Submit your comments on this article | ||||||||||||||||||
Syria-Lebanon-Iran | ||||||||||||||||||
U.S. Officials Say Iran Has Agreed to Nuclear Talks | ||||||||||||||||||
2012-10-21 | ||||||||||||||||||
UPDATE: Found in comments from Au Auric NYTimes caught editing Iran Story after WH denials
Iranian officials have insisted that the talks wait until after the presidential election, a senior administration official said, telling their American counterparts that they want to know with whom they would be negotiating.
The White House publicly denied the report on Saturday evening. "It's not true that the United States and Iran have agreed to one-on-one talks or any meeting after the American elections," said Tommy Vietor, a White House spokesman. He added, however, that the administration was open to such talks, and has "said from the outset that we would be prepared to meet bilaterally."
"We've always seen the nuclear issue as independent," the administration official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the matter. "We're not going to allow them to draw a linkage."
Beyond that, how Mr. Romney responds could signal how he would act if he becomes commander in chief. The danger of opposing such a diplomatic initiative is that it could make him look as if he is willing to risk another American war in the Middle East without exhausting alternatives.
Iran's nuclear program "is the most difficult national security issue facing the United States," Mr. Burns said, adding: "While we should preserve the use of force as a last resort, negotiating first with Iran makes sense. What are we going to do instead? Drive straight into a brick wall called war in 2013, and not try to talk to them?" The administration, officials said, has begun an internal review at the State Department, the White House and the Pentagon to determine what the United States' negotiating stance should be, and what it would put in any offer. One option under consideration is "more for more" -- more restrictions on Iran's enrichment activities in return for more easing of sanctions.
"We do not think Iran should be rewarded with direct talks," Mr. Oren said, "rather that sanctions and all other possible pressures on Iran must be increased." Direct talks would also have implications for an existing series of negotiations involving a coalition of major powers, including the United States. These countries have imposed sanctions to pressure Iran over its nuclear program, which Tehran insists is for peaceful purposes but which Israel and many in the West believe is aimed at producing a weapon. Dennis B. Ross, who oversaw Iran policy for the White House until early 2012, says one reason direct talks would make sense after the election is that the current major-power negotiations are bogged down in incremental efforts, which may not achieve a solution in time to prevent a military strike. Mr. Ross said the United States could make Iran an "endgame proposal," under which Tehran would be allowed to maintain a civil nuclear power industry. Such a deal would resolve, in one stroke, issues like Iran's enrichment of uranium and the monitoring of its nuclear facilities.
Iran's capacity to enrich uranium bears on another key difference between Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney: whether to tolerate Iran's enrichment program short of producing a nuclear weapon, as long as inspectors can keep a close eye on it, versus prohibiting Iran from enriching uranium at all. Obama administration officials say they could imagine some circumstances under which low-level enrichment might be permitted; Mr. Romney has said that would be too risky.
But economic pressure may be forcing their hand.
In New York in September, Mr. Ahmadinejad hinted at the reasoning. "Experience has shown that important and key decisions are not made in the U.S. leading up to the national elections," he said. A senior American official said that the prospect of direct talks is why there has not been another meeting of the major-powers group on Iran. In the meantime, pain from the sanctions has deepened. Iran's currency, the rial, plummeted 40 percent in early October.
