• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Officials Say Iran Has Agreed to Nuclear Talks

It wouldn't be the first time the NYT has gotten a story wrong.

Just for the sake of argument though, what if the US was quietly arranging bilateral talks? Wouldn't that be great news? Even better, what if the US had already begun the preliminaries?

The longer this goes on it's looking less likely, but I still hold out hope and obviously prefer that political and diplomatic efforts can be made to settle Iran's nuclear issue to achieve a peaceful resolution.
 
treedancer said:
Kinda looks like there will be something of substance that BO can ask romneys advice on come Monday night.:2wave:


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.>


<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 which American president they would be negotiating with.>


<Mr. Romney has repeatedly criticized the president as showing weakness toward Iran and failing to stand firmly with Israel against the Iranian nuclear threat.>

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/w...talk-to-us-about-nuclear-program.html?_r=1&hp
Click to expand...

Throughout the diplomatic process, Iran has used "new" rounds of talks to buy time even as it has continued its nuclear activities. It has demonstrated inadequate flexibility in each of those rounds. My guess is that this latest round, even as it's bilateral, will again accomplish little.

As for the President, he's in a tough spot on this issue. He can't go into too much detail e.g., strategy for this latest round. Public posturing can prove damaging to the diplomatic process. He needs to stick to general principles (those which have been stated on repeated occasions).
 
donsutherland1 said:
Throughout the diplomatic process, Iran has used "new" rounds of talks to buy time even as it has continued its nuclear activities. It has demonstrated inadequate flexibility in each of those rounds. My guess is that this latest round, even as it's bilateral, will again accomplish little.

As for the President, he's in a tough spot on this issue. He can't go into too much detail e.g., strategy for this latest round. Public posturing can prove damaging to the diplomatic process. He needs to stick to general principles (those which have been stated on repeated occasions).
Click to expand...

And if he sticks to "general principles (those which have been stated on repeated occasions "it becomes fodder for romney...kinda sad really.:(
 
Born Free said:
Iran wants to talk, is this something new. Yet another stall tactic, Obama will of course appease, appease, appease, them BOOM ....... Sorry Israel
Click to expand...

CedarBear said:
Here comes Obama's October Surprise:


Iran will agree to stop enrichment in return for loosening sanctions.


Obama wins, America continues our decline, Iran fires up the centrifuges, nukes Israel, oil goes to $500...get the picture.


When's that Mayan Calendar end again?
Click to expand...


Why would Iran nuke Israel when they know that they will be annihilated? While Ahmadinejad has said crazy things, he isn't even in charge, the Supreme Leader Sayyid Ali Khamenei is in charge of the show.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
Why would Iran nuke Israel when they know that they will be annihilated? While Ahmadinejad has said crazy things, he isn't even in charge, the Supreme Leader Sayyid Ali Khamenei is in charge of the show.
Click to expand...

Probably because the "the Supreme Leader Sayyid Ali Khamenei "has a distorted take on the musim religion.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
Why would Iran nuke Israel when they know that they will be annihilated? While Ahmadinejad has said crazy things, he isn't even in charge, the Supreme Leader Sayyid Ali Khamenei is in charge of the show.
Click to expand...

Ever hear of a suicide bomber? What you think, they care about life, even their own people. Of course you try and make up a scenario to justify appeasement and let them have nuclear weapons, which in the hands of terrorists could destroy Israel. You think Iran could not give terrorists the "bomb" to do it's dirty work?
 
sharon said:
I knew Iraq didn't have WMDs... Iraq was crippled by two decades of war and sanctions.. and they had NOTHING to do with 9-11.

What strange arguments you invent.
Click to expand...

Where were you when all the worlds intelligence was telling a different story?
 
Uzidoesit said:
Romeny wants to help big business. Nothing like a big war to help the military industrial complex to make loads of $$$. That's exactly what Romney would do. A bloodbath.
Click to expand...

Geeee another Obama talking point. As soon as Romney is elected and sworn in, he's going to start dropping bombs all around the world..
 
Born Free said:
Geeee another Obama talking point. As soon as Romney is elected and sworn in, he's going to start dropping bombs all around the world..
Click to expand...


Whats your take on " U.S. Officials Say Iran Has Agreed to Nuclear Talks "?
 
