GOOD NEWS: U.S. AGREES TO DIRECT TALKS WITH IRAN

At last we get some intelligent and sane approach to foreign policy. High-level representatives of the U.S. are to meet with their Iranian counterparts face-to-face. After eight years of a dangerous rejection by George Bush of talks with the Iranians, they are finally about to happen.

David E. Sanger and Mark Landler report in today's The New York Times:

"The Obama administration said Friday that the United States would accept Iran’s offer to meet, fulfilling President Obama’s pledge to hold unconditional talks despite the Iranian government’s insistence that it would not negotiate over the future of its nuclear program.

"The decision to engage directly with Iran would put a senior representative of the Obama administration at the bargaining table, along with emissaries from five other nations, for the first time since Mr. Obama took office."

Talks with the Iranians are far superior to the direction that Bush and Dick Cheney wanted to go: all-out war with Iran, bombing Iranian installations, perhaps even invading and occupying Teheran with hopes of downing the Islamic government.

And American involvement with Iranian leaders around a discussion table do a lot towards stopping Israel and the Netanyahu government from taking unilateral military action against Iran.

Up till now, it has been Russia led by Putin/Medvedev which has cautioned against military action. Witness the rumored secret trip of Netanyahu to Moscow this past Monday, reportedly to demand action against supplying Iran with defensive missile systems. Putin came out and warned against any attack against Iran.

Juan Cole in his Informed Comment has an interesting observation:

"Meanwhile, Russian PM Vladimir Putin warned against any attack on Iran, which he called "unacceptable" and said it would produce an explosion of terrorism. (Note: Russia is very close to Iran in the Caucasus). He even went so far as to reject any tightening of sanctions on Iran. These are the strongest words I've seen from Russia on the issue of an Israeli or American attack on Iran. I take it Israeli PM Binyamin Netanyahu's recent secret visit to Moscow went badly."

Some of the stalwart Bushian supporters are sure to rant and weep at U.S. talks with Iran. They will say that President Ahmadinejad is a dictator and ruthless in putting down peaceful Iranian protesters. And that the Supreme Leader Khamenei has no concept of individual liberty in a modern state like Iran. This is all no doubt true.

Nevertheless, the U.S. government must deal with whoever is in charge, and that means Ahmadi and Khamenei. The alternative - war - would result in at least 500 years of animosity and hostilities between Iran and the West, resulting in tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of innocent lives lost. This must not be allowed to happen.

NETANYAHU'S PRIME REQUIREMENT - RECOGNITION THAT ISRAEL IS A JEWISH STATE - IS UNREASONABLE

From the BBC, here is the essence of what Benjamin Netanyahu said about recognizing a Palestinian state:

"The key condition is that the Palestinians recognise in a clear and public manner that Israel is the state of the Jewish people. The heart of the conflict has always been the Arabs' refusal to accept the existence of the Jewish state.

"If we have guarantees on demilitarisation and if the Palestinians recognise Israel as a state of the Jewish people, then we arrive at a solution based on a demilitarised Palestinian state alongside Israel.

"Each will have its flag, each will have its anthem. The Palestinian territory will be without arms, will not control airspace, will not be able to have arms."

If I were a Palestinian, I would find the key condition to be unacceptable. Israel today is the home of thousands of Palestinian Israelis. Why must the Palestinians acquiesce to say that Israel is "a state of the Jewish people." It would be like forcing Italian Protestants to admit that Italy is the state of Roman Catholics. This requirement is totally unnecessary and contrary to the identity of any secular democracy.

As to Palestine being a "separate state," but not able to control its own airspace or possess armaments, this is also unreasonable. Netanyahu's implication here is that Israel will retain the right to send its war planes and bombers over Palestine any time it wants without asking Palestinian permission. Furthermore, if Israel has tanks and guns and warplanes, why not the Palestinian state?

We all know that Netanyahu has no expectations that the Palestinians will ever accept his harsh conditions. But then, Netanyahu does not really want a separate Palestinian state, nor does he want to ever accept peace with the Palestinians.