| |||||||
| From | Message | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 Obama continues to earn that Nobel Prize for Peace. . . By HELENE COOPER and MARK LANDLER Published: October 20, 2012 "WASHINGTON — The United States and Iran have agreed 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. News of the agreement — a result of intense, secret exchanges between American and Iranian officials that date almost to the beginning of President Obama’s term — comes at a critical moment in the presidential contest, just two weeks before Election Day and the weekend before the final debate, which is to focus on national security and foreign policy. It has the potential to help Mr. Obama make the case that he is nearing a diplomatic breakthrough in the decade-long effort by the world’s major powers to curb Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, but it could pose a risk if Iran is seen as using the prospect of the direct talks to buy time. It is also far from clear that Mr. Obama’s opponent, Mitt Romney, would go through with the negotiation should he win election. Mr. Romney has repeatedly criticized the president as showing weakness on Iran and failing to stand firmly with Israel against the Iranian nuclear threat. Reports of the agreement have circulated among a small group of diplomats involved with Iran. The question of how best to deal with Iran has political ramifications for Mr. Romney as well. While he has accused Mr. Obama of weakness, he has given few specifics about what he would do differently. Moreover, the prospect of one-on-one negotiations could put Mr. Romney in an awkward spot, since he has opposed allowing Iran to enrich uranium to any level — a concession that experts say will probably figure in any deal on the nuclear program. 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. “It would be unconscionable to go to war if we haven’t had such discussions,” said R. Nicholas Burns, who led negotiations with Iran as under secretary of state in the George W. Bush administration. 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. 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. Within the administration, there is debate over just how much uranium the United States would allow Iran to enrich inside the country. Among those involved in the deliberations, an official said, are Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, two of her deputies — William J. Burns and Wendy Sherman — and key White House officials, including the national security adviser, Thomas E. Donilon, and two of his lieutenants, Denis R. McDonough and Gary Samore. 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 Mr. Romney’s position has shifted back and forth. In September, he told ABC News that his “red line” on Iran was the same as Mr. Obama’s — that Iran may not have a nuclear weapon. But his campaign later edited its Web site to include the line, “Mitt Romney believes that it is unacceptable for Iran to possess nuclear weapons capability.” He repeated that in a speech at Virginia Military Institute this month. For years, Iran has rejected one-on-one talks with the United States, reflecting what experts say are internal power struggles. A key tug of war is between President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ali Larijani, Iran’s former nuclear negotiator and now the chairman of the Parliament. Iran, which views its nuclear program as a vital national interest, has also shied away from direct negotiations because the ruling mullahs did not want to appear as if they were sitting down with a country they have long demonized as the Great Satan. But economic pressure may be forcing their hand. In June, when the major powers met in Moscow, American officials say that Iran was desperate to stave off a crippling European oil embargo. After that failed, these officials now say, Iranian officials delivered a message that Tehran would be willing to hold direct talks. At the United Nations in September, Mr. Ahmadinejad hinted as much, describing the reasoning to American journalists. “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. Even with possible negotiations in the offing, there is no evidence Iran has slowed its fuel production. It continues to make nuclear fuel and has refused to allow international inspectors into key sites. Any negotiation with Iran, American officials say, would have to include highly intrusive inspection regimes." www.nytimes.com |
||||||
|
this is good news |
||||||
|
ace_kyi 20-Oct-12, 17:52 |
Did Obama really earn Nobel Prize? |
||||||
|
ace. . . |
||||||
|
here we have hopeful news.Thanks Shamash. |
||||||
|
ace_kyi 20-Oct-12, 18:58 |
shamash |
||||||
|
President Obama.Nobel laureate!!!! Obama kills bin-laden. The right-wing does not like that so they spread lies saying Bush really did it, or the Seals carried the raid out without orders from the CIC. Shamash just reported some hopefully good news.Lets hope it will come to something other then a bunch of dead women and children like in Bush's Iraq War. And if negotiations don't work the President(this Nobel laureate) President will no what to do. |
||||||
|
ace_kyi 20-Oct-12, 20:17 |
Wait and watch the presidential debate on foreign policy |
||||||
|
i agree ace!! |
||||||
|
I must say HOW COINCIDENTAL. (I guess this is the October surprise we have been waiting for?) Does anybody think this is a for-real, stop-building-a-nuke deal for Iran? What do you think BO really gave away in order to get them to announce that they are willing to even talk? |
