U.S. and Iran are edging toward direct talks

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by gator996, Sep 12, 2013.

  1. gator996

    gator996 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,963
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +15
    Contrary to the belief of some here that US influence is waning in some parts of the ME, like Iran ....here's a news story to the exact contrary.

    http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-us-iran-20130912,0,1520818.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fmostviewed+%28L.A.+Times+-+Most+Viewed+Stories%29
    U.S. and Iran are edging toward direct talks

    The Syrian crisis has put the two nations back on speaking terms, though behind the scenes for now.

    [​IMG]


    By Paul Richter
    September 11, 2013, 6:15 p.m.



    WASHINGTON — Signaling a possible thaw in long-frozen relations, the Obama administration and the new leadership in Iran are communicating about Syria and are moving behind the scenes toward direct talks that both governments hope can ease the escalating confrontation over Tehran's nuclear program.


    President Obama reportedly reached out to Iran's relatively moderate president, Hassan Rouhani, through an exchange of letters in recent weeks. The pragmatist cleric is scheduled to address the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 24, and after years of the United States cold-shouldering his ultraconservative predecessor, U.S. officials say it's possible they will meet with Rouhani on the sidelines.

    Beyond that, U.S. and Iranian officials are tentatively laying the groundwork for potential face-to-face talks between the two governments, the first in the rancorous 34 years since radical students seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and founded the Islamic theocracy. Diplomatic relations have been broken ever since.

    Both governments have issued conciliatory public statements in recent days that suggest a new willingness to scale back the tension.

    Obama suggested in four TV interviews this week, for example, that Iran had played a constructive role in pushing Syrian President Bashar Assad to refrain from using chemical weapons. Iran is one of Syria's closest allies and supplies conventional arms to Assad's forces, so Rouhani may have considerable leverage in the Russian-led effort to disarm Syria of its toxic weapons.

    "You know, one reason that this may have a chance of success is that even Syria's allies, like Iran, detest chemical weapons," Obama told CNN. "Iran, you know, unfortunately was the target of chemical weapons at the hands of Saddam Hussein back during the Iraq-Iran War.... And you know, I suspect that some of Assad's allies recognize the mistake he made in using these weapons and it may be that he is under pressure from them as well."

    Washington and Tehran have exchanged private messages about the civil war in Syria, according to Iran's new foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, although he didn't reveal the substance. Analysts say Iran is trying to avoid having the Syrian chemical weapons crisis damage prospects for a potential resolution of Tehran's nuclear standoff with the West.
  2. Minister_of_Information

    Minister_of_Information I'm your huckleberry Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    14,057
    Likes Received:
    644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    In my prime
    Ratings Received:
    +1,329
    And what is the reason the US has avoided direct talks for this long, despite Obama's promises in 2008?
  3. gator996

    gator996 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,963
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +15
    We've been involved in a policy of sanctions to bring them to the negotiation table.

    This was heavily discussed in the presidential election.
    Where have you been?




    US Senate Republicans block Iran sanctions vote

    By REUTERS

    05/17/2012 21:03

    WASHINGTON - US Senate Republicans blocked new economic sanctions on Iran's oil sector on Thursday, saying they needed more time to study revisions, a surprise move that drew anger from Senate Democrats who had expected unanimous approval ahead of Iran talks on May 23.

    "I feel I've been jerked around," Democratic Leader Harry Reid said on the Senate floor after the Republican objection.

    But Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said his staff did not receive a draft of the bill until late on Wednesday night, and needed more time to make sure it was as strong as possible.

    "There is no reason in the world why we can't resolve whatever differences we have and move forward," McConnell said. "We certainly don't want to take a step backward, and there are members on my side of the aisle who are concerned that the way the measure is currently crafted could actually be a step in the wrong direction," McConnell said.

    The United States says Iran's nuclear program is a cover for developing the capability to build atomic bombs, while Iran says it is for civilian purposes.

    The sanctions are meant to shut down any financial deals with Iran's powerful state oil and tanker enterprises, stripping Tehran of crucial oil revenues. The new bill would build on penalties signed into law by President Barack Obama in December that threatened sanctions against any foreign institutions trading with Iran's central bank.

    Democrats wanted to pass the proposed penalties ahead of talks between world powers and Iran next week, and had support from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a powerful pro-Israel lobby group.

    But Republicans sought a stronger statement in the bill that the use of US military force was an option.

    "These sanctions are great. I hope they will change Iranian behavior. They haven't yet, and I don't think they ever will," said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

    "I want more on the table," Graham said.



    Even though Republicans have tried to damage the effectiveness of the sanctions...
    THEY WORKED!!!!



