Iran to negotiate with US?

posted at 6:31 pm on October 20, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

Before we get to the inevitable, let’s just get the major news out of the way, shall we? (Though I’ll simply mention that the link in question comes from the New York Times.)

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.

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 a day before the final debate, which is to focus on national security and foreign policy.

I feel duty bound, as an American, to say that we should all hope that this startling revelation represents a long awaited, overdue breakthrough in relations with Tehran. And if Iran is ready to come to the table to calm the tensions running rampant in that part of the world, we should all embrace…

OK…. that’s all I could manage.

COME ON! It’s less than three weeks before the election and barely 24 hours before the foreign policy debate between the candidates. Are we supposed to be finding this just a happy circumstance?

The interesting bit here is the notion that there could be unilateral negotiations between the United States and Iran. This opens the door to any number of possibilities, not all of which are good. Why would Iran want to enter into negotiations which didn’t involve France and Germany, long time clients who might provide a bit of a firewall?

To be clear, I’m not claiming that this is some sort of “October surprise” cooked up by the Obama administration. I don’t even know if that would be possible. But the flip side of that coin is that we all know Iran watches the news in general and US politics in particular. If you were in charge of their already troubled nation, would you want to spend the next four years talking to Obama or dealing with Mitt Romney? Putting an offer like this on the table actually gives Iran a number of options. They can always walk away from them, just as they have done in the past. Plus, if they can hand the President a new arrow in his quiver for the foreign policy debate – “Hey! Look at what I’m doing with Iran already! – then they create their own opportunity to influence the US election is a way which might prove beneficial to them down the road.

Far too soon to tell, and I’ll wait with the rest of you to see what Ed and AP have to say on this, but the entire story seems a bit too… er… how did Joe Weisenthal put it on Twitter?

So this seems like nice timing.

Indeed it does.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

apparently not:

Michael van Poppel ‏@mpoppel

BREAKING — U.S. says no one-on-one talks with Iran http://tinyurl.com/9glhwsq
Collapse

rndmusrnm on October 20, 2012 at 7:23 PM

OT ….

The $831,000,000,000 economic “stimulus” that President Obama spearheaded and signed into law requires his administration to release quarterly reports on its effects. But “the most transparent administration in the history of our country” is now four reports behind schedule and has so far not released any reports whatsoever in 2012. Its most recent quarterly report is for the quarter than ended on June 30, 2011-TheWeeklyStandard.com

CW on October 20, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Must read article from unusual source.

Schadenfreude on October 20, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Looked at it and it lead to what lead to something even more interesting to me.

“I’m proud to be supporting Mitt Romney in this critical election about our nation’s future. Governor Romney is committed to restoring America’s leadership role in the world. Instead of playing politics with our military, he will strengthen our defense posture by reversing the President’s devastating defense cuts. The fact of the matter is that we cannot afford another four years of feckless foreign policy. We need level-headed leadership which will protect our interests and defend our values with clarity and without apology.” – General Tommy Franks, USA (Ret.)

VorDaj on October 20, 2012 at 7:24 PM

thatsafactjack on October 20, 2012 at 7:07 PM

So sorry, that was a quote by Mark Steyn. I corrected, above.

Schadenfreude on October 20, 2012 at 7:25 PM

To be clear, I’m not claiming that this is some sort of “October surprise” cooked up by the Obama administration.

You should, though it’s not much of a “surprise”.

It’s an obvious two-pronged attempt to sway voters two weeks from the election.

The other prong is to scare voters by painting Romney as a war monger in the Monday debate. Obama telegraphed this punch a couple of days ago. Romney should be ready for it.

Scaring voters into believing Romney will start an unnecessary war is about all Obama has left.

farsighted on October 20, 2012 at 7:25 PM

*Tell Vladimir I’ll have more flexibility after the election…*

Yeah, that’s been heard loud and clear around the world.

Prepare for Barack Obama to go the full Neville Chamberlain, waving papers and saying ‘peace in our time!’

And still lose the election…

ajacksonian on October 20, 2012 at 7:25 PM

3) Take note of the phrase, “According to administration officials campaign advisers…”

FIFY. :-)

Resist We Much on October 20, 2012 at 7:09 PM

I stand fully correctimicated.

Headline in Iran overlooked by the NYT:

Obama Scores Coveted Endorsement of Iran’s Mullahs

PopsRacer on October 20, 2012 at 7:26 PM

Can you say ‘rope-a-dope’?

Missilengr on October 20, 2012 at 7:26 PM

Politics makes for strange bedfellows….

Don L on October 20, 2012 at 7:27 PM

We need level-headed leadership which will protect our interests and defend our values with clarity and without apology.” – General Tommy Franks, USA (Ret.)

