Diplomacy: the last resort

I thought it was strange that the administration made talks with Iran contigent upon conditions it was pretty obvious they would reject. David Sanger argues that it's because the administration didn't want to talk-- they wanted action.

After 27 years in which the United States has refused substantive talks with Iran, President Bush reversed course on Wednesday because it was made clear to him — by his allies, by the Russians, by the Chinese, and eventually by some of his advisers — that he no longer had a choice.

During the past month, according to European officials and some current and former members of the Bush administration, it became obvious to Mr. Bush that he could not hope to hold together a fractious coalition of nations to enforce sanctions — or consider military strikes on Iranian nuclear sites — unless he first showed a willingness to engage Iran's leadership directly over its nuclear program and exhaust every nonmilitary option.

Few of his aides expect that Iran's leaders will meet Mr. Bush's main condition: that Iran first re-suspend all of its nuclear activities, including shutting down every centrifuge that could add to its small stockpile of enriched uranium.

UPDATE: Some good news about this story. Apparently the UN Security Council is on board (as is the IAEA) with the demand that Iran stop their nuclear activity. It doesn't make me trust BushCo any more, but if there's a broad international concensus from the start, it might be more difficult for them to jump the gun on another war. And the more engaged the international community, the less likely it is that we'd see a repeat of Colin Powell's bogus horror show at the UN.