Tim Reid in Washington
Pick up your copy of Joy Division: Closer at WHSmith today

President Bush is sending a top US diplomat to meet Iran’s nuclear negotiator this weekend, a major break with his hardline stance towards Tehran and the closest contact between the countries since the 1979 Iranian Revolution.
In a significant departure from Mr Bush’s long-standing refusal to talk to Tehran until it has abandoned its nuclear enrichment programme, William Burns, the Under-Secretary of State and America’s third most senior diplomat, will travel to Switzerland to attend talks between Iranian and European officials on Saturday.
The move comes as the US considers establishing a diplomatic presence in Tehran for the first time since the closure of its Embassy in 1980. As The Times reported last week, US officials had discussed sending consular staff to the Swiss Embassy in Tehran, to handle visa applications.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian President, has welcomed the plan. “We have not received any official request for the moment, but we think that the development of relations between the two peoples is something correct,” Mr Ahmadinejad said on Sunday. “Any proposal in this direction can be examined and we will receive it favourably.”
The diplomatic overtures, which come amid signs that Iran is preparing to suspend its uranium enrichment activities, are the latest evidence of a more multilateral approach to foreign policy that has marked much of Mr Bush’s second term. It follows a recent deal with North Korea over its nuclear programme.
Until yesterday the US had refused even to participate in preliminary discussions with Iranian officials. The White House softened its stance because it believes that a deal in which Tehran will freeze its nuclear programme is within reach before Mr Bush leaves office.
The issue of how to thwart Tehran’s nuclear ambitions has already become a point of contention in the race to succeed Mr Bush. Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate, has said that he would be open to direct talks with Iran if it met certain conditions. His Republican opponent, John McCain, opposes direct talks.
Mr Burns will attend the Geneva meeting between Javier Solana, the EU’s top foreign policy official, and Saeed Jalili, Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator. Mr Solana is seeking a definitive response from Tehran to the latest package of incentives for suspension offered last month by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany.
Under the “freeze for freeze” offer, Iran would not enrich any uranium for six weeks, while the US, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China would not seek additional economic sanctions. During this period, both sides would thrash out the terms for preliminary negotiations over a permanent halt.
US officials insisted that Mr Burns would not hold separate talks with Iranian officials, and that he would reiterate Washington’s insistence that Iran permanently halt its enrichment programme. “This is a one-time deal,” a State Department official said.
The reaction of Washington’s hardliners demonstrated what a significant break with past policy Mr Burns’s attendance represents. “This is a complete U-turn and very disappointing to say the least,” John Bolton, a neoconservative and Mr Bush’s former Ambassador to the UN, told The Times.
“Under the freeze-for-freeze deal Iran only has to not increase its nuclear material. This is an acknowledgment and validation of its existing enrichment activities.”
Explore your passion for food with the delights of Thai, Indian & Chinese cooking
In our new series, Tony Hawks takes a dry, wry look at modern life - junk mail, interminable meetings and snooty sales assistants
Read the training tips and advice that helped our London Triathletes
Read our exclusive 100 Years of Fleming and Bond interactive timeline, packed with original Times articles and reviews
The latest travel news plus the best hotels and gadgets for business travellers
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles
2007
£30,000
2006
£14,337
2008
£39,937
Great car insurance deals online
c.£75,000
GlosFirstmeansbusiness
Gloucestershire
Competitive package
Npower
Midlands
£
£32,795 - £41,545
Universitry of Southampton
Southampton
Competitive Package
Npower
West Midlands
1 & 2 Bed apartments
From £249,995
Great Investment, River Views
Great Dubai Investment Opportunities
from £89,950
low-cost ownership homes in London
Multi–Centre 9 Nights
From only £925pp
View thousands of properties online with your Vacation Rental People
£POA
List your property with two leading travel websites
£POA
Great travel insurance deals online
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. Globrix Property Search - find property for sale and rent in the UK. Milkround Job Search - for graduate careers in the UK. Visit our classified services and find jobs, used cars, property or holidays. Use our dating service, read our births, marriages and deaths announcements, or place your advertisement.
Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
NPR panel member observed war/diplomacy go hand in hand....Israel P.M is sinking after trading with Hammas for two remains. Thought: Bush may be setting stage for attack if Iran doesn't come around to his satisfaction. P.M may be glad to join in to breath some life into his tenure. Dick chortles.
Woody, Wichita, Sedgwick
Quite frankly, what is there to negotiate? Iran has done nothing illegal it's only pursuing its national security interest by building an alternative source of energy, this is prudent. Unlike the US which has always sort to steal the natural resources of other nations. Had the US pursue the wise path, millions of lives would have been saved and the world would have been a safer place. In my own personal opinion: America is not deserving of one drop of oil unless it flows out of her evil vain.
David, College Park,
why are the usa so negative, do they really want to burn in a glorious nuclear fireball. The nuclear geanie is out of the lamp, it wont go back and we all have to live together on this planet or die together. We all need to learn to respect each others nations religions and political systems.
james, southampton, uk
better jaw jaw than war war,
there is no need to confront or threaten Iran only America could safely attack them and that would lead to a world war involving Russia and China who , rightly could not tolerate American hegemony inthe middle east
peter c, devizes, wessex
LOL
1.Georgia split into 3 parts by putin.
2.Caspian Oil firmly in russian hands.
3. Trans-afghani pipeline unfinished
4. Iran has deals with china and russia
5.US forced to off-shore drilling.
6. End of US-UK empire and petrodollars
Love it.. the US begging iran...
Checkmate Putin.
alasdair, hamburg, germany
This is a foil. The USA will say that we have tried diplomatically and the Western media hails it as a U-turn ( a big no no in politics) showing that Bush was even willing to lose face to talk to Iran. Anything that comes after would then be Iran's fault so the USA would be justified going into war
Glynn , Kingston,
Its all about Pakistan. They have Nukes NOW and are loosing their control to the Tali's. Iran is backed by Russia...too hard now. Pakistan borders India who would love to help. they have a port and Natural Gas. Watch for a temporary push away from Iran and toward PAK.
Shawn, Seattle,
I have a sense that just maybe for the first time Bush is backing down from the madness of igniting Iraq and the ME with an Iran attack, this despite the pressure from Israeli leaders who feel it has to be done quickly before he leaves office. The tanking of the economy is the reason for this U-turn
stanley hersh, new york city,
Joe of (where else?) new york writes "Iran is terrified".
More typical American ignorance. I have enjoyed two extended trips to Iran recently. Joe, they are confident and calm, not terrified. Big difference.
tarquinis, Seattle, USA
Wise decision at last. The only way forward is to negotiate even with your enemy.
CHRIS , machester, uk
Only now is the US willing to talk only because they know they have no other way to turn. If Iran had no power, they would have turned the whole country into rubble. Shows that Bush is a coward. Shame on you Bush. Shame!!!
Jim, Reading, UK
this story has the typical liberal news media slant. obviously, IRAN is terrified. they want a way out and are backing down. witht the door cracked, just like with North Korea, the USA is going in for talks. BUSH wins in North Korea and Iran by taking a firm stand and sticking to it. well done.
joe, new york, usa
Where is the bravery in this act? Since when laying down in front of your mortal enemy has become bravery rather than cowardice. Those who accept shame to avoid war will have both shame and war; Sir Winston Churchill.
John, Atlanta, GA. USA
Well, Bush had to learn the hard way. After he saw the Israleis and the Hezbollah negotiating over many weeks, he found out that you CAN negotiate with your enemy, and you CAN have some results. The tragedy is that the president of the USA must be leading as an example, not following.
kay salicornia, san jose, USA
What will McCain say now? Talk with Iran or not?
Mo, Essex, UK
The good ol' US of A is learning the hard way that beggars can't be choosers. It ain't the biggest debtor nation in history for nothing
horace manoor, rye, nh, usa