Mr. Invisible said:
Why would Iran nuke Israel when they know that they will be annihilated? While Ahmadinejad has said crazy things, he isn't even in charge, the Supreme Leader Sayyid Ali Khamenei is in charge of the show.
Click to expand...

Obviously they wont, but the threat posed by an Iranian nuclear weapon actually has very little to do with whether or not Iran would actually launch a weapon at a target. Though this is certainly also a concern.
 
treedancer said:
Whats your take on " U.S. Officials Say Iran Has Agreed to Nuclear Talks "?
Click to expand...

My take is that the White House has already denied it. But what if it's true?

What talks? The only thing Iran would want to talk about is lessening the crippling economic sanctions the west has imposed on the country. And, while they're talking? The U.S. would be dis-inclined to impose any further ones, thus talks work in Iran's favor and not the United States. In the meantime, Iran marches forward with its research and development. I'm not impressed. Even if it is true.

If Iran and the US get into "talks," I hope the US sets the agenda. Where's the UN on this one? Why aren't the "talks" with them? Anyone see an Iraq in the making? I sure do.
 
MaggieD said:
My take is that the White House has already denied it. But what if it's true?

What talks? The only thing Iran would want to talk about is lessening the crippling economic sanctions the west has imposed on the country. And, while they're talking? The U.S. would be dis-inclined to impose any further ones, thus talks work in Iran's favor and not the United States. In the meantime, Iran marches forward with its research and development. I'm not impressed. Even if it is true.

If Iran and the US get into "talks," I hope the US sets the agenda. Where's the UN on this one? Why aren't the "talks" with them? Anyone see an Iraq in the making? I sure do.
Click to expand...

I'm not totally convinced that sanctions and pressure are incapable of yielding results, I just think it's extremely unlikely. If Iran wants to agree to remove its existing U-235 stockpiles for international management, to shut down many of its enrichment facilities, to dispose of all uranium enriched beyond 5%, and to submit to a large scale monitoring effort, then there is an opening to reduce sanctions and pressure. But I think Iran is committed to acquiring at minimum a protonuclear capability and it has invested too much political and financial capital at this point to turn away.
 
MaggieD said:
My take is that the White House has already denied it. But what if it's true?

What talks? The only thing Iran would want to talk about is lessening the crippling economic sanctions the west has imposed on the country. And, while they're talking? The U.S. would be dis-inclined to impose any further ones, thus talks work in Iran's favor and not the United States. In the meantime, Iran marches forward with its research and development. I'm not impressed. Even if it is true.

If Iran and the US get into "talks," I hope the US sets the agenda. Where's the UN on this one? Why aren't the "talks" with them? Anyone see an Iraq in the making? I sure do.
Click to expand...

Nothing will be done before the election Maggie. That’s a fact. Like I said in a previous post,this is a smokescreen thrown up to get in mitts head before the debate.

Kinda like a catcher leaking to the batter that the next pitch is a fastball,then up pops a screwball.:2wave:
 
treedancer said:
Kinda looks like there will be something of substance that BO can ask romneys advice on come Monday night.:2wave:


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.>


<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 which American president they would be negotiating with.>


<Mr. Romney has repeatedly criticized the president as showing weakness toward Iran and failing to stand firmly with Israel against the Iranian nuclear threat.>

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/w...talk-to-us-about-nuclear-program.html?_r=1&hp
Click to expand...


AS far as I am concerned the US has no business dictating what weapons a country can or can't have. Especially seeing how the US,and many other countries have nukes themselves,talk about hypocritical. So Iron should just extend a couple of middle fingers and tell the UN and everyone else to go **** themselves.
 
jamesrage said:
AS far as I am concerned the US has no business dictating what weapons a country can or can't have. Especially seeing how the US,and many other countries have nukes themselves,talk about hypocritical. So Iron should just extend a couple of middle fingers and tell the UN and everyone else to go **** themselves.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with fairness. I don't care an iota about what Iran things is fair. This is about what is in the interests of the United States, the interests of global liberalism, and the hoped for spread of democratic hegemony. Fairness? It's nonsense. Like Marx said, there is a world to win.
 
The President of the United States said tonight the rumor is not true. Case closed. Mystery solved. Rumor quashed.
 
