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

I’m confused. Is this our October surprise or theirs? I don’t see how this helps obama.

Ronnie on October 21, 2012 at 2:12 AM

I’m confused. Is this our October surprise or theirs? I don’t see how this helps obama.

Proposed talks with Iran was supposed to be the final part of Obama’s Foreign Policy Is Hugely Successful narrative. Benghazi blew it all to hell. The remnant of that narrative (the Iran talks) is still crawling around like a fatally wounded cockroach that isn’t dead yet.

Godzilla on October 21, 2012 at 2:40 AM

And of course it’s no accident that the NYT is publishing the article before the 3rd debate. That was the narrative: Obama got bin laden, got rid of Gadafi, and would get Iran to stop enriching Iranium.

To undergird this narrative, Obama needed to foster the impression that things were fine in the middle east, largely due to his influence and leadership. Bumping up the security in Benghazi would have gone against the narrative…hence no increase of security.

Politics killed those 4 men, and the man behind the wheel is Obama. This will come out eventually.

Godzilla on October 21, 2012 at 2:51 AM

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

Dante

That you’re a naive idiot.

xblade on October 21, 2012 at 2:55 AM

The NYT and the White House Special Operating Deceit tag- team (one hits high , the other low and the rues cheer)

Is there anyone in America still foolish enough to believe what comes out of the White House or their evil twin, the NYT?

Hint: Look for this to be tossed into Obama’s corner during the debate by the mod-obama-rator.

Maybe a few millions words Tuesday morning about how well deserved the messiah’s Nobel Peace Prize was such as:
“We are on the verge of Nirvana here on Earth folks if those Republicans don’t succeed in the evil destruction with their agenda against truth and condoms.”

Don L on October 21, 2012 at 3:27 AM

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.

In other news, Sandra Fluke drew an audience of ten at a Sak N Save in Reno. This amounts to about the same. This is more of the leaked lie nonsense that this POtuS Obloatus would like Americans to believe.

Iran is going to stop nuclear fission material production now?…lol. Please. Negotiating with the Iranians?…lol..Quite hilarious. My sides are splitting from intense laughter.

DevilsPrinciple on October 21, 2012 at 5:56 AM

Set the way back machine to 1980, and this is what the Iranians did to try to keep Carter in office. I hope it works just as well this time around.

Wino on October 21, 2012 at 6:14 AM

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

I was going to rebuff this sort of stupidity and then realized that it wasn’t worth the time.

DevilsPrinciple on October 21, 2012 at 7:06 AM

What exactly are YOU confused about?

ShadowsPawn on October 21, 2012 at 1:50 AM

Nothing.

Dante on October 21, 2012 at 7:40 AM

Since this type of thing could have been announced anytime in the last 3+ years of the Obama Presidency, leaking that it will start now is kind of pathetic grasping at straws pre-election desperation by Obama.

Smells like Jimmy Carter and the Iranians…

albill on October 21, 2012 at 8:11 AM

Iran’s October Surprise for Obama and the NYT:

Iran’s foreign minister denies Iran has plans for direct nuclear negotiations with the US, says world power talks to continue – @Reuters

debg on October 21, 2012 at 8:20 AM

And of course it’s no accident that the NYT is publishing the article before the 3rd debate. That was the narrative: Obama got bin laden, got rid of Gadafi, and would get Iran to stop enriching Iranium.

To undergird this narrative, Obama needed to foster the impression that things were fine in the middle east, largely due to his influence and leadership. Bumping up the security in Benghazi would have gone against the narrative…hence no increase of security.

Politics killed those 4 men, and the man behind the wheel is Obama. This will come out eventually.

Godzilla on October 21, 2012 at 2:51 AM

It gets even more interesting for the regime and Hillary.
Last night on Judge Jeanine on FNC Col. Anthony Shaffer stated that in a half hour or so help could have been had from US ships in the area for the three besieged seals and
Stevens in the Benghazi attack. If, anyone wanted to make the call.!
Apparently, no one cared enough to make the call since the attacks went on for eight hours!!
Seems there may be some splanin’ to do here pretty soon. Perhaps during the debate Monday night?

rodguy911 on October 21, 2012 at 8:21 AM

This is complete CRAP.

TX-96 on October 21, 2012 at 8:31 AM

The article makes it obvious by stating how electing Romney President would nix the deal. Not trying to nudge voters into any kind of decision though….

Conan on October 21, 2012 at 8:44 AM

And China delays its second satellite killer test until after the election. All the world’s bad guys are pitching in to help Obama. While NASA works on Muslim outreach, climate boats (boats!) and looking at fog on Earth’s surface, ChiComs march to secure the strategic high ground in the next global confict. But it can wait until after Obama is reelected. That’s strategic too.

curved space on October 21, 2012 at 8:58 AM

Nothing.

Dante on October 21, 2012 at 7:40 AM

Nice comeback, about what anyone would expect from someone with the geo-political views of a 2 year old.

ShadowsPawn on October 21, 2012 at 9:16 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

Why would you suggest that I am confused? What do you not understand? What is it that leaves you thinking me confused?

Bmore on October 21, 2012 at 10:24 AM

ImaDinnerJacket wants to be sure his guy stays in office.

(Part of the negotiations will be finding a place for Jimmy Carter as Ambasssador to Iran.)

