US to Station Diplomats in Iran

By Farol

Well, this is a genuinely unexpected turn of events. From The Guardian:

The US plans to establish a diplomatic presence in Tehran for the first time in 30 years as part of a remarkable turnaround in policy by President George Bush.

The Guardian has learned that an announcement will be made in the next month to establish a US interests section - a halfway house to setting up a full embassy. The move will see US diplomats stationed in the country.

The news of the shift by Bush who has pursued a hawkish approach to Iran throughout his tenure comes at a critical time in US-Iranian relations. After weeks that have seen tensions rise with Israel conducting war games and Tehran carrying out long-range missile tests, a thaw appears to be under way.

The White House announced yesterday that William Burns, a senior state department official, is to be sent to Switzerland on Saturday to hear Tehran's response to a European offer aimed at resolving the nuclear standoff.

Futher, Ahmadinejad is not opposed to the idea of talking with the U.S.

It seems, on the surface at least, that the more "rational" factions of the administration and the military (Gates, Rice, Mullen, etc.) have won a significant victory over the bloodthirsty-deranged faction led by Cheney.

How will this play out? In one of two ways: either this is a genuine diplomatic overture that will lead to a "thaw" in relations with Iran in the near future, or it's a complete front designed to silence those critics who have called for more diplomacy with Iran (Iran will inevitably refuse to meet some kind of unattainable "demand" set by the U.S., Bush and company will say "I told you so", and then tell us that war is now the only option).

It's almost impossible not to be cynical about anything Bush does, but we can at least hope for the best. Actually, at this point, that's pretty much all we can do.

Hillary Clinton is a Bloodthirsty Psycho

By Farol

OK, that's debatable. Still, even knowing that Clinton is in the middle of a tough campaign and will say practically anything at this point to inch up in the polls, this shocked me:

(From ABC news)

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

Even John "Bomb-Bomb-Bomb Iran" McCain hasn't, to my knowledge, said anything this baldly aggressive. Clinton isn't merely saying that "no option is off the table" (the position held by McCain and Obama, and dangerous enough in its own right). And, despite the generous framing of the ABC article ("Hillary: If Iran Attacked Israel With nukes 'We Would Be Able to Totally Obliterate Them'"), she isn't saying that an attack on Iran would be contingent upon their attacking Israel with nuclear weapons. She's saying, with terrifying certainty, that Iran WILL be attacked if she becomes president—period.

Sincere promise or cynical political move? Who knows. But here's the main point: It is now considered perfectly normal for an American presidential candidate to advocate for aggressive, unprovoked war against—and the "total obliteration" of—another country. In an even slightly less insane political landscape, a statement like this would be enough to consign a politician to the fringe. How is it any different, really, from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad saying Israel should be "wiped off the map"?

But the horrifying truth is that this call to mass murder will probably gain no more attention than Clinton's Passover address. That's where we are. Think about that.