Sherman123 said:
This has nothing to do with fairness. I don't care an iota about what Iran things is fair. This is about what is in the interests of the United States,
Click to expand...
Iran is no threat to the US.
the interests of global liberalism, and the hoped for spread of democratic hegemony. Fairness? It's nonsense. Like Marx said, there is a world to win.
Click to expand...

1.Globalist are scum of the earth with no loyalty to their country,so I don't give a damn about global liberalism. 2.Democracy is not going to be spread or stopped or threatened just because Iran has nukes.3.I could care less what Marx said.
 
jamesrage said:
Iran is no threat to the US.


1.Globalist are scum of the earth with no loyalty to their country,so I don't give a damn about global liberalism. 2.Democracy is not going to be spread or stopped or threatened just because Iran has nukes.3.I could care less what Marx said.
Click to expand...

1. Globalism is the future of humanity and the existence of an interconnected and globalized world with repercussions reverberating from one area of the world to the other, a fact of life.

2. Democracy and a general liberal agenda is going to be checked by an Iranian nuke by increasing that countries ability to contest for control of the region and to create greater tension and conflict.

3. It is a good turn of phrase, and Marx had many of them including not a few insightful ideas. Ideological choke chains tend to prevent people from seeing that.
 
jamesrage said:
Iran is no threat to the US.
Click to expand...

Iranian regional hegemony would pose a direct threat to vital U.S. interests (access to Persian Gulf oil) and regional allies (Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the smaller Persian Gulf states).
 
Sherman123 said:
1. Globalism is the future of humanity and the existence of an interconnected and globalized world with repercussions reverberating from one area of the world to the other, a fact of life.
Click to expand...

Only pieces of **** globalist are claiming that.Globalism is not necessary for the future of humanity.

2. Democracy and a general liberal agenda is going to be checked by an Iranian nuke by increasing that countries ability to contest for control of the region and to create greater tension and conflict.
Click to expand...


Seeing how we have the most nukes in the world our democracy is not checked nor is the democracy of other countries in check. Iran having some nukes is not going to impact the area.Iran is also not a threat to us.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Iranian regional hegemony would pose a direct threat to vital U.S. interests (access to Persian Gulf oil) and regional allies (Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the smaller Persian Gulf states).
Click to expand...

1.We should not be dependent on foreign oil.Especially if that money lines the pockets of dictators and other people who do not share our ideals.

2.Those countries can take care of themselves.
 
jamesrage said:
Only pieces of **** globalist are claiming that.Globalism is not necessary for the future of humanity.




Seeing how we have the most nukes in the world our democracy is not checked nor is the democracy of other countries in check. Iran having some nukes is not going to impact the area.Iran is also not a threat to us.
Click to expand...

1. I don't follow.

2. There are more layers of threat than the simple "Will my country be destroyed by X country". Foreign policy is slightly more sophisticated and complex than that.
 
jamesrage said:
1.We should not be dependent on foreign oil.Especially if that money lines the pockets of dictators and other people who do not share our ideals.
Click to expand...

The U.S. and its leading partners in Europe and East Asia are dependent on foreign oil. Even if the U.S. achieved energy "independence" from the Mideast, open access to Persian Gulf oil would remain at least a critical U.S. interest so long as major U.S. partners remained dependent on Mideast oil. Moreover, so long as a sustained disruption of Mideast oil would lead to a significant global economic shock, access to the Persian Gulf would also remain a critical interest given the linkages between the U.S. economy and world's economies. In that context, a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a grave threat to critical U.S. interests.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Iranian regional hegemony would pose a direct threat to vital U.S. interests (access to Persian Gulf oil) and regional allies (Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the smaller Persian Gulf states).
Click to expand...

Not to be a contrarian Don, but I really wouldn't say that the Saudis are our friends.

Mr. Invisible said:
They supported and exported Wahabbism (Saudi Kingdom Continues to Export Radical Wahhabism) (The Rise of the Wahhabi Movement and the Saudi State). This extremist form of Islam manifested itself in Al Qaeda (Wahhabism, bin Ladenism, and the Saudi Arabia Dilemma, UCLA International Institute).


Saudi Arabia has supported Al Qaeda (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/world/middleeast/24saudi.html?_r=0). They have also backed terrorism. (Terrorism Out of Saudi Arabia - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) (WikiLeaks cables portray Saudi Arabia as a cash machine for terrorists | World news | The Guardian)


Edit: Saudi Arabia is not a friend of the US.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom