 2007 10:38 PM

I just love the way pillow "the English and US geography illiterate" person puts Obama's real middle name in quotes. It's so cute, so parochial, so clueless. Also, he doesn't know the correct spelling of Barak's first name either. It's so cute, so parochial, so clueless. I guess someday pillow will actually get some education, and learn about independent critical thinking. Until then, we can all chuckle and twitter as he exposes his intellect for the sophomoric level it has attained.

Posted by: snitramc | July 23, 2007 10:50 PM

Snitramc, just wondering, but when will you acquire some independent critical thinking?

And, Bud, if you really think Iran is a country that can be rationally dealt with, well then, where in the hell have you been these past nearly 30 years?

Fine, talk to Iran. I just wouldn't count on too much.

Posted by: John D | July 23, 2007 10:58 PM

Diplomacy? Diplomacy? Isn't that the specialty of the United Nations? So maybe president mcshotgun and his chief boot licker and major efforts communications mouthpiece earboy have finally decided it makes more sense to try to talk through these things, rather than shoot it out? I have my doubts. Gunboat diplomacy has always been a favorite of neo-con wingnuts, and it isn't going change anytime soon. Heck, they even practice this on us loony lefties!

Posted by: snitramc | July 23, 2007 11:13 PM

Paulo:
"Hussein" is not Obama's middle name- it's just a rumor started on Fox News (surprise, surprise.) Furthermore, Obama has clearly shown support for Israel and has even gone to the extent of openly criticizing the Palestinian Authority and holding them responsible for the plight of the Palestinian people. Truth be told, no politician today would even be covered by the media if he/ she didn't meet the basic requirements, i.e.: being openly supportive of "great allies" of the U.S. If Bush genuinely cared (which he doesn't), he would have tried much harder to achieve peace.

Posted by: Ben | July 23, 2007 11:14 PM

Ahhhhh!
You libs just can't handle the truth! Do some research....
Hussein
Hussein
Hussein

Paulo

Posted by: Paulo | July 24, 2007 12:52 AM

Ahhhh,
You libs just can't handle the truth!Do some research.

And smitcrack it's BARACK,not BARAK,you goofy
illiterate!

Hussein
Jakarta
Medrassa

Paulo

Posted by: Paulo | July 24, 2007 1:07 AM

"This is not a way of broadening diplomatic contacts between the nations."

God forbid we have any diplomacy.

Posted by: lochnessmonster | July 24, 2007 6:58 AM

At least Cheneybush is trying to get people in the middle east talking about some sort of deal between the Palestinians and the Israeles. King Abdullah is one of the few people that has some small measure of stature in the region and may be able to operate behind the scenes to get something done. Just imagine, if there really was a state of Palestine and all agreed to its borders and security rights: that would help calm things down, at least for a while. Of course, the zealots and extremists on all sides will forever continue to cause trouble, but hopefully they can become even more marginalized over time.

Let's all spend today thinking about how things can go well instead of how Cheneybush & the ever-growing number of nut-case groups in the middle east will mess it up. A little sunshine can cause a very big rainbow!

Posted by: snalg | July 24, 2007 8:48 AM

Hey Paula- What do you think of the U.S. negotiating with the Iranians about all the violence in Iraq?? Have you done any research on that??

Posted by: Doug R. | July 24, 2007 1:08 PM

And, Bud, if you really think Iran is a country that can be rationally dealt with, well then, where in the hell have you been these past nearly 30 years?

Fine, talk to Iran. I just wouldn't count on too much.

Posted by: John D | July 23, 2007 10:58 PM

Reagan apparently though they could be rationally dealt with.

Bush does too.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/07/24/iraq.main/index.html

Posted by: Tony | July 24, 2007 1:59 PM

RNC Bruce, John D.,

Work with me here:

The absence of a rebuking of Paul O. (this moron isn't hispanic) here is your tacit admission of your approval of his racist, religious intolerance.

I'm wrong how?

Posted by: Doug Zook | July 24, 2007 2:32 PM

RNC Bruce, John D.,