Without apology? I take that as a dig at not just Obama but also at the apologists to Islam Petraeus, Allen, Dempsey, et all.

VorDaj on October 20, 2012 at 7:27 PM

This not a breakthrough. Obama is caving in to Iran’s demands and trying to portray himself as a statesman, for political purposes. IIRC, Iran has been demanding direct negotiations with the US for about a decade. This is appeasement, in the finest tradition of Neville Chamberlain.

farsighted on October 20, 2012 at 7:30 PM

Oops, White House denies:

Update: White House denies agreement on US, Iran nuclear talks – @politico http://t.co/fxr2TJNI

andy85719 on October 20, 2012 at 7:31 PM

WH is denying the talks now? Joshua Treviño saying so on Twitter..

wargamer6 on October 20, 2012 at 7:34 PM

So why float this out there if it’s not true?

Trial balloon for something else?

gophergirl on October 20, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Great news.

Dante on October 20, 2012 at 7:35 PM

andy85719 on October 20, 2012 at 7:31 PM

Ah-ha… The trial balloon must have popped almost immediately.

farsighted on October 20, 2012 at 7:36 PM

So why float this out there if it’s not true?

Trial balloon for something else?

gophergirl on October 20, 2012 at 7:35 PM

IF it’s not true, I’d say it was a trial run for public reaction, so Obama can see if:

A. He can fly such negotiations under the radar entirely

B. The public will have a positive general reaction

MelonCollie on October 20, 2012 at 7:36 PM

Dante on October 20, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Israel being lit by nuclear fire would be great news for you.

wargamer6 on October 20, 2012 at 7:37 PM

To be clear, I’m not claiming that this is some sort of “October surprise” cooked up by the Obama administration.

You should, though it’s not much of a “surprise”.

farsighted on October 20, 2012 at 7:25 PM

Ten days ago, Dick Morris predicted this exactly as the Obama October surprise.

PopsRacer on October 20, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Great news.

Dante on October 20, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Not “great”, but if we’re not going to MAKE them stop going down the road to Nukedom, we might as well admit it instead of the farce we’re currently playing.

MelonCollie on October 20, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Fox is reporting that this IS NOT TRUE??? per Ed Henry\

CoffeeLover on October 20, 2012 at 7:38 PM

After they learn all about nuclear weapons and pick our brains they’ll use them on us. China was an ally at one time and so was Russia during the WW II. The only people who want the world to be warm fuzzes are the liberals. The liberals will be the first to surrender and demand help from the conservatives.

mixplix on October 20, 2012 at 7:38 PM

Times’s story.

“It’s not true that the United States and Iran have agreed to one-on-one talks or any meeting after the American elections,” he said in a statement.
-
It all depends on what the meaning of the
word(s) “agreed”, “talks”,”any”, “meeting”, “after”, “American”, or “elections” is.

diogenes on October 20, 2012 at 7:41 PM

How much is the US paying Iran to lie about not developing
nuclear weapons?

Amjean on October 20, 2012 at 7:44 PM

Fox is reporting that this IS NOT TRUE??? per Ed Henry\

CoffeeLover on October 20, 2012 at 7:38 PM

I saw that too. I am so confused.

esr1951 on October 20, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Iran is a small country, so this doesn’t matter anyways.

SouthernGent on October 20, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Fox is reporting that this IS NOT TRUE??? per Ed Henry\

CoffeeLover on October 20, 2012 at 7:38 PM

I saw that too. I am so confused.

esr1951 on October 20, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Getting my blood pressure up for nothing.

I don’t trust that LongLrgged MackDaddy.

davidk on October 20, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Not “great”, but if we’re not going to MAKE them stop going down the road to Nukedom, we might as well admit it instead of the farce we’re currently playing.

MelonCollie on October 20, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Iran is a sovereign nation. We don’t have any moral authority – or any authority – to “make them” do anything.

Dante on October 20, 2012 at 8:01 PM

I do know who “Vlad” wants to win the election, Captain Flexible, of course, and I’m sure the Mullahs would be equally disposed.

What Iran’s doing here is giving Obama/Scheiffer a set up question for Monday’s debate: “Would you, Governor Romney, be willing to sit down with Iran in one-on-one talks …” The attempt would be to get him to say “No” or to vacillate, which would feed the meme that “Romney’s going to get us into another Mid East war.”

One way for Romney handle this is to answer, “Yes, of course, we’d sit down with them … as soon as they allow independent inspectors to determine the true status of their nuclear enrichment and other items that the international community has insisted upon for years now.”

TXUS on October 20, 2012 at 8:03 PM

Iran is a small country, so this doesn’t matter anyways.

