-
(单词翻译:双击或拖选)
By Gary Thomas
Washington
01 March 2007
The announcement that the United States is willing to discuss the Iraq issue with Iran and Syria in a multinational1 forum2 came as a surprise. Until now, the Bush administration has steadfastly3 refused to talk to the two governments about the issue. As VOA correspondent Gary Thomas reports, administration officials insist there is no change in policy, but expert analysts5 disagree.
Earlier this week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice dropped what many observers considered to be a diplomatic bombshell. She said U.S. officials will discuss the Iraqi situation at an upcoming multilateral conference with, among other countries, Iran and Syria.
Tony Snow
White House spokesman Tony Snow insists there is no change in U.S. policy on dialogue with the two countries, pointing out there have been conferences where U.S. diplomats6 have been in the room with their Iranian and Syrian counterparts.
"I mean, it's just - it's not new," said Mr. Snow. "What's going on here is something that has a long set of precedents7. There are multilateral forums8 where, if the Iranians are there, we're not going to walk out. The Iraqis, we have always said, if they invite us to this regional forum, we will be there. They invited us. We're going to be there."
But at a January 12 Senate hearing, Secretary Rice said that after many years of hostility9 between Iran and the United States, for the U.S. to engage Iran on the Iraqi issue would indeed mark a policy change.
Condoleezza Rice
"There's a 27-year history of not engaging Iran," she noted10. "So this would be a major shift in policy. Of course, we did talk to them about Afghanistan when that made sense."
Larry Goodson, a professor of Middle East studies at the U.S. Army War College, says the change represents the administration's desire to steer11 events not only in Iraq but in Afghanistan as well.
"This really, as far as I can see, represents a shift in thinking that is going on about what to do about Iran in the wake of what is going to come out of Iraq and, lesser12 so perhaps, out of Afghanistan," said Mr. Goodson.
Bringing Iran and Syria into a dialogue about Iraq was a key recommendation of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group last year. But the Bush administration rejected that idea, opting13 instead for an infusion14 of additional troops into Iraq to try to stabilize15 the deteriorating16 security situation.
Ken17 Katzman, a Middle East analyst4 for the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, says the shift came because the administration is looking for fallback positions if the troop surge fails.
"I think what is driving this apparent shift is that the options really in Iraq are narrowing," he said. "It looks very clear to many observers that this Baghdad security plan, the troop surge, so to speak, is not going to do what was anticipated. And the administration wants to say, 'no, we're not out of options, we have this diplomatic strategy, we have other options we can pursue, and it's not time to give up on Iraq.'"
Larry Goodson says the troop increase, which he calls "surge light," will not work, and the administration is now casting about for diplomatic options that may have previously18 been taboo19.
"This is us trying to get some nations in the region that a couple of years ago the president and those around him were quite adamant20 that we just were not going to talk to, they were not going to be dealt with in that way," he added. "Now we're turning to them and trying to get them to assist us, really. I mean, from our point of view, that's the way it has to be seen."
There were in fact earlier feelers about engaging Iran on the Iraq situation. But, say analysts, Iran tried to be bring extraneous21 issues into the discussion, like the dispute over Iran's nuclear ambitions, so nothing really materialized.
Ken Katzman says Iran will likely try to gain some nuclear concessions22 in return for its help in Iraq. But, he says, the Bush administration will keep the focus only on Iraq.
"I suspect that in the context of this multilateral conference that Iran is going to try to do something like that again and try to get the U.S. to back off on the nuclear issue in exchange for being helpful at this conference and subsequent conferences on Iraq," he explained. "And I think the administration is not likely to go for that because I think President Bush wants to go out of office saying he did not allow Iran to become a nuclear power."
The conference is scheduled to be held March 10 in Baghdad.
1 multinational | |
adj.多国的,多种国籍的;n.多国籍公司,跨国公司 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 forum | |
n.论坛,讨论会 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 steadfastly | |
adv.踏实地,不变地;岿然;坚定不渝 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 analyst | |
n.分析家,化验员;心理分析学家 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 analysts | |
分析家,化验员( analyst的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 diplomats | |
n.外交官( diplomat的名词复数 );有手腕的人,善于交际的人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 precedents | |
引用单元; 范例( precedent的名词复数 ); 先前出现的事例; 前例; 先例 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 forums | |
讨论会; 座谈会; 广播专题讲话节目; 集会的公共场所( forum的名词复数 ); 论坛,讨论会,专题讨论节目; 法庭 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 hostility | |
n.敌对,敌意;抵制[pl.]交战,战争 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 noted | |
adj.著名的,知名的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 steer | |
vt.驾驶,为…操舵;引导;vi.驾驶 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 lesser | |
adj.次要的,较小的;adv.较小地,较少地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 opting | |
v.选择,挑选( opt的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 infusion | |
n.灌输 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 stabilize | |
vt.(使)稳定,使稳固,使稳定平衡;vi.稳定 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 deteriorating | |
恶化,变坏( deteriorate的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 ken | |
n.视野,知识领域 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 previously | |
adv.以前,先前(地) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 taboo | |
n.禁忌,禁止接近,禁止使用;adj.禁忌的;v.禁忌,禁制,禁止 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 adamant | |
adj.坚硬的,固执的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 extraneous | |
adj.体外的;外来的;外部的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 concessions | |
n.(尤指由政府或雇主给予的)特许权( concession的名词复数 );承认;减价;(在某地的)特许经营权 | |
参考例句: |
|
|