| ||||||||||||||||||
Posted by:Steve White |
#14 US$ up front puhleez |
Posted by: Frank G 2012-10-21 21:56 |
#13 Like the man said, in the future, everyone will have secret talks with Iran. I myself have been involved in secret negotiations to agree in principle to hold talks discussing an agreement to agree in principle to hold talks. Frank G just wants to sell them a bridge. As for #12, Hehe. |
Posted by: SteveS 2012-10-21 21:50 |
#12 Why would you want a Beatle on your table top Dude? |
Posted by: swksvolFF 2012-10-21 17:18 |
#11 Linen. The tablecloth should be linen. |
Posted by: Perfesser 2012-10-21 16:14 |
#10 "secret exchanges between American and Iranian officials that date almost to the beginning of President Obama's term " has been a very successful strategy - for Tehran. :-) |
Posted by: Raider 2012-10-21 15:44 |
#9 New York Times Caught Editing Iran Story After White House Denials The New York Times claimed yesterday, two days before the presidential candidates' foreign policy debate, that the White House had reached an agreement with the Iranian regime to pursue direct talks. The story could have helped President Barack Obama make the case that he had made more progress with Iran than had previously been indicated. But the White House rushed to deny the story--and early this morning, the Daily Caller reports that the Times had changed it, but without indicating that changes had been made. The DC's Gregg Re writes: When the New York Times updated its story late Saturday to reflect [National Security Council spokesman Tommy] Vietor’s statement, the paper made no mention of the update or any correction to the story, leaving readers with the impression that the White House’s denial had been in the story all along. In fact, the initial version of the story portrayed the development as a tentative victory for the Obama administration, which has recently been faced with foreign policy crises in the Middle East and Libya. The new version of the Times’ story also removed this line about the threat of Iran’s nuclear ambitions: “Even with possible negotiations in the offing, there is no evidence Iran has slowed its fuel production.” Normally, a pro forma denial by the White House would not send reporters and editors scurrying to cover up their work. With good sources, and reliable information, journalists could be expected to stand by their story. Now, with the Times carrying out edits that it apparently hoped ho one would notice, the entire story seems like a desperate attempt to set the stage for the Third Presidential Debate in a way that favors the incumbent. |
Posted by: Au Auric 2012-10-21 11:15 |
#8 Iran is also denying there is any talks Iran dismisses US nuclear talks New York Times report "The (nuclear) talks are ongoing with the P5+1 group of nations. Other than that, we have no discussions with the United States," Mr Salehi told reporters on Sunday. |
Posted by: tipper 2012-10-21 10:20 |
#7 Michael Ledeen also weighs in on the New York Times' report, the White House denial, and what it all means. At least one element of the Times story is true: the agreement, if there actually is one, is undoubtedly “a result of intense, secret exchanges between American and Iranian officials that date almost to the beginning of President Obama’s term.” Indeed, there were talks between Iranian officials and a representative of the Obama campaign, even before the inauguration. Secret talks between the two countries have been going on for decades, and I do not know of any American president from Jimmy Carter to the present who did not secretly pursue a deal with Tehran. (I participated in such talks in the mid-1980s during the Reagan administration.) So what is happening? The most likely explanation is that Obama is still desperately seeking his grand bargain, the one that would validate his (and the Nobel Committee’s) claim to be a talented peace maker. That deal is not available, because the Iranians don’t want it. But he wants something to show for his efforts, so he settled for a big nothingburger: an agreement to talk some more. Even if the story turns out to be true, I don’t think it will help him. “We’re going to talk to the Iranians!” isn’t a very sexy headline. The one (mildly) interesting feature is why the story was leaked. Did the leaker(s) think it would help the campaign? Or was the leaker trying to stop yet another embarrassing wasted effort? |
Posted by: trailing wife 2012-10-21 09:44 |
#6 Big Woop. If true it plays right into the Iranian's hands. Kepp talking and not doing. Bugwits. |
Posted by: Deacon Blues 2012-10-21 09:40 |
#5 Nork Part II I'm sure Jimmy Carter is available. |
Posted by: Procopius2k 2012-10-21 09:07 |
#4 May we then postulate that those Benghazi intercepts discussed on the nighly news were indeed....Persian-Farci ? |
Posted by: Besoeker 2012-10-21 07:07 |
#3 White House Battles NYT Over Iran Nuclear Report With the presidential election potentially riding on MondayÂ’s foreign policy |
Posted by: Au Auric 2012-10-21 04:30 |
#2 A breakthrough! Now they can lie direct to our faces instead of through intermediaries. |
Posted by: Lionel Panda6719 2012-10-21 04:04 |
#1 Bull... there are no talks... the White House (you name the country) denied it tonight via another media outlet..... Au Auric sent you a link Rantburg last night.... look at your in box |
Posted by: Waldemar Mussolini7721 2012-10-21 03:46 |