SouthernGent on October 20, 2012 at 7:58 PM

I’ve got a prop poster for that!

http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2012/09/propaganda-revisited-we-wuz-robbed-way_27.html

Resist We Much on October 20, 2012 at 8:04 PM

Dick Morris predicted this Iran deal on Hannity’s radio show yesterday…said it would be Obama’s Oct. surprise…so maybe someone got ahead of it to kibosh it?

workingclass artist on October 20, 2012 at 8:05 PM

Dante on October 20, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Stuff the morality! One doesn’t allow two year olds to play with matches!

OldEnglish on October 20, 2012 at 8:13 PM

Next thing someone will tell me is that Iran negotiates in good faith……

*insane laughter*

98ZJUSMC on October 20, 2012 at 8:23 PM

I actually have a great deal more respect for “I’m Indeed a Jack Wad” than Obama, as the former tells the truth about his plans and the latter may never have told the truth about anything in his entire life.

Plus, the latter has done far more damage to this country, in less than four years, than has the former. They both, of course, need to go, but if we fire Obama, we can deal with the other tyrant.

TXUS on October 20, 2012 at 8:23 PM

Ten days ago, Dick Morris predicted this exactly as the Obama October surprise.

PopsRacer on October 20, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Wow… I just went and watched at the link you provided, and you are right. Morris speaks pretty much precisely about this exact situation from today! I knew Morris was good…but…wow…that’s almost scary. Makes one wonder just why the White House has walked this back so quickly. ALSO makes one wonder if the NYT is going to publish a retraction at such a grand-standing story. Maybe the release of the story was to broadcast it far and wide…then very very quietly back on the next to the last page do a retraction. But by then the “damage” could be done to Romney. Because this would assuredly come up in the debate on Monday: “Governor Romney, would YOU agree to unilateral one-on-one talks with Iran?” And of course Romney would be forced to say “no”, which could hurt him in the polls. On the other hand, with the WH walking this back so quickly, I wonder if this could give ammo to Romney instead: “Mr. President, what mysterious “Obama administration official” is leaking false information to widely read public reporting agencies such as the NYT?” That would make Obama look idiotic, and if he comes out and says “I don’t know” or tries to bluster it off, Romney can use it as yet ANOTHER example of the bungling ineptitude of Obama. I want to see him go that route!!!

Highlar on October 20, 2012 at 8:33 PM

Jazz I think you meant happy “coincidence” instead of “circumstance”.

stout77 on October 20, 2012 at 8:33 PM

Iran is a sovereign nation. We don’t have any moral authority – or any authority – to “make them” do anything.

Dante on October 20, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Ladies and gentlemen I present…

…suicide by post-modernism and moral relativism.

tom daschle concerned on October 20, 2012 at 8:37 PM

Iran is a sovereign nation. We don’t have any moral authority – or any authority – to “make them” do anything.

Dante on October 20, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Stick your self serving moral relativity where the sun doesn’t shine.

ShadowsPawn on October 20, 2012 at 8:39 PM

Stuff the morality! One doesn’t allow two year olds to play with matches!

OldEnglish on October 20, 2012 at 8:13 PM

We aren’t talking about allowing a two year old to play with matches. We are talking about sovereign nations.

Dante on October 20, 2012 at 8:39 PM

Stick your self serving moral relativity where the sun doesn’t shine.

ShadowsPawn on October 20, 2012 at 8:39 PM

So you believe the United States should be an empire? Because you are certainly advocating that it act as one.

Dante on October 20, 2012 at 8:40 PM

I stand by my post from the other day from a thread discussing how Obama might manipulate a win in the third debate and reclaim some credibility, however fleeting:

His re-election now in doubt, I wonder if Obama will up his game by making a big self-serving political play in the Middle East in an attempt to disarm Romney before the third debate. Looking at the facts, Romney has plenty of “ammo”.
Obama’s done everything possible to help the Muslim Brotherhood achieve hegemony in the Midle East, thereby consolidating the oil-producing (OPEC) countries into the hands of one anti-American political circle of leadership. (I wonder if they’ll be raising prices soon?)
He assasinated the legitimate leader of Libya without Congressional approval and inexplicably failed to protect our assets there.And the biggest: He hasn’t lifted a finger to stop Iran from producing nuke-grade fissile material. If he wants to blunt Romney’s foreign affairs attacks, he needs to act on this, but it might be too late for that. Despite trade sanctions against them, Iran has been pouring increasing amounts of resources into the production of weapons grade nuclear material. This, even as the Iranian people are suffering food and supply shortages. It seems now to be a race between bombing Israel and a bloody uprising to overthrow of the Iranian government.