    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/02/us-iran-ahmadinejad-idUSBRE9710LZ20130802
    Iran's Ahmadinejad steps aside, divisive to the end

    By Marcus George

    DUBAI | Fri Aug 2, 2013 8:50am EDT

    (Reuters) - Vilified abroad for his blistering attacks against the West, blamed at home for Iran's economic woes and isolated from the supreme leader who groomed him for power, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad leaves the presidency with few friends and an uncertain future.

    Iranians elected his opposite - a mild-mannered, moderate member of the clerical establishment - to replace him, doubtless hoping for better times than they endured for eight years under the caustic hardline outsider.

    Ahmadinejad's abrasive rhetoric made him an easy target for Iran's opponents abroad, and the collapse of the economy under the weight of international sanctions and domestic mismanagement made him a magnet for blame at home.

    But history, whether written at home or abroad, is unlikely to be kind. Within hours of the election victory of moderate cleric Hassan Rouhani, thousands of people gathered outside Rouhani's headquarters and across the city to celebrate, shouting out "Ahmadi bye bye".



    ECONOMIC SHAMBLES

    High oil prices meant that Iran enjoyed record revenues during Ahmadinejad's two terms. But the economy nevertheless faltered because of mismanagement, and ultimately crumbled under embargoes imposed in 2012 by the United States and European Union, which cut oil exports in half.
    Dependent on oil to earn hard currency, Iran saw the rial fall and inflation soar, to 35 percent according to official figures, by some estimates double that.

    In late 2010 he launched a program to withdraw generous subsidies in favor of cash handouts. A bold move to wean Iran off costly benefits, it led to soaring prices for food and fuel, bringing hardship for many and deep criticism from rivals.

    "Ahmadinejad's erratic stewardship has left the Iranian economy in a shambles. His courage in taking the bull of subsidies by the horns will be lauded, while its poor implementation will be deplored," said Yasmin Alem, of the Atlantic Council's South Asia Center.

    Arguably, in economic policy, he served as a scapegoat for a system that has deeper problems. The subsidies he cut would have been even more expensive to maintain under sanctions.

    The sanctions themselves were a result of a nuclear standoff with the West that remains a fundamental state policy of Khamenei, although Ahmadinejad's deeply divisive hardline stance made negotiations tougher.
  4. gator996

    gator996 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,963
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +15
    Truth be told, the republicans have had nothing to offer on foreign policy since they invaded Iraq & Afghanistan.

    They've been so wrapped up in fighting the stimulus, Obamacare, and defeating Obama at all costs they never developed a foreign policy.

    Kinda funny to look back and see how they wanted military intervention in Iran and swore how diplomacy won't work versus what they're advocating today in Syria.

    They bitched about Libya...until it worked.
    They bitched about the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt...until they were ousted.


    You think it would be hard to have such a consistent track record of being 100% wrong...but the current GOP is up to the task!



    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/us/politics/republican-policies-for-iran-differ-little-from-obamas.html?_r=0

    Candidates Hammer Obama Over Iran, but Approaches Differ Little

    By HELENE COOPER

    Published: March 5, 2012

    WASHINGTON — To rein in Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, Mitt Romney says he would conduct naval exercises in the Persian Gulf to remind Iran of American military might. He would try to ratchet up Security Council sanctions on Iran, targeting its Revolutionary Guards, and the country’s central bank and other financial institutions. And if Russia and China do not go along, he says, the United States should team up with other willing governments to put such punitive measures in place.

    As it turns out, that amounts to what President Obama is doing.

    As their tone on Iran escalates in advance of appearances via satellite Tuesday morning before the country’s most influential pro-Israel lobbying group, the Republican candidates for president have tried to draw stark contrasts between themselves and Mr. Obama when it comes to stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Mr. Obama’s Iran strategy, Rick Santorum said recently on “Meet the Press” on NBC, risked turning the United States into a “paper tiger.” Newt Gingrich said that on Iran, “we’re being played for fools.”

    On Sunday, Mr. Romney, appearing in Atlanta, offered this: “If Barack Obama gets re-elected, Iran will have a nuclear weapon.” And on Monday, he wrote an op-ed article in The Washington Post comparing Mr. Obama to President Jimmy Carter, who he said “fretted in the White House” as Iran held American hostages for 444 days.

    Mr. Obama and his backers have cried foul, saying the Republican candidates, in the quest to appear tough, are playing a dangerous game that could end up driving Iran closer to a nuclear weapon, as Mr. Obama implied in his own address Sunday to a pro-Israel group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
  5. Minister_of_Information

    Minister_of_Information I'm your huckleberry Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    14,057
    Likes Received:
    644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    In my prime
    Ratings Received:
    +1,329
    But I thought Obama promised direct talks in 2008? What happened?
  6. gator996

    gator996 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,963
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +15
    The US had 2 direct meetings with Iran
    Iran rejected further talks
    The US employed sanctions to get them to the table
    The Iranian people ousted Achmedinijaad and replaced him with a moderate

    We now have talks scheduled again it appears.


