Why Won't U.S., Iran Hash Out Differences?

Shen Dingli, director of the Institute of American Studies at Fudan University in Shanghai, China, said the countries regard each other as enemies and approach the nuclear issue from opposite directions.

"Iran believes it must acquire nuclear weapons to ensure state security. The United States does not want to have direct talks with Iran, just like it does not want to talk with North Korea," he said.

You have it right there folks. I wonder where this "Shen Dingli" gets his info about Iran, because from the sounds of it... he seems pretty certain they aren't doing this just for peaceful nuclear operations either.

Interesting how Bush caught loads of crap from the "international community" about "Unilateral" action against Iraq.

But now that we've been doing the international diplomatic dance for > 2 years Bush is catching crap for not engaging in direct talks.

IMO, direct talks w/ Iran are a bad idea. I do think a united global front against Iraq is the best way to go about this, so why would we want to lose all the potential leverage of sanctions and solidarity that we are getting now?

Whoever said the US wanted a peaceful resolution to this issue? I think they're afraid they might actually be able to work something out and then they'd have no reason to invade. It takes a lot of effort to build up this much tension and animosity.

Good question!

Because Bush is only interested in war ... He dreams with war, he talks about war ... He likes war. Iran does have all the right to have nuclear weapons, as America has them ... Why USA can have nuclear weapons and others don´t ? Why USA thinks they own the world ? That's a good question, and i would really like, from the bottom of my heart to hear a good answer to that ...

Some would say "USA can have nuclear weapons because they don´t threat other countries" ... That´s a joke, right?

Rasul Bakhsh Rais, professor of political science at Pakistan's Lahore University of Management Sciences, said before talks there must be trust.

"Their strategic visions are so conflicting and their roles in the Middle East, perceived by each other, are so antagonistic," he said. "Even thinking that they will sit together at the negotiating table ... is really irrational."

The end quotation is absurd. How can there be trust, if there is no talk? This has nothing to do with political science. Neither does calling Iran "medieval". So what if it is? There are cultures on Earth that resembles the early village communities, but since they are real, we have to deal with them all.

Dealing with Iran through the Security Council is as much a "legitimization" as a direct meeting.

This article is merely opinion backed with a number of quotations, and the analysis is not qualified. Every move in the build-up on both sides has signaled the intention to accumulate negotiation capital. That's what's going on.

The same goes for the Hamas aid row, by the way. Don't be fooled.