If Ahmadinajad where half as smart as he thinks he is, he’d use the North Korean approach of promising a “slowdown” of nuclear production in exchange for a dropping of sanctions and maybe even some U.S. taxpayer cash money (to “save his people from starving”, no doubt).

This would allow Obama to make huge gains in political optics:
Obama would claim an international relations victory (“Peace in Our Time”)
Obama would claim having rescued Israel from nuclear destruction (“He’s the Messiah!”)
Obama would claim it was all done to save the starving people of Iran (“What a humanitarian!”)

All of this while exciting his base before the election and blunting Romney’s arguments before the debate.

It would also be a big win for the Iranian leadership. They could (just like North Korea did) continue refining uranium undisturbed by threats from the Iranian populace or the Israeli military

And it would work to further isolate and endanger Israel. Something our President seems overly keen to accomplish.

Of course, this is a very cynical view of our current president. It would truly take a monster to make such short-sighted agreements merely to score political points. Yes, it would take a self-centered monster.

ROCnPhilly on October 20, 2012 at 8:41 PM

Pacifist.

Bmore on October 20, 2012 at 8:41 PM

Iran is a sovereign nation. We don’t have any moral authority – or any authority – to “make them” do anything.

Dante on October 20, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Is coercion acceptable? If not in this instance, ever?

Bmore on October 20, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Is coercion acceptable? If not in this instance, ever?

Bmore on October 20, 2012 at 8:44 PM

No.

Dante on October 20, 2012 at 8:45 PM

No.

Dante on October 20, 2012 at 8:45 PM

Not even with knowledge of a growing, possibly emanate attack?

Bmore on October 20, 2012 at 8:48 PM

Stuff the morality! One doesn’t allow two year olds to play with matches!

OldEnglish on October 20, 2012 at 8:13 PM

Yes, that’s true…

But I ask you how long we can be financially and physically able to babysit all the two years olds?

MelonCollie on October 20, 2012 at 8:49 PM

It is/was bound to happen. Odumbass applying contingencies to save his ass. Asks help from his compatriot Assman-in-jihad. Win-win for Assman-in-jihad to comply as US will continue to have an anti-Israel president and will remain passive on the nuclear issue if Odumbass wins. Writing is on the wall that US and Israel will finally confront and stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions if Romney wins. A Romney win signals a mandate for going back to the Peace Through Strength doctrine. Definitely not a good prospect for the Mussulmen’s caliphate expansion ambitions.

TrueKatipunero on October 20, 2012 at 8:49 PM

So you believe the United States should be an empire? Because you are certainly advocating that it act as one.

Dante on October 20, 2012 at 8:40 PM

Aww, look at the morally challenged mental midget building strawmen, its kind of sad to watch.

ShadowsPawn on October 20, 2012 at 8:50 PM

MelonCollie on October 20, 2012 at 8:49 PM

Until they secure their own matches?

Bmore on October 20, 2012 at 8:51 PM

Iran is a sovereign nation. We don’t have any moral authority – or any authority – to “make them” do anything.

Dante on October 20, 2012 at 8:01 PM

This sovereign nation over which you claim we have no moral — or any — authority to “make them” do anything is a sponsor of terror throughout the Mid East and the world, providing weapons and materiel that has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, including their own, and who has in the clearest words possible declared as its ultimate objective the complete destruction of Israel and the United States, and with nuclear weapons.

While we can parse the words as to whether one nation has authority over another, moral or otherwise, we do by God have the responsibility to make sure their desires are not realized.

To do otherwise would be the same as saying we had no authority to make Nazi Germany do anything. It’s an absurdity beyond any thread of reason.

TXUS on October 20, 2012 at 8:55 PM

Iran is a sovereign nation. We don’t have any moral authority – or any authority – to “make them” do anything.

Dante on October 20, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Does Iran have moral authority to run Hezbollah in Lebanon? In the Balkans? In Argentina? In Ecuador? In Chechnya? In Brazil? Without asking the governments of those Nations if they want Hezbollah there, mind you.

How about having Hezbollah cells in Canada, the US, Mexico to perform bank fraud, tax fraud, make money off of grey market goods, and working with Mexican cartels to turn pseudo-ephedrine into meth? You gotta love it when a Hezbollah operative is caught driving tons of the stuff from Canada to Mexico. And that three-way trafficking in cigarettes to avoid government tax stamps, the sending the proceeds back to Hezbollah… is that how a sovereign Nation does things?

How about shipping tons of cocaine from the TBA to St. Petersburg… Russia… in pianos? Intellectual property theft by duplicating software illegally in Brazil to sell it in S. America, is that how an upright and moral sovereign Nation acts? How about sending its agents to bomb an Embassy and social center in another Nation? All on the up and up by your standards?

