The United States and Iran have agreed for the first time to one-on-one negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, Obama administration officials tell The New York Times, set to take place immediately following the US presidential elections.
Top Iranian officials have insisted the talks take place after the US election, “telling their American counterparts that they want to know which American president they would be negotiating with,” the Times reports.
Hours after the story appeared at the Times’ website, the White House denied it. “It’s not true that the United States and Iran have agreed to one-on-one talks or any meeting after the American elections,” National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said in a statement.
If true, this agreement, presumably placed after the election in the hopes that there will be more leeway for a settlement in a second term for President Obama, was reached after “intense, secret exchanges between American and Iranian officials.”
Given GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s assertions about how he would deal with Iran – with even tougher sanctions and less reliance on diplomacy – it’s not clear that the talks will still happen in the event that Romney wins.
Even if the talks do occur in the event of a victory for Obama, it’s not clear they’ll be fruitful. Talks have floundered at various levels throughout Obama’s first term.
The closest the parties came to settlement was a deal in which Iran would halt 20 percent uranium enrichment in exchange for swapping enriched uranium for foreign-made fuel rods. Iran initially rejected the deal, but reluctantly agreed after Brazil and Turkey joined in the discussions. By that point, the Obama administration rejected Iranian acquiescence, in favor of sanctions.
Most of the so-called diplomacy with Iran has been “predicated on intimidation, illegal threats of military action, unilateral ‘crippling’ sanctions, sabotage, and extrajudicial killings of Iran’s brightest minds,” writes Reza Nasri at PBS Frontline’s Tehran Bureau. These postures have spoiled much chance to resolve the issues.
After the failed talks in 2009 and 2010, wherein Obama ended up rejecting the very deal he demanded the Iranians accept, as Harvard professor Stephen Walt has written, the Iranian leadership “has good grounds for viewing Obama as inherently untrustworthy.” Former CIA analyst Paul Pillar has concurred, arguing that Iran has “ample reason” to believe, “ultimately the main Western interest is in regime change.”
It will not matter what Iran Does, if they comply with American demands, America will refuse to comply with what they have said that they will do, nothing less than total regime change and reinstatement of BP as the national oil company will do!
Israel will be outraged at the prospect of diplomacy possibly succeeding. It needs its enemies destroyed by the US now, before the US finally collapses.
Seems that someone is fibbing
Iran Denies Report of Plans for Nuclear Talks With US http://news.yahoo.com/iran-denies-report-plans-nu…
Ooooooooooo!!!!
So now there is allegedly 'talk' of "direct" 'fake' non-talk "talks"???
Be sure to keep me "up to speed" on the 'developments' here AW.C….
http://youtu.be/8rRtMuVM6oc
Clearly, it's just another veiled threat emanating from "New York Time sources"
"The United States and Iran have agreed in principle for the first time to one-on-one negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, according to Obama administration officials, setting the stage for what could be a last-ditch diplomatic effort to avert a military strike on Iran."
Is this like the Mustachioed Austrian 99%er negotating about Cheskoslovakia?
Couldn't we just fantasize for a bit and imagine obomba having a goal of rubbing bibi's nose in camel dodo?
My local paper reports this as "US, Iran plan direct talks on nuclear weapons." WTF are they talking about "nuclear weapons?" CNN, Fox & others make the same fudge, turning a demonstrably peaceful program into a "weapons" program. Yellow journalism is alive and well in America, and unfortunately Americans are too stupid to read more than the headlines.