Jennifer, you rightfully takes issue with the new negotiating position the Obama administration and its European allies will take on Iran, namely dropping the demand that Iran suspend enrichment. What is remarkable about the way the Times reports the story, is that it attributes the insistence on enrichment suspension to the Bush administration:

That would be a sharp break from the approach taken by the Bush administration, which had demanded that Iran halt its enrichment activities, at least briefly to initiate negotiations.

This is not a Bush administration demand — it is the demand of five successive Security Council Resolutions approved between July 2006 and September 2008, in which not the U.S. administration of George W. Bush, but the UN Security Council, unanimously, asked Iran to suspend enrichment or face sanctions. And let’s recall why Iran was deferred to the Security Council in the first place. It was declared to be in non-compliance with its Non-Proliferation Treaty obligations by Mohammed El Baradei’s IAEA in late 2005; and it decided to bring an end to enrichment suspension, which it had agreed to as a result of negotiations with the EU-3 in 2004.

The EU-3 had asked Iran to suspend enrichment. Iran briefly complied. It then retracted its decision. It was soundly criticized and condemned for doing so. It was deferred to the Security Council, which requested immediate suspension. So how is this exactly a Bush administration demand? The truth is that the U.S. and its allies, having supported two successive incentive proposals (June 2006 and 2008) to Iran that Iran rejected, are now willing to renege on UN Security Council Resolutions — not on Bush’s past foreign policy.