Are all these enemies properly declared enemies of the Nation State of Iran so that it can do these things? Or are they just flouting international law and acting like a rogue Nation that doesn’t care about sovereignty all that much?

You, as a big backer of sovereignty should know law of nations or, perhaps that being a bit too long to study, at least bother to know the rules of warfare and that Nations shouldn’t be sponsoring terror organizations to do their bidding like used to be done with pirates of old… they should do it the right way by declaring hostilities, telling the world they have Privateers who will act in accordance with the law of nations and the laws of war to perform economic retribution on actors that are not nations… but have they ever done that? Acted like a sovereign Nation and properly gone through those formalities, so that everyone knows where they stand, why they have that stance and what they intend to deploy to enforce it?

Or are they just doing harm whenever, wherever and to whomever they choose without those niceties?

You know, being a threat to all Nations by not respecting other Nations and seeking to attack them internally and undermine them without even saying a word as to why they are doing it formally. Heard of that? If you want the US to play by certain rules then do ask if those Nations you rush to defend have actually played by them, for it is a tit-for-tat world out there.

And before deploying ‘intervention’ do note I’m the guy who pointed out that you can’t just arbitrarily set which ‘intervention’ is the cause of problems unless you can get some established peace set up to address those concerns. Peace arrived at through the normal course of affairs either by diplomacy or warfare. If you don’t like the US having intervened, then do ask if diplomacy was offered to resolve the conflict. If it hasn’t been, then was war declared over it? And if neither of those then what, exactly, is your problem with the US? You can only make peace unilaterally through victory in warfare, not through diplomacy as you need two sides at the table at the very least. If those doing such things in response to an ‘intervention’ can’t conform to the laws of nation, then why should their sovereignty be respected? The US has always been willing to have diplomacy take place to settle matters… so who offered to do that, when and why was it rejected or why did it fail?

Once you are in a mess after DECADES then ‘who started it’ is pretty much irrelevant. How it ends, however, becomes a pressing matter and is best done by the regularization of affairs amongst Nations. Not by ramping up the insanity and just wanting to see the world burn… and with those that you can’t talk sense to, who DO just want to see the world burn, like the Twelvers in charge in Iran, then just how do you bring reason to an irrational world view that sees the spreading of chaos as victory no matter how many people have to die in its cause? Including their own people. Is that how a legitimate sovereign Nation State acts?

Suggestions are always accepted on how to get the irrational to see the light of reason. A lot of things have been tried. Sadly talking has rarely worked at the Nation State level. Is it moral to let them actually spread chaos and worse to achieve their ends of destruction globally… and do remember the last time we had a leader saying that he had quelled insanity with a piece of paper, we soon got a world war from it and that funny man with the mustache. The funny man in the bad suit is no different and, actually, quite a bit worse since he doesn’t want expansion of power but expansion of death. Is that moral to let him go his merry way to do that? Do we not have a responsibility as a brother Nation to restrain such a rogue? For our own good if for no one else’s.

There are ways to deal with this, of course.

The longer we wait the worst the bloodshed will be.

As a species we were very lucky that only tens of millions died in the last global conflict started by appeasing those who had ill ends towards all. This time the outcome will not be so nice if it goes that far once more, with terror cells spread globally.

We could do our duty and enforce the piracy laws, of course. But we are too civilized for that, apparently. In forgetting where war comes from and that it is not limited to Nation States, we now face a brave, new era of barbarism. Morally, when and where do you draw the line to stop that? If not now, when? If not us, then who?

ajacksonian on October 20, 2012 at 8:55 PM

ajacksonian on October 20, 2012 at 8:55 PM

I was gonna get to that. Lol! ; )

Bmore on October 20, 2012 at 8:56 PM

So you believe the United States should be an empire? Because you are certainly advocating that it act as one.

Dante on October 20, 2012 at 8:40 PM

Aww, look at the morally challenged mental midget building strawmen, its kind of sad to watch.

ShadowsPawn on October 20, 2012 at 8:50 PM

I’m not sure that even qualified as a strawman.

Looks more like some kind of squirrel shaped fishing lure. Sounds and smells like one, too.

farsighted on October 20, 2012 at 9:01 PM

To do otherwise would be the same as saying we had no authority to make Nazi Germany do anything. It’s an absurdity beyond any thread of reason.

TXUS on October 20, 2012 at 8:55 PM

He has already said that before. He actually believes that we should have not gotten involved in the war against Nazi Germany. He’s certifiable.

ShadowsPawn on October 20, 2012 at 9:02 PM

Why would Iran want to enter into negotiations which didn’t involve France and Germany, long time clients who might provide a bit of a firewall?