||||||
|
softy you are just upset because one of romney's talking points is obama has been soft on iran. that is not at all true, but this shows that, in spite of your constant bleating about it, the administration has been talking to iran all along. just like i said. we just did not know about it. here is another one. the right has been whining that obama has not been supporting israel and has sent messages to the rest of the world that we will not support them. but wait... what was that? oh that? just the largest joint military exercise the us and israel have ever carried out together. latimesblogs.latimes.com |
||||||
|
softy you claim you do not hate obama, but you do. you are willing to accuse him basically of treason in an off the cuff remark based on absolutely nothing. you know nothing about it but immediately assume he is gambling american security to get a few votes. you are a slimy piece of work sometimes. |
||||||
|
LETS HOPE |
||||||
|
bc |
||||||
|
for the record I was called "a slimy piece of work". Is this how the left wants to be represented? It seems to be the norm here to make personal attacks against anybody who has a different viewpoint. Is this the consensus of the liberal mindset? I am a "slimy piece of work" because I express skepticism on an announced breakthrough with Iran two days before a presidential debate on foreign policy? Ok... if nobody has anything to say against this condescension, I'll take it as acceptable liberal behavior. |
||||||
|
softy you even repeat that crap about obama having been disbarred. you still whine about the birth certificate and the term papers. you will not give him credit for bin laden's death. you claim he did poorly in the first debate because he doesn't care. as you sow, so shall you reap. by the way, i do not speak for liberals. i speak for myself. |
||||||
|
Z. You should not call him slimy |
||||||
|
Anyone can understand why arms dealers would hate a nuclear truce with Iran, but only American conservatives could come up with a rationale to discourage this talk in the making. |
||||||
|
ed It would indeed be awesome if the talks with Iran proceed and come to an all-around agreement that is beneficial to mankind. But my skepticism is based on the fact this agreement to talk has been announced 2 days before a presidential debate on foreign policy. You aren't even a little skeptical? |
||||||
|
softy |
||||||
|
bc You call foxnews, romney, ryan, the entire bush administration, Rush and all the neo-cons, Condoleza Rice, the tea party, and almost the entire GOP as being "slimy". But softaire is not slimy? You call all the people and groups that I generally agree with and am associated with as "slimy" but you expect me to believe you aren't including me in that? Somehow I am better than that entire group? I don't think so. I am as slimy as the rest of them, I'm sure. (Just another feature of the liberal mindset) |
||||||
|
interesting and disapointing if true. |
||||||
|
softy just look at your's and thumpers posts. virtually everyone belittles all liberals as horrible people. but when the shoe is on the other foot, 'all liberals are like that." pretty funny stuff. |
||||||
|
back Here's my 50 second digital sound bite. Just for you Softy. ....Let the President do his job. He is not an ignorant or naive man. He is possibly the best foreign diplomacy President we have had in 30 years. He's working a hard job on many fronts. Worst depression in history, multiple wars, global competion on labor fronts ( this is a 21st century phenomenom...if you disgard the slavery issue of the the past 4 centuries), a lost middle American class, AND an increasingly wealthy interest that buys political favors.( Every political favor is bought.....bought means that the people who can't buy have no political favor....back to slavery at minimum wage.....which is a joke. But I go aside.) And thats we he came into. So here is an opportunity to dialoge with Iran....I get your skeptiscm about the timing, but...so what? |
||||||
|
but this is pretty good if it works out. we can hope that it will lead to a peaceful solution. |
||||||
|
softy |
||||||
|
Z- Checkmate! Ya got me! I plead "No Contest" to the charges that I label liberals as a group too. I have NO defense for this one. Ed- Nice reply & a Good One. |
||||||
|
Conservatives love their country passionately ... they staunchly defending it from any threat ... and they tend to stand up using the strengths this country has gained against potential threats (other countries tend to leave the 'big guy' alone). Liberals love their country passionately ... they tend to protect those who cannot help themselves ... wanting to stand up using these strengths as an invitation to others not so well blessed, protecting our country's ideals and goals as examples for others to copy. It is our country's virtue to have BOTH, not one or the other! |
||||||
|
well said chaz |
||||||
|
I come from a different point of view However, where I differ (or maybe not) is that Iran is lying through their teeth. Its another stall tactic to continue their march to nukes. Do they want to be on the American payroll like N. Korea or do they want to have much of the world fear them and their actions if they were to obtain nukes? Sorry but they hate us to our core and I dont trust them. |
||||||
| |||||||
Log in 
