Did Obama Offer to Meet Unconditionally With Iran?

[Brainster]

According to the New York Times and the Obama Campaign, John McCain is lying about Obama:

“Senator Obama wants to sit down and have negotiations and discussions with the person who just yesterday called Israel a quote ‘stinking corpse,’ ” he said, referring to Mr. Ahmadinejad, and “who continues to advocate quote ‘wiping Israel off the map.’ ”

Susan E. Rice, a former State Department and National Security Council official who is a foreign policy adviser to the Democratic candidate, said that “for political purposes, Senator Obama’s opponents on the right have distorted and reframed” his views. Mr. McCain and his surrogates have repeatedly stated that Mr. Obama would be willing to meet “unconditionally” with Mr. Ahmadinejad. But Dr. Rice said that this was not the case for Iran or any other so-called “rogue” state.

Well, thanks to the Times and Dr Rice for clearing that up for us. Of course you may wonder where anybody got the ridiculous notion that Barack Obama had agreed to meet unconditionally with Iran. Well, for one thing, in an interview with the New York Times:

Making clear that he planned to talk to Iran without preconditions, Mr. Obama emphasized further that “changes in behavior” by Iran could possibly be rewarded with membership in the World Trade Organization, other economic benefits and security guarantees.

For another, in a YouTube debate back last summer:



Kudos to the Times for doing such a great job of fact checking!

 

[Uzzy]

Surely sitting down and talking to Iran is a good thing? It's far better to talk to a country then threaten them with Nuclear Annihilation.

Who knows what the result of talks with Iran might be? If nothing happens with the talks, then we are in no worse a situation then we are today. If, however, good things happen, then real progress might be made in improving relations and solving some of the issues with Iran.

 

[Brainster]

Surely sitting down and talking to Iran is a good thing? It's far better to talk to a country then threaten them with Nuclear Annihilation.

Who knows what the result of talks with Iran might be? If nothing happens with the talks, then we are in no worse a situation then we are today. If, however, good things happen, then real progress might be made in improving relations and solving some of the issues with Iran.

There is an argument to be made there. But the Times is trying to claim that Obama didn't make the offer.

 

[Texas]

Surely sitting down and talking to Iran is a good thing? It's far better to talk to a country then threaten them with Nuclear Annihilation.

.

Yes Iran should try that with Israel.

 

[Texas]

Surely sitting down and talking to Iran is a good thing? It's far better to talk to a country then threaten them with Nuclear Annihilation.

Who knows what the result of talks with Iran might be? If nothing happens with the talks, then we are in no worse a situation then we are today. If, however, good things happen, then real progress might be made in improving relations and solving some of the issues with Iran.

What exactly do you think the subject of those talks should or would be?

 

[ronpaulisright]

Screw obama. he is a CFR member just like the rest of 'em. He's for corporate interests just like mccreep, and hitlery. Obama is a fraud!

 

[Texas]

Screw obama. he is a CFR member just like the rest of 'em. He's for corporate interests just like mccreep, and hitlery. Obama is a fraud!

You must be the only man Will Rogers never met.

 

[ZouPrime]

Yeah. Meeting with your enemy... what a stupid idea!

But saying that you are going to level their country to the ground, now that's sensible diplomacy!

 

[Texas]

Yeah. Meeting with your enemy... what a stupid idea!

But saying that you are going to level their country to the ground, now that's sensible diplomacy!

Ok, what would you have Obama say in that meeting?

 

[ZenFountain]

I found merit to the argument, which admittedly was Ron Paul's, that we kept an embassy and diplomatic channels open with the Soviets during the most tense moments of the the Cold War. Through three major indirect wars and dozens of crisis, too many to list, we kept a direct channel open with them because the consequences of not far outweighed the tough posture of complete isolation. Iran is an entirely different situation but regardless, they too will eventually find their political and economic situation untenable and be forced to elect a reformist. Will we have a President in office with the courage to reach out at that moment and take us down a new road in relations, despite the inevitable short term fallout at home?

It's impossible to know how capable Obama would be on the international stage and whether his talk of diplomacy with sworn enemies is little more than banter to appease the left, but I do find his rhetoric on the Iranian matter more hopeful than McCain's.