    So, now that I've brought you up to speed...
    And as usual you are completely wrong...


    Your point is that US influence is waning in Iran like you said in the other post?

    :laugh:

    This from the Blaze:
    (Libertarian news network founded by Glenn Beck)

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/10/28/report-obama-offered-iran-full-diplomatic-relations-in-2009-including-reopening-embassies/#
    Report: Obama Offered Iran Full Diplomatic Relations in 2009, Including Reopening Embassies

    [​IMG]
    Maariv’s headline: When Iran Said “No” to Obama


    Did President Barack Obama once offer Iran full diplomatic relations as part of his “open hand” diplomacy when he first took office in 2009? That’s what an Israeli paper is reporting.

    Maariv’s Diplomatic Correspondent Eli Bardenstein reports in Sunday’s paper (as translated by TheBlaze):


    A number of months after he was elected president of the United States, Barack Obama tried to gradually renew diplomatic relations with Iran, to the extent of opening embassies and establishing full diplomatic relations. The Islamic Republic rejected the offer, out of fear for the future of the ayatollah regime. This, according to two diplomatic sources very close to the American administration.

    The American offer was part of an overall change in approach to U.S. foreign policy by Obama upon entering the White House. The program focused on emphasizing negotiations and by extending a “diplomatic hand.”

    While the body of the report offers no further detail about what full diplomatic relations would mean, a graphic accompanying Maariv’s report (pictured above, beneath the images of Obama and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) states renewed relations would include: direct flights between Washington or New York and Tehran; granting entry permits for American visitors to Iran and for Iranians to visit the U.S.; “security cooperation and defense of citizens visiting in the host country”; diplomatic dialogue at a senior level; and an exchange of senior officials’ visits.

    If true, Maariv’s report provides another example of Obama’s long-held belief that negotiations can stop Iran’s nuclear march.

    Last week, the New York Times reported that the U.S. and Iran had agreed in principle to one-on-one negotiations after years of “intense, secret exchanges” between U.S. and Iranian officials..

    As far back as the 2008 Democratic National Convention, then-candidate Obama promised he would conduct direct talks and direct presidential diplomacy with Iran with no preconditions, a stark shift from President George W. Bush’s approach. The hope was that a rapprochement in relations would lead to progress on stalling Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

    Maariv reports:


    In the first stage, the Americans offered the Iranians to open interest sections in Washington and Tehran which is the lowest level of relations between states. Later, the American administration intended to enter the stage of detailed agreements […]

    Maariv has learned that there were at least two direct meetings between official American envoys and Iranian officials on this issue beginning in the summer of 2009. Deputy Secretary of State William Burns and chief Iranian nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili participated in at least one of the two meetings.

    The Israeli paper reports that Burns and Jalili met on the sidelines of a 2009 meeting in Geneva about Iran’s nuclear program between representatives of Iran and the five permanent Security Council members and Germany, known as the P5+1. The U.S.-Iran direct meeting lasted one hour, per Maariv’s sources. Reporter Bardenstein writes that Jerusalem knew about and opposed the contacts:


    According to an Israeli source apprised of the contacts, the Islamic Republic feared any sign of normalization with the United States and refused to give a “prize” to the Americans. Iran’s main fear was that the ayatollah regime would be harmed by American intervention in Iranian society.

    In the wake of last weeks’ New York Times story on the agreement to one-on-one negotiations, Maariv quotes two senior Israeli sources who say recent messages conveyed to the Iranians did not include an offer to renew relations.

    The U.S. National Security Council would not comment to Maariv. As TheBlaze reported last week, the White House also denied the New York Times’ story that the U.S. and Iran agreed to hold direct talks. National Security Council Spokesman Tommy Vietor said in a statement last week:


    It’s not true that the United States and Iran have agreed to one-on-one talks or any meeting after the American elections. We continue to work with the P5+1 on a diplomatic solution and have said from the outset that we would be prepared to meet bilaterally…

    Iran also denied it had agreed to one-on-one talks with the U.S. over its nuclear program.
  7. Minister_of_Information

    Minister_of_Information I'm your huckleberry Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    14,057
    Likes Received:
    644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    In my prime
    Ratings Received:
    +1,329
    So Obama met with Amadinijad or whatever his name was? That's news to me.
  8. gator996

    gator996 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,963
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +15
    Why am I not surprised that most things that occur in reality is news to you?
  9. Minister_of_Information

    Minister_of_Information I'm your huckleberry Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    14,057
    Likes Received:
    644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    In my prime
    Ratings Received:
    +1,329
    So did Obama meet with him or not?
  10. oldgator

    oldgator Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,605
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +139
    ----contrary to what you may think

    there is two types of talking----
    talking at people---which means that one or both people are talking without really caring what the other says
    talking with people--which means that both sides talk and listen

    like fighting, etc which takes two to tango......to go from fighting to peace also takes both sides willingness.

    Simply put, U.S. has been willing for decades to open reasonable dialogue with Iran. Thing is, Iran really hasn't seen a need or want over that time to meet the U.S. in good faith.

    What has changed is that Iran now has need they didn't before to deal with the U.S. likely a result of actions by the U.S. in recent years(most likely within the last few years than 6-10 or more years ago).

    Since talking doesn't work if the other person isn't listening.

    Simply put---Iran pretty much was laughing during GWB's posturing talk of 'Axis of evil'

    Simply put---I doubt you would listen or talk with the other person, if the other person referred to you as 'evil'. You might talk 'at' him trading insults. But chances are you wouldn't talk 'with'.
  11. Minister_of_Information

    Minister_of_Information I'm your huckleberry Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    14,057
    Likes Received:
    644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    In my prime
    Ratings Received:
    +1,329
    Yannow, OG, there is also the idea that direct negotiations confer prestige and legitimacy. You don't reward bad behavior by passing out prestige and legitimacy like cotton candy. And I think we know why Obama never got his chance to foxtrot with Ahmadinijad in 2009, because Iran ended up putting down a democratic uprising on its streets before he was able. Amateur hour for sure.
  12. oldgator

    oldgator Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,605
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +139
    complaining now that the talks didn't start immediately in 2008 is rather disingenuous. Have little doubt many at the time(2008) including possibly yourself would have complained bitterly about Obama talking with Iran at the time(200*) in the midst of the economic collapse the U.S. was in at the time---and you would have been right in that at that time(2008) we had far more pressing matters than Iran.

    your spin is lame

    ---------------

    that the talks took so long to appear now---seems to indicate
    ----not likely to be appeasement on the part of Obama/U.S. since that could have been done in 2008
    ----likely a result of Iran being more willing now to yield on a number of issues---otherwise they would not be willing to talk
    ----the GWB/GOP failure to do anything about the 'axis of evil' except call it the 'axis of evil' likely has taken 5 years of hard stands under Obama to force Iran to the bargaining table. Not only did GWB/GOP did little about Iran except namecalling. The fact is GWB actually took efforts away from dealing with Iran/Libya/North Korea and devoting resources to Iraq/Saddam Hussein. If not mistaken ---Iraq and Iran were very much enemies during the Saddam years. So in essence GWB removed an enemy of Iran(Saddam).

    ---------------

    finally---there is always 'bad behavior' on the part of the other side(whoever or whatever you may be discussing)---otherwise there would be no friction between the two parties.

    SO SOONER OR LATER OPEN TALKS will occur---despite what naughty little boy you're dealing with. Especially with current political correctness in America demanding that all things be in the open. I have little doubt you'd be whining if there were silent talks via diplomats behind closed doors

    The main thing is to have open talks from a position of strength-- which negates whatever prestige the other side might try to claim. The position of strength is also mandatory if appeasement is to not occur.

    Funny thing is, Obama was willing to talk with Iran years ago with some nice carrots to entice Iran combined with definite solid/severe demands upon them in order for them to get the carrots. Iran declined. Now Iran is coming forward from a far weaker position due to pressure put on Iran over the years since 2009. And we(U.S.) are likely to have much more favorable results from talks than would have occurred in 2009.

    so Minister of Information... go talk at the moon
  13. Minister_of_Information

    Minister_of_Information I'm your huckleberry Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    14,057
    Likes Received:
    644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    In my prime
    Ratings Received:
    +1,329
    I feel like I am already. Though it's not quite as bright tonight as I was expecting. :wave:
  14. Row6

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    Bumper sticker slogans vs facts and informed analysis. Tough call.
  15. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    14,535
    Likes Received:
    1,088
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    SW Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +2,345
    Iran will talk all day and night. They like to talk while the centrifuges spin. Talking buys time. They will talk right up until their first succesful nuke test and then they will laugh
  16. orangeblueorangeblue

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    57,079
    Likes Received:
    596
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,879
    Well we know countries aren't allowed to have nukes, so we should stop talking.
  17. gator996

    gator996 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,963
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +15
    So you're not in favor of diplomacy here.

    Your solution for Iran is what, war?
  18. oldgator

    oldgator Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,605
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +139
    more likely G8trGr8t doesn't have a solution and prefers to throw stones.
  19. PSGator66

    PSGator66 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2011
    Messages:
    6,339
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +717
    This defending of Obama is laughable!!
  20. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    33,046
    Likes Received:
    2,513
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,549
    Anyone that doesn't think that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars didn't have something to do with Iran's sudden openness to talking to the U.S. is deluding themselves. The fear of military action is the main reason why Iran would ever come to the table to negotiate with the U.S.. Sanctions are good if every country on Earth is on board, but that alone is not the main reason why Iran is hinting of negotiating with the U.S..

Share This Page