What exactly is our diplomatic status with Iran?

[MrSlayer]

Do we have anyone talking to them at all? What were the positions of both countries toward each other before the Chimp was appointed to the White House? I thought I read a post on here explaining how the Iranians were getting closer with us and opening up until Bush came along and changed our position dramatically but I cannot find it. I'd like to know what actions this administration has taken that have so dramatically altered what seemed to be progress between the two nations.

Any help is appreciated.

[Poppyseedman]

1. I think it is done this way

Big Red phone rings in the White House.

George picks it up. Mr. President, Collect call from Iran................Click

[MrSlayer]

2. Heh.

Not exactly what I was looking for but probably as accurate as anything.

[cliss]

3. Iran is officially considered to be a "restricted" country.

We are not allowed to visit this country without a special permit, nor are we allowed to export to them, it's basically a sanctioned country, much like Cuba. I think the list is: Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, any others?

[HysteryDiagnosis]

4. Hey.... look at this.....

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0403-10.htm


Published on Thursday, April 3, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
Halliburton, Dick Cheney, and Wartime Spoils
by Lee Drutman and Charlie Cray


When Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle revealed that he was getting $725,000 to help Global Crossing navigate the national security issues surrounding the sale of its assets, the press jumped all over Perle, and rightly so. There was indeed something fishy about the chairman of a board that advises the Pentagon making that kind of money to help a company that was having problems with national security issues. Perle is also on the board of Onset Technology, the leading provider of message conversion technology and a major supplier to Bechtel - one of the leading candidates for rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure.

As the Center for Public Integrity has documented, this kind of thing is quite prevalent on the Defense Policy Board, where at least nine of the 30 members have ties to companies that have won more than $76 billion in defense contracts in 2001 and 2002. As more and more wartime contracts are announced, more and more conflicts of interest are coming to light. After all, the Bush administration is riddled with ties to the weapons, engineering, construction, and oil companies that have the most to profit from a war in Iraq. Perle's story is certainly not unusual.

However, of all the administration members with potential conflicts of interest, none seems more troubling than Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney is former CEO of Halliburton, an oil-services company that also provides construction and military support services - a triple-header of wartime spoils.

[TomClash]

5. I hope this helps

The US embassy in Teheran is still closed. Americans have to go to the Swiss embassy for protection and processing. Pakistan covers Iranian citizens in the US.

The AIC tries to promote better and more peaceful Iranian American relations. You can read more at the AIC: http://www.american-iranian.org/

[HysteryDiagnosis]

6. In 16 days as it was stated in another thread they will have

the bomb. Then we will treat them like Pakistan, India, Russia, and N. Korea. I bet this is like counting down to Christmas for them.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

7. I don't think we have any diplomatic relationship with them

I mean, who'd want to be the US AMBASSADOR TO IRAN right about now?

Oh. Sure. Katharine Harris.

But who else?

[nonconformist]

8. I think the "axis of evil" declaration at the SOTU address

really destroyed what diplomacy was there, much like with North Korea.

I too would like to see additional information on the specifics of this.

[Emit]

9. I don't know if this is the type of info you are seeking

but, I had read this article just today, trying to find my own answer to a similar question after having listened to various reports and discussions on NPR throughout the day. Anyway, I thought this was interesting:

The George W. Bush administration failed to enter into negotiations with Iran on its nuclear program in May 2003 because neoconservative zealots who advocated destabilization and regime change were able to block any serious diplomatic engagement with Tehran, according to former administration officials.

The same neoconservative veto power also prevented the administration from adopting any official policy statement on Iran, those same officials say.

Lawrence Wilkerson, then chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, says the failure to adopt a formal Iran policy in 2002-2003 was the result of obstruction by a "secret cabal" of neoconservatives in the administration, led by Vice President Dick Cheney.

"The secret cabal got what it wanted: no negotiations with Tehran," Wilkerson wrote in an e-mail to IPS.

Cont'd here: http://www.antiwar.com/orig/porter.php?articleid=8778

[specimenfred1984]

10. They're Not Commies, Otherwise We'd Be Trading Partners

and we'd be all for them owning 20% of our debt and producing most of the crap we buy and Crap-Marts around Amurika.

[Emit]

11. Here's one of the discussions I heard earlier on NPR today

that I mentioned in my response upthread:

This week, Washington's attention turned toward Iran, and vice versa. There were news reports that the White House is considering plans to attack Iran should that country proceed with its nuclear ambitions. The president calls it wild speculation.

Guests:

Joseph Cirincione, Carnegie Endowment for Peace

Michael Rubin, resident scholar at American Enterprise Institute

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5338707


It's all very complicated, and when listening to this, keep in mind that regime change in Iran has been a goal of many neoconservatives for many years now. Also, take into consideration when you listen who Michael Rubin is. According to rightweb:

Michael Rubin is one of the youngest neoconservative figures to gain prominence within the George W. Bush administration. A Yale graduate whose dissertation focused on modern Iran, Rubin has traveled extensively in Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Sudan. (1)

Rubin, an AEI scholar, was involved in several meetings and conferences officiated by Douglas Feith and Harold Rhode at AEI as part of the Bush transition team. One of the objectives of these meetings was to reshape the top leadership at the Pentagon, sidelining or removing those who were regarded as moderates. Out of these discussions came the idea for the creation of the Office of Special Plans (OSP). (10)

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1345

Just before the break, Joseph Cirincione, the guy from Carnegie Endowment for Peace, asked Rubin a very pointed question about regime change (whether this stuff going on is about the nukes or regime change) and then he mentions that AEI has had a desire for regime change in Iran in order to change the geopolitics in the area. After the break, Rubin responds and tries to spin the questions saying something like, "Well, I don't know where that came from..."

Anyway, since you asked, I thought this may be of interest to you.