To be clear, I’m not claiming that this is some sort of “October surprise” cooked up by the Obama administration. I don’t even know if that would be possible. But the flip side of that coin is that we all know Iran watches the news in general and US politics in particular. If you were in charge of their already troubled nation, would you want to spend the next four years talking to Obama or dealing with Mitt Romney?

Wow! I guess I’m living in an alternate universe…been away from H/A jumping dogs all day, but when I heard on the news on the way home that the Adminu-strata was denying such reports, it never occurred to me that ANY news of the US negotiating with Mssr. Dinnerjacket would be something the Obummer crowd would want to get out, and then I come home and read on HA that they think this is an Oct. surprise in favor of the gang that couldn’t shoot straight??? No. Sorry. The American people view Iran as a terrorist regime, and America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists. That is the way the electorate will see this. Period.
Again, maybe I should take this tinfoil hat off…it does itch a bit…I just don’t think ANY negotiation with these folks ends well, and I don’t see how there is ANY upside for this news for the left…which is why I think the denial came so quickly.

Chewy the Lab on October 20, 2012 at 9:05 PM

He has already said that before. He actually believes that we should have not gotten involved in the war against Nazi Germany. He’s certifiable.

ShadowsPawn on October 20, 2012 at 9:02 PM

I assume that means Great Britain and France should have minded their own business and not gotten involved in that tiff between Germany and Poland in 1939.

farsighted on October 20, 2012 at 9:06 PM

U.S. making a deal to lift sanctions with Iran regarding nuclear enrichment == U.S. unilaterally propping up the Iranian regime amid rising internal popular dissent.

Wrong move, Obama. Let’s keep up the sanctions and let that g**damn regime collapse already.

Godzilla on October 20, 2012 at 9:08 PM

He has already said that before. He actually believes that we should have not gotten involved in the war against Nazi Germany. He’s certifiable.

ShadowsPawn on October 20, 2012 at 9:02 PM

Didn’t realize that, never really read his posts after the first two or three, but this one particularly pissed me off. Wonder if he would even protect his family if under attack or the threat of attack, you know that would be imposing moral or other authority over the attackers, wouldn’t it?

TXUS on October 20, 2012 at 9:12 PM

Okay Dante, I can’t wait forever on this thread for you’re reply. Bye.

Bmore on October 20, 2012 at 9:20 PM

Dick Morris predicted this as a Oct surprise. Rat ears will screw this up as well.
He thrieves on failure.

Texyank on October 20, 2012 at 9:26 PM

Dante on October 20, 2012 at 8:39 PM

Don’t be obtuse! You know damn well that I was inferring that Iran is a child!

OldEnglish on October 20, 2012 at 9:32 PM

I’m warning you now.

BE PREPARED FOR THE UNIMAGINABLE DURING THE LAME DUCK SESSION AFTER THE ELECTION.

SouthernGent on October 20, 2012 at 9:34 PM

I assume that means Great Britain and France should have minded their own business and not gotten involved in that tiff between Germany and Poland in 1939.

farsighted on October 20, 2012 at 9:06 PM

Great Britain might have if Hitler had made it clear that he was staying on the continent; at that point the USA had no reason to be directly involved and France is their longtime enemy. so thank goodness he was a greedy SOB.

MelonCollie on October 20, 2012 at 9:35 PM

MelonCollie on October 20, 2012 at 8:49 PM

Give the worst two year old, in the presence of all the others, a damn good hiding – sans ROE, and watch the others have a change of heart.

OldEnglish on October 20, 2012 at 9:37 PM

Give the worst two year old, in the presence of all the others, a damn good hiding – sans ROE, and watch the others have a change of heart.

OldEnglish on October 20, 2012 at 9:37 PM

Ok. That we can do.

MelonCollie on October 20, 2012 at 9:38 PM

I’m warning you now.

BE PREPARED FOR THE UNIMAGINABLE DURING THE LAME DUCK SESSION AFTER THE ELECTION.

SouthernGent on October 20, 2012 at 9:34 PM

I’d say be frightened like a three-year old girl if there is no lame duck session and we get four more years of this bastard.

The Joint Chiefs and/or the Supreme Court might be able to save the republic for what he’ll try to do in a lame duck session, but the country is history, a la Rome, if we don’t limit him to those next 60 or so days.

TXUS on October 20, 2012 at 9:52 PM

In return for the US lifting all sanctions, Imanutjob has agreed to completely quit all nuclear enrichment. There is a small caveat buried in the 27,500 page agreement, which Hairless Reid and Nuancy Pelosi are writing long hand in Pomegranate juice at the Cowboy Poetry festival — Iran will be allowed to resume enrichment immediately after our election.

Concerned_American on October 20, 2012 at 9:53 PM

Iran to negotiate with US?

