Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Sun 10/21/2012 View Sat 10/20/2012 View Fri 10/19/2012 View Thu 10/18/2012 View Wed 10/17/2012 View Tue 10/16/2012 View Mon 10/15/2012
1
2012-10-21 Syria-Lebanon-Iran
U.S. Officials Say Iran Has Agreed to Nuclear Talks
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Steve White 2012-10-21 00:00|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [800 views ]  Top

#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||   2012-10-21 03:46|| Front Page Top

#2 A breakthrough! Now they can lie direct to our faces instead of through intermediaries.
Posted by Lionel Panda6719 2012-10-21 04:04||   2012-10-21 04:04|| Front Page Top

#3 White House Battles NYT Over Iran Nuclear Report
With the presidential election potentially riding on Monday’s foreign policy


Posted by Au Auric 2012-10-21 04:30||   2012-10-21 04:30|| Front Page Top

#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||   2012-10-21 07:07|| Front Page Top

#5 Nork Part II

I'm sure Jimmy Carter is available.
Posted by Procopius2k 2012-10-21 09:07||   2012-10-21 09:07|| Front Page Top

#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||   2012-10-21 09:40|| Front Page Top

#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||   2012-10-21 09:44|| Front Page Top

#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||   2012-10-21 10:20|| Front Page Top

#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||   2012-10-21 11:15|| Front Page Top

#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||   2012-10-21 15:44|| Front Page Top

#11 Linen. The tablecloth should be linen.
Posted by Perfesser 2012-10-21 16:14||   2012-10-21 16:14|| Front Page Top

#12 Why would you want a Beatle on your table top Dude?
Posted by swksvolFF 2012-10-21 17:18||   2012-10-21 17:18|| Front Page Top

#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||   2012-10-21 21:50|| Front Page Top

#14 US$ up front puhleez
Posted by Frank G 2012-10-21 21:56||   2012-10-21 21:56|| Front Page Top

00:19 JosephMendiola
23:38 CrazyFool
23:37 JosephMendiola
23:13 rjschwarz
23:09 Sherry
22:55 Secret Master
22:45 Secret Master
22:20 49 pan
21:56 Frank G
21:50 SteveS
21:46 tu3031
21:20 Alaska Paul
21:18 Alaska Paul
21:17 Mullah Richard
21:08 Mullah Richard
21:02 SteveS
20:50 Frank G
20:50 Glenmore
20:42 Pstanley
20:40 Skidmark
20:17 lotp
20:10 SteveS
20:05 Shinter Javirong9154
20:01 Water Modem
Merry-Go-Blog










Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com