SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic - Obama says U.S. will enter group negotiations with Iran.

Posted: Apr 08 2009 05:00 pm

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/world/middleeast/09iran.html?_r=1&nl=pol&emc=pola1

Here's the highlights:

The NY Times wrote:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said Wednesday that the United States for the first time would participate regularly with other global powers in negotiations with the Iranian government about its nuclear program.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran spoke in Isfahan on Wednesday.

The announcement marked a significant step toward the direct engagement with Iran that President Obama has promised. It came after the United States and five other powers — Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia — invited Iran to join a new round of talks on its nuclear program. Also on Wednesday, the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, made unusually conciliatory remarks about the United States.

Iran would welcome direct talks with the Obama administration, Mr. Ahmadinejad said in a speech, provided that the shift in American policy was “honest.”

The Bush administration had generally shunned the negotiations between other global powers and Iran; an American diplomat last took part in talks over Iran’s nuclear program last July. Since then, Iran has continued its efforts to enrich uranium, which Tehran says is intended for nuclear energy but is regarded by the United States and its allies as a potential part of a nuclear weapons program.

The decision is the latest in a series of overtures to Iran, ranging from President Obama’s videotaped New Year’s greeting to the Iranian people to an impromptu face-to-face encounter between an Iranian diplomat and an American presidential envoy, Richard C. Holbrooke.

“If Iran accepts, we hope this will be the occasion to seriously engage Iran on how to break the logjam of recent years,” said the State Department’s acting spokesman, Robert A. Wood. “If Iran accepts that invitation, we look forward to direct engagement.”

The administration presented its decision to attend the talks “from now on,” Mr. Wood said.

Mr. Obama said in a message late last month that he wanted better ties with Iran and offered a new start in relations. Iran and the United States severed diplomatic ties in 1979 after students attacked the American Embassy in Tehran and took its diplomats hostage.

“The Iranian people would welcome a hand extended to it if the hand is truly based on honesty,” said Mr. Ahmadinejad in a speech in Isfahan on Wednesday, the Fars news agency reported.

“Yet, if it has an honest appearance but is dishonest by nature, the Iranian people would give the same response that it gave to George Bush. Therefore the change should be in action, not in words.”

So what does everyone think? Part of me thinks Obama is crazy to try and enter talks with a country that's been obviously hostile to us in the past. But another, probably more rational, part is thinking its a good idea to at least try to work with them. I dunno. I'll be interested to see how this plays out. Just please, for the love of god, don't piss them off so much that our war gets a third front. Confused

Posted: Apr 08 2009 05:12 pm

I think that these middle eastern countries are a little more open with Obama then Bush was, but regardless they are scared shittless and would do anything to prove thier point. And let's just wonder if they have any more shoes to throw at our president.

Joined: Apr 14 2006 Location: Lake Michigan Posts: 3332

If he's going to have state department reps handle this, then this is good, and it's progress. If he's going to attend it himself, or have Biden go, that would be extremely foolish. At least it is multilateral.

SoldierHawk wrote:

Just please, for the love of god, don't piss them off so much that our war gets a third front. Confused

Actually, since they're in between Iraq & Afghanistan, we would be forcing them into fighting a two front war. So, we would have them at a serious disadvantage. However, war with Iran would still be foolish because of their size, terrain, and their citizens' vehement nationalism.

Posted: Apr 08 2009 05:47 pm

Cattivo wrote:

If he's going to have state department reps handle this, then this is good, and it's progress. If he's going to attend it himself, or have Biden go, that would be extremely foolish. At least it is multilateral.

SoldierHawk wrote:

Just please, for the love of god, don't piss them off so much that our war gets a third front. Confused

Actually, since they're in between Iraq & Afghanistan, we would be forcing them into fighting a two front war. So, we would have them at a serious disadvantage. However, war with Iran would still be foolish because of their size, terrain, and their citizens' vehement nationalism.

Point taken lol. I wasn't thinking about the geography when I said that. Still, invading Iran is not my idea of a good idea either Laughing

.

I'm curious though: why would it be foolish for Obama to go himself, or to send Biden? For what its worth, I'm assuming he's not going to go personally (except maybe as a token photo-op or something), but why do you think it would be such a bad decision?

Joined: Apr 14 2006 Location: Lake Michigan Posts: 3332

SoldierHawk wrote:

I'm curious though: why would it be foolish for Obama to go himself, or to send Biden?

See everything the GOP said during the election about how having "unconditional presidential level" talks with Iran would be foolish.

I'm half awake right now, but here's the best I can say: Presidential level talks add a legitimacy and respect that you cannot give dictators or corrupt regimes without them giving a concession first that shows that they are willing to participate in constructive dialogue and abide by treaties. To many of these people, treaties are worthless (See North Korea's countless treaties exchanging food for the promise that they'll stop researching nukes, in addition to the original example of the Munich Treaty of 1938.), so you need at least some assurance beforehand that they will honor any agreement that comes out of talks. That's how Reagan dealt with the Soviets, and it worked better than previous scenarios. Many hardline republicans then and now want no talks at all, but that is no way to make progress, and leaves only the option of war available.

Test the waters with the state department first, get Iran to make a grand, conciliatory gesture, and then Obama can negotiate directly in good faith. "Trust, but verify."

Joined: Apr 09 2008 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 3112

That's good at least. I don't think Iran is the evil psychotic empire people make it out to be. They really strike me as more of a cornered animal. We invaded their eastern and western neighbors, both of which are unstable (resulting in Iraqi refugees flooding to Iran). I figure they want to gain power in Iraq for the sake of their own security, and are threatening the world with nuclear power so that they won't be messed with. That said, Iran isn't looking for war or conflict with the US, more of an out in case things get hairy.

That said, I'm really disappointed with Iran. In the 90's, it was basically the center of progress for the middle-east. Then the hard-liners came in and started suppressing everyone, and now it's another shut-off sexist oligarchy.

Posted: Apr 09 2009 08:25 am

Peace is better than us bombing the shit out of each other, the world needs know that America is not an Enemy , but a friend

Cheesy yes, but i'm tired of hearing about Middle Eastern Conflicts