Have any of the comments mentioned that 4 1/2 years ago, Candidate Obama promised to negotiate with face-to-face with President AckMyDumbJihad?

itsnotaboutme on October 20, 2012 at 9:57 PM

This whole thing is just total nonsense. Nothing is going to happen, and this is just another bunch of blah-blah-blah yakking with Iran. Who cares. Waste of time. No one buy its.

seanrobins on October 20, 2012 at 10:03 PM

Besides, haven’t we been “negotiating” – directly, through the UN, through others, for years and years? Forgeddaboudit!

seanrobins on October 20, 2012 at 10:04 PM

Obama had no time to meet with world leaders at the UN, but 3 weeks before the election they are negotiating a deal where Iran would give up their nuclear weapons program. Yeah sure.

Wigglesworth on October 20, 2012 at 10:07 PM

Romney should ask the DOTUS if he’s going to release the blind sheik.

PappyD61 on October 20, 2012 at 10:10 PM

Not even with knowledge of a growing, possibly emanate attack?

Bmore on October 20, 2012 at 8:48 PM

No.

But what is a “growing” attack?

Dante on October 20, 2012 at 10:35 PM

White House denies US, Iran agreed to one-on-one talks

It sounds like they are trying to have it both ways.

sabbahillel on October 20, 2012 at 10:44 PM

This sovereign nation over which you claim we have no moral — or any — authority to “make them” do anything is a sponsor of terror throughout the Mid East and the world, providing weapons and materiel that has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, including their own, and who has in the clearest words possible declared as its ultimate objective the complete destruction of Israel and the United States, and with nuclear weapons.

While we can parse the words as to whether one nation has authority over another, moral or otherwise, we do by God have the responsibility to make sure their desires are not realized.

To do otherwise would be the same as saying we had no authority to make Nazi Germany do anything. It’s an absurdity beyond any thread of reason.

TXUS on October 20, 2012 at 8:55 PM

I don’t believe in god. But aside from that, what’s your point?

Dante on October 20, 2012 at 10:48 PM

Great Britain might have if Hitler had made it clear that he was staying on the continent…

MelonCollie on October 20, 2012 at 9:35 PM

In his rhetoric he did “make it clear”, by any reasonable rhetorical standard of “make it clear”. He never said otherwise. Many in Great Britain believed him. Even after the fall of France he said this. Many in the government of Great Britain still wanted to believe him and take him at his word, including Lord Halifax.

farsighted on October 20, 2012 at 10:56 PM

farsighted on October 20, 2012 at 10:56 PM

Good point; what he said and what happened were two different things.

Wasn’t there some event(s) that changed his mind drastically though, if I’m remembering my history class right?

MelonCollie on October 20, 2012 at 11:05 PM

Iran is a sovereign nation. We don’t have any moral authority – or any authority – to “make them” do anything.

Dante on October 20, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Did you feel the same about Libya?

Schadenfreude on October 20, 2012 at 11:17 PM

White House denies US, Iran agreed to one-on-one talks

It sounds like they are trying to have it both ways.

sabbahillel on October 20, 2012 at 10:44 PM

Iran wants Obama to be re-elected. That’s all this is about. Obama plays along.

Keep telling all you know that the USA is a sovereign country and Iran has no right to meddle in her elections.

Schadenfreude on October 20, 2012 at 11:19 PM

This is WTF on so many levels.

Crap, I have nothing more to add, just that Iran’s regime probably thinks they are saving Obama the election in exchange for…..God only knows. Wheels within wheels, I hate to thing that way but I smell a rat.

Texas74 on October 20, 2012 at 11:30 PM

ajacksonian on October 20, 2012 at 8:55 PM

Nothing about your post changes the fact that Iran is a sovereign nation and we have NO authority over them whatsoever. And your attempt to obfuscate (whatever happens between Iran and Argentina, for example, is not our business or problem) doesn’t change this. You’re arguing a straw man; I didn’t call Iran a moral nation. They aren’t one.

You call them irrational; I’d say she’s acting pretty rationally. Iran is surrounded by nuclear powers; she has two countries engaged in covert warfare against her, warships off her shores, and these same two countries openly talk of bombing her. Of course Iran is seeking nuclear weapons; it’s a deterent.

And fyi, there is no grey market and there is no such thing as intellectual property. There is, however, government interventionism in the marketplace that creates “privileges” and keeps the free market from being free.

Dante on October 20, 2012 at 11:41 PM

I assume that means Great Britain and France should have minded their own business and not gotten involved in that tiff between Germany and Poland in 1939.

farsighted on October 20, 2012 at 9:06 PM

I’m neither a British subject nor a French citizen. If they wanted to intervene, go right ahead. That’s their business. Couldn’t care less.

