Alexandrine
Ambassador James Dobbins has a plan!
Perhaps the simplest — and certainly the quickest — way to launch a dialogue with Iran, and the one least likely to play unhelpfully into the upcoming Iranian election, would be to simply stop not talking to Tehran.
All over Washington, serious people try to grasp the subtleties of his suggestion. No doubt Ambassador Dobbins thinks going to bed at a decent hour to be perhaps the simplest way of getting enough sleep, and crossing the street an efficient means of getting to the other side.
Comment by abb1 —
March 5, 2009 @ 9:47 am
Whoa, whoa, let’s not be simplistic, here. That’s why we have experts – retired generals and think-tank intellectuals.
Comment by ChrisWWW —
March 5, 2009 @ 6:38 pm
“How dare you suggest we surrender to Iran!” – Random Hawk
Comment by Bill —
March 5, 2009 @ 8:33 pm
Doesn’t he know that Arabs only understand violence?
Wait..they’re not Arabs are they?
Doesn’t matter, bomb them anyway!
Comment by Derek Copold —
March 6, 2009 @ 9:52 am
If Dobbins thinks talking to them now won’t have an effect on Iranian politics, he’s nuts. The hard-liners will play it up as vindication of their approach. They’d be stupid not to.
I’m not saying this alone refutes the idea of talking to the Iranians. Really, we’ve been doing that for some time under Bush. We just haven’t copped to it. Long term, it is the best solution. Still, let’s not pretend that there wouldn’t be some short-term cost.
Comment by radish —
March 6, 2009 @ 12:51 pm
Huh? Hardliners in both countries are going to do that regardless. They’re doing it right now.
The benefit of lifting restrictions instead of initiating anything official is to avoid compromising the people doing the talking. It’s a way to provide plausible deniability. The whole point is to build rapport and start figuring out what really is and isn’t on the table, but also let everybody claim that they were just chatting about nothing in particular.
Comment by Derek Copold —
March 6, 2009 @ 1:02 pm
Dobbins isn’t talking about lifting restrictions in the quoted snippet. He’s saying we should come out in the open and talk. Lifting sanctions would have the same effect.
If you want to say it’s the best way to go overall, fine. I’m cautiously with you myself. Just be aware that it’ll probably have a short-term cost.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
March 8, 2009 @ 11:05 am
Having watched the few efforts at diplomacy the Bush administration performed over the past eight years, I now have a much better understanding of why they equate it with surrender.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
March 8, 2009 @ 2:38 pm
An Alexandrine is a line two feet too long.
Comment by Jim Henley —
March 8, 2009 @ 7:13 pm
Six, actually.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
March 9, 2009 @ 11:15 am
Six feet too long? It only has six feet.
I guess that poet writes best, who writes the least.
Comment by Jim Henley —
March 9, 2009 @ 11:30 am
Oh. Sorry, Joe. I misread. You’re quoting someone, right? I just remember Pope’s jibe, but Pope’s jibe implied a pentameter rather than tetrameter norm.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
March 9, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
D’oh!
Should be:
An Alexandrine is a line two BEATS too long.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
March 9, 2009 @ 1:45 pm
No,
“An Alexandrine is a line a foot too long.”
Gotta keep the “foot/feet too long” in there.