 

[Uzzy]

What exactly do you think the subject of those talks should or would be?

Aside from the obvious issues of Iraq, Terrorism, Nuclear Weapons and Oil, you mean? Personally, I'd start with talks to resume diplomatic relations, improve cultural links, improving understanding. Then move onto the bigger issues.

Not being a skilled international diplomat, I wouldn't know exactly where to start, but at the very least officials from both sides can sit down around a table and talk, if not initially in direct talks then perhaps in multi-nation talks, with Russia and the EU being obvious candidates for other participants.

Obama has nothing to lose from sitting down and talking with Iran, and everything to gain. I think we have to at least try to talk to them.

 

[Texas]

Aside from the obvious issues of Iraq, Terrorism, Nuclear Weapons and Oil, you mean? Personally, I'd start with talks to resume diplomatic relations, improve cultural links, improving understanding. Then move onto the bigger issues.

Not being a skilled international diplomat, I wouldn't know exactly where to start, but at the very least officials from both sides can sit down around a table and talk, if not initially in direct talks then perhaps in multi-nation talks, with Russia and the EU being obvious candidates for other participants.

Obama has nothing to lose from sitting down and talking with Iran, and everything to gain. I think we have to at least try to talk to them.

Your post is a very good argument for diplomacy with Iran and I agree that Iran has a very good chance of rejoining the family of nations given the attitudes of their younger populace. As to direct talks between any POTUS and the president of Iran there are several issues that need to be addressed. The first is what role and authority does the president have in negotiations. The answer appears to be very little. This president and any president they may elect is only a figurehead in that country. The actual authority lies with the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Guardian Counsel. It is a group of 9 Mullahs that set policy both foreign and domestic. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/middle_east/iran/structure.html

It was this Council that mandated the Iranian nuclear program and it is they under the direction of the Supreme Leader, that fund with money and weapons the different surrogates in the region including Hezbollah, Hamas, and the various militias now operating in Iraq the principle one being the Mahdi Army led by Sadr. So to have direct negotiations between the POTUS and Iran it would have to be with the Supreme Leader not the president of Iran. They have never been involved in any foreign negations with any head of state that I can find. So the first problem with Obama he would not be negotiating with a fellow head of state but a puppet that has no authority commit to any agreement made. The only one that could do tha would be Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his position is at the sufferance of the Revolutionary Guard Corps who would not stand still for a change in Iranian policy towards the Great Satan. So once we get past those obstacles then we can discuss the agenda for negotiations.

 

[Cain]

Here's the thing about the Democratic elites who run America: They secretly hate America, and have longed to turn over power to their communist overlords in the East. After that system collapsed they went to their second choice, Islam.

 

[Uzzy]

Very true Texas. It's going to be a while before the POTUS meets the Grand Ayatollah, but certainly initial talks can start quickly. Next it would be deputy secretaries of state, progressing upwards from there. Either way, talking at any level is better then the alternative.

 

[WildCat]

Wait, are there actually people on this thread who think there hasn't been ongoing talks with Iran? Maybe you guys should read a newspaper every now and then.

 

[jj]

Screw obama. he is a CFR member just like the rest of 'em. He's for corporate interests just like mccreep, and hitlery. Obama is a fraud!

Wow. Look at this. TLA's, plays on names, unsupported assertions...

Could it be ...

a (gasp) CONSPIRACY?

 

[jj]

Here's the thing about the Democratic elites who run America: They secretly hate America, and have longed to turn over power to their communist overlords in the East. After that system collapsed they went to their second choice, Islam.

Wow, got evidence? Got milk?

 

[Texas]

Wait, are there actually people on this thread who think there hasn't been ongoing talks with Iran? Maybe you guys should read a newspaper every now and then.

Why ruin a perfectly good narrative with facts?

 

[Cain]

Wow, got evidence? Got milk?

Oh, what a burn. You got me. I bow down to your superior senility.

 

[Uzzy]

Well, this Reuters article suggests that some meetings have taken place recently, which is certainly good. But only talking about Iraq. Still, it's a good start!