It's about RESPECT

Iran has agreed to hold talks with US Officials in Iraq about the situation in Iraq. The New York Times appears to be pleased with the news:

Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, announced in Iran's parliament that he would send a team of negotiators to Iraq to meet with American representatives there, and he also suggested in an interview that there would be stiff preconditions..

What does he mean by preconditions? Well,

"I think Iraq is a good testing ground for America to take a harder look at the way it acts," Mr. Larijani said in his office shortly after making the announcement. "If there's a determination in America to take that hard look, then we're prepared to help."

Sounds like a great way to get things rolling--lecturing Bush and making one of the most hypocritical statements of all time. The Iranians have been terrorist enablers since the 70s. Yes, yes, I know--it's about showing respect.

The Times called around and polled diplomats, most of whom preferred to remain anonymous, and most of whom weren't overly excited about the deal. A few Europeans proffered this opinion:

"They want a security guarantee that only the United States can give," one European diplomat said. "They want a guarantee to at least be left alone."

That sounds very EU-ish, but is hardly believable. For example, consider that notion in context with this story:

Former Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar said Tuesday that Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told him five years ago that “setting Israel on fire” was the first order of business on the Iranian agenda.

Although it's hard to find the truth amidst the rubble of lies and disceptions in this GWoT, I think most people in the west trust our guys a heckuva lot more than theirs.

The happy-go-lucky Iranian spokesmullah threw us one more friendly tip for the road:

"If America wants to be a superpower, it should learn its manners," Mr. Larijani said. "One should not humiliate others."

Although such a statement probably brings goose pimples to liberals and perhaps Miss Manners, it defies logic. "Not humiliating" (code talk for "anyone but Bush") clearly brings to mind a Clintonian or Kerry-esqe foreign policy approach, but ask yourself this--how far did America advance in the Muslim PR department under Clinton? The question is mutliple choice, and here are the choices: a) nowhere, b) nil, and c) nada.

Actually, one could look at the recent Iranian sabre rattling and conclude it signifies a kind of desperation about their regional position. Yes, the anti-war set would quickly point to "the quagmire" to suggest we are the ones in the weak position, but people who count like Bolton don't see it that way. More than likely he sees it this way--if Iran is indeed occupying the catbird's seat why fly down and discuss things with the cat?

However, this post is about respect, so let's get to the point already. The Times dropped a hint about why they believe we've been having trouble with Iran all these years,

There is something else Iran wants from the United States, and the nuclear issue is only the latest flashpoint in a grievance that has existed since the Islamic revolution nearly three decades ago. As Mr. Larijani spelled out grievances and slights, it was clear that he was saying among other things, Iran wants respect.

Fine, as soon as Iran ends their sick, twisted obsession with Israel (which gives root to everything else) we'll give them the respect they deserve.

NOT TOO HAPPY 3/17/06

Khalilzad was not too happy with Larijani's comments:

Saying that the embassy has taken note of remarks by Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, the statement said: "The future of Iraq will not be decided by the United States, Iran or any other country. Iraqis will decide the future of Iraq. The United States is concerned about unhelpful Iranian activities in Iraq. These concerns are well known and we have talked about them."

Anyone want to give odds on whether this meeting will produce any more than a toot in the wind?