NoPain on October 21, 2012 at 10:27 AM

ShadowsPawn, LOL. You crack me up. Must be a liberal.

Philly on October 21, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Anybody remember how the negotiations went with No. Korea and No. Vietnam? The result?

Iran may be forced into sham talks and they may even be forced into some faux inspections and if Obama’s the next President both sides with use the opportunity to aggrandize themselves while Iran builds a bomb, and Barack will stroke his ego in public.

What this development portends beyond a desire to perform these theatrics with a willing liberal President, is nothing good, this means they’re close.

Speakup on October 21, 2012 at 11:09 AM

For Mitt: Getting the Iranians to come to talks is not the accomplishment. The accomplishments would be (1) if they actually agree to stop their nuclear program, and (2) if they actually DO stop their nuclear program. I will give the President credit for those accomplishments IF they actually happen.

J.S.K. on October 21, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Isn’t this DinnerJacket’s last term in office? As if Iran will ever honor any agreement.

Philly on October 21, 2012 at 11:35 AM

In any case, the only reason for Iran to agree to talks is to stall for more time and easing for sanctions while they continue on their merry path to the bomb. So “negotiating with Tehran” just isn’t a game changer, IMO.

RebeccaH on October 21, 2012 at 12:32 PM

Well, we all know SCOAMF will have more flexibility after the election to open the doors and welcome in the brotherhood and the Russians and Imadinnerjacket.

jaimo on October 21, 2012 at 12:51 PM

ShadowsPawn, LOL. You crack me up. Must be a liberal.

Philly on October 21, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Yeah, I’m a liberal, keep thinking that.

ShadowsPawn on October 21, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Why would you suggest that I am confused?

Bmore on October 21, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Your inability in understanding a principle and applying that principle consistently, which is evident in your questions.

Dante on October 21, 2012 at 2:33 PM

I was going to rebuff this sort of stupidity and then realized that it wasn’t worth the time.

DevilsPrinciple on October 21, 2012 at 7:06 AM

The only stupidity here is that our nation can’t decide wether to fish or cut bait on Iran. If we’re not going to stop them from acquiring nukes by force, may I ask what you think is stupid about just admitting that fact openly?

MelonCollie on October 21, 2012 at 4:07 PM

Bmore on October 21, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Your inability in understanding a principle and applying that principle consistently, which is evident in your questions.

Dante on October 21, 2012 at 2:33 PM

What principle of mine that I asserted is that, pray tell?

Bmore on October 21, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Dante, did you ever come up with an answer to my question? You remember the original question to you about your take on the video. Hint, two words. Do you understand? Did that request confuse you?

Bmore on October 21, 2012 at 4:25 PM

ya sure, they give up until Nov 7.

tarpon on October 21, 2012 at 4:41 PM

What principle of mine that I asserted is that, pray tell?

Bmore on October 21, 2012 at 4:22 PM

I wasn’t talking about your principles.

Dante on October 21, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Ver! Don’t give away the Homeworld!

Bulletchaser on October 21, 2012 at 5:46 PM

I though “unilateral” Foreign Policy was “bad”….. least when GOP was in charge

SwabJockey on October 21, 2012 at 6:10 PM

The NYTimes had to issue a partial retraction today when the White House National Security Council spokesman said no such agreement has been reached and no talks have been set. Gee, who would have thought the NYT would have floated a fake story just in time to influence early voters and then quietly do a backtrack WITHOUT actually stating that a change in the story was done along with dropping the quote that Iran has continued enhancing uranium despite the sanctions in place.

in_awe on October 21, 2012 at 7:31 PM

Joe Weisenthal is a hapless Obama hack who has only a nodding understanding of finance – odd for a guy who works for Business Insider, huh? But he was even unaware that all the Fed Quantitative Easing money was pumping up the money supply. What did he think was the purpose? Idiot, had to un-follow him after that.

The reality is we’ve had direct negotiations with Iran since the 1979 hostage crisis, they’ve all been unofficial, that’s all. So yeah, question the timing.

And also ask yourself: when have sanctions EVER modified the behavior of the mad mullahs? EVER?

Adjoran on October 21, 2012 at 8:42 PM

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.)

Thanks for the heads up, Jazz. I never, EVER. click on the NYT. The NYT is a den of scoundrels and traitors to American citizens at home and abroad. I remember that just hours after the atrocity of 9/11, the NYT was right out of the gate pitching the “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom-fighter” meme. And then after that we had their ridiculous obsession with Abu Grahib (how many U.S.-troop endangering articles did they publish on that? — a few thousand?); followed by their fleet of “whistle-blowing” exposes on the tactics that U.S. intelligence services were using to track al Qaeda money transfers both at home in the USA and abroad.

What a GREAT newspaper! They despise everything that America was founded on, along with everything American patriots have fought and died for. … So, yeah, I *never* click on a NYT story. I make a point of it.

minnesoter on October 21, 2012 at 11:59 PM

Given his strong sympathy for radical Islam, the negotiations are probably centered on supplying Tehran with discounted centrifuges and ICBMs.

CorporatePiggy on October 22, 2012 at 7:37 AM

Now we hear that Obama sent a secret message to Iran:

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/10/21/iranian-regime-obama-sent-secret-message-recognizing-our-nuclear-rights/

If this is for real, Obama may have just committed an act of treason.

dogsoldier on October 22, 2012 at 8:39 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3