Dante on October 20, 2012 at 11:44 PM

Gloria Allred and Ayatolla to the rescue!

Actually WND has been predicting this Iranian conspiracy deal for several days.

Also, look for Gloria Allred and other activists to be the conduit for The Usual Chicago Dirty Tricks against Romney this coming week.

Whenever Obama has been behind magically records about his opponent get released just weeks before the election. Even if they’re “fake but accurate” you can be sure something will come out. Obama’s behind and this is just what he does.

bobcalco on October 20, 2012 at 11:45 PM

Didn’t realize that, never really read his posts after the first two or three, but this one particularly pissed me off. Wonder if he would even protect his family if under attack or the threat of attack, you know that would be imposing moral or other authority over the attackers, wouldn’t it?

TXUS on October 20, 2012 at 9:12 PM

Of course. Are you really this confused? It’s not difficult to understand natural rights and the defense of natural rights. It’s not difficult to understand the non-aggression principle: that no one has the right to initiate force, or the threat of force, against a person or his property. Do you think somehow that invalidates the right of self defense, to assert one’s right to exist?

Dante on October 20, 2012 at 11:48 PM

Even the Iranians know Obama is going to lose.

TroubledMonkey on October 20, 2012 at 11:55 PM

Achmedingajob wants the same deal Ocommie promised Medvedev-

Flexibility and naïveté.

FlaMurph on October 21, 2012 at 12:14 AM

I assume that means Great Britain and France should have minded their own business and not gotten involved in that tiff between Germany and Poland in 1939.

farsighted on October 20, 2012 at 9:06 PM

.
Are you on comparing our awesome President Hopey to England’s Neville Chamberlain ?

How dare you sir !

FlaMurph on October 21, 2012 at 12:22 AM

Are you on comparing our awesome President Hopey to England’s Neville Chamberlain ?

How dare you sir !

FlaMurph on October 21, 2012 at 12:22 AM

He wasn’t.

Dante on October 21, 2012 at 12:26 AM

Great. Two lawless, lying regimes trying to come to an agreement. What could possibly go wrong?

Philly on October 21, 2012 at 12:27 AM

Not even with knowledge of a growing, possibly emanate attack?

Bmore on October 20, 2012 at 8:48 PM

No.

But what is a “growing” attack?

Dante on October 20, 2012 at 10:35 PM

What is No?

Bmore on October 21, 2012 at 12:28 AM

This is WTF on so many levels.

The Iranian deal was supposed to be the crowning jewel of the narrative that Obama’s foreign policy was hugely successful:

a. they got bin laden
b. got rid of gadaffi
c. got Iran to stop its enrichment

but Benghazi fuc*ed up the narrative big time. They played russian roulette with security and lost.

Godzilla on October 21, 2012 at 12:30 AM

Dante, if you had knowledge that Iranian agents had infiltrating the borders and were here in this country to plot a attack, would coercive techniques on our governments part against the Iranian government be acceptable then?

Bmore on October 21, 2012 at 12:31 AM

Great. Two lawless, lying regimes trying to come to an agreement. What could possibly go wrong?

Philly on October 21, 2012 at 12:27 AM

Thread winner.

Dante on October 21, 2012 at 12:40 AM

Dante, if you had knowledge that Iranian agents had infiltrating the borders and were here in this country to plot a attack, would coercive techniques on our governments part against the Iranian government be acceptable then?

Bmore on October 21, 2012 at 12:31 AM

Of course. In this example, we are responding, not intiating. Self defense in response to an attack or threat of imminent attack is perfectly acceptable. What, exactly, are you confused about?

Dante on October 21, 2012 at 12:43 AM

What, exactly, are you confused about?

Dante on October 21, 2012 at 12:43 AM

What exactly are YOU confused about? A nation declares that it wants to destroy you. Said nation then attempts to acquire a nuclear weapon to do so, and you want to do nothing. I wonder how you’d enjoy that view point while inhaling the radioactive dust of a mushroom cloud.

Your attempts at moral relativity do not address the fact that we are dealing with a nuclear threat. That is where YOU are confused, this isn’t some border dispute or conventional issue, it is a stand against the further proliferation of nuclear arms.. They aren’t the U.S.S.R., they are driven by something radically different, and infinitely more dangerous. If they get nuclear weapons, the world will have an extremely dangerous enemy in possession of the most dangerous weapon the world has ever known.

Your views on this matter are narrow minded, short sighted and child like in their obstinance.

ShadowsPawn on October 21, 2012 at 1:50 AM

Philly and Dante: Thread winner losers.

ShadowsPawn on October 21, 2012 at 1:55 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3