Israel Matzav: Ignoring Iran's response?

Ignoring Iran's response?

Over the weekend, the United States and its allies accepted Iran's offer to 'talk,' an offer that said nothing about Iran's nuclear program. Writing at Politico.com, Laura Rozen of Foreign Policy Magazine says that she does not believe that there will be 'protracted negotiations' unless there is 'progress' (Hat Tip: Daphne W).

An administration official said that prospective international talks with Iran would be arranged very quickly -- "certainly by or during the UN General Assembly," which starts September 21.

"The issue can be expected to be front and center at whatever talks are arranged by the European envoy Javier Solana," he said.

Previous reporting has suggested that the administration and its allies were likely to take a few weeks to test out the seriousness of Iran's talks offer. "I think that as we consult with our P-5+1 colleagues, we’ll be looking to see how ready Iran is to actually engage, and we will be testing that willingness to engage in the next few weeks," State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said at a Thursday press briefing.

The brisk timetable for getting talks underway seems to indicate that, barring real substantive progress, protracted negotiations were unlikely.

Meantime, news reports out of Tehran Saturday said Iranian officials had declared they were not prepared to compromise about Iran's right to enrich uranium. "We cannot have any compromise with respect to the Iranian nation's inalienable right," Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki reportedly told a news conference with his Turkish counterpart. "Our new proposal is the package ... if its conditions are brought about talks can take place."

A Washington Iran hand previously said that Iran's insistence on what it considers its right to enrich uranium has been Iran's consistent position, and did not necessarily indicate that Iran wasn't prepared to negotiate about other possible aspects and constraints on its nuclear program.

I guess that the Obama administration doesn't consider three months to be 'protracted negotiations.' Under the current conditions, I find it hard to agree with them. During the entire period of 'talking,' Iran will continue to make progress toward building a nuclear weapon, making a 'breakout' at the end of that period even more likely.

I am reminded for Einstein's famous quip that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result (much as Israel has done with offering a 'state' to the 'Palestinians'). The world has tried to 'talk' to Iran over and over again for the last six years and the result has always been the same.

What could go wrong?

Israel Matzav: Ignoring Iran's response?