The New York Times is reporting that for the first time the United States has agreed to direct talks with Iran about its nuclear program. Obama administration officials speaking off the record confirmed the announcement but at the moment the White House is publicly denying it. The one-on-one negotiations will, the newspaper says, not commence until after the presidential elections. While the Times says the delay is at the request of the Iranians, that time frame also works well for the administration. It allows the president to boast that he is doing everything to try and persuade the Iranians to abandon their ambitions during the election campaign while leaving him room should he be re-elected to exhibit the “flexibility” to strike a compromise with Tehran after November that could leave the Islamist regime’s nuclear capability intact.
While it can be argued that any opportunity to talk sense to the Iranians should be explored, the problem here is twofold. On the one hand, for the past decade the Iranians have shamelessly exploited every Western diplomatic initiative to buy time for their program to get closer to weapons capability. On the other, given the refusal of the Obama administration to contemplate setting down “red lines” that would set clear limits to how close the Iranians could get to a nuke, there is a very real possibility that any deal they strike will allow the ayatollahs to retain their nuclear program. Such a deal would be represented as a victory for diplomacy that would avert the danger of an Iranian weapon. But the odds are it would only serve as an excuse to lessen the pressure on Tehran and allow it to eventually circumvent any agreement in much the same manner the North Koreans made fools of the Clinton and the Bush administrations’ efforts to spike their nuclear program. Assuming that the Iranians even choose to talk or agree to even the most generous deal before inevitably breaking their word, the direct talks set the stage for a second Obama term sellout of Israel.
The arguments in favor of the talks, such as those put forward by R. Nicholas Burns, an undersecretary of state in the George W. Bush administration, are that before the U.S. even thinks of tightening the screws further on Iran, let alone contemplating the use of force, it must pursue every possible diplomatic avenue. That makes sense, but the weakness with this piece of conventional wisdom is that it ignores the fact that the West has been trying to talk with Iran for years to no avail. Every negotiation, whether it was the talks that were conducted by the Bush administration via German and French surrogates or the Obama administration’s comical attempt at “engagement” with Iran or the subsequent equally unsuccessful P5+1 talks held this past year, all had the same purpose and the same result. The Iranians sought to drag out the talks for as long as possible without ever budging an inch on their nuclear goal. So to pretend, as some of those who defend this latest initiative do, that diplomacy must be tried, is more than a bit disingenuous. There is no credible reason to believe that the Iranians will fold this time.
That is especially true since they are so much closer to achieving their objective. The latest reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency on Iran have showed that the Iranians are doubling the number of centrifuges enriching uranium at their underground bunker at Fordow. Within months, it is more than likely that they will have compiled enough enriched uranium to make a bomb practicable. Nor is there any reason to think that Western intelligence agencies that have failed to sabotage the Iranian program (despite illegal leaks to that effect from the administration aimed at puffing up the president’s image during his re-election campaign) will be able to give sufficient notice prior to the assembly of such a weapon from this material.
The talks should also set off alarms among those who fear that the administration’s goal is a deal that will leave the Iranians with some sort of nuclear capability. This is something that both Israel and the Mitt Romney campaign rightly oppose since any restrictions on enrichment could easily be violated once the international sanctions on Iran are dropped and the world loses interest in the problem. The only acceptable solution to this threat is Iran’s decision to give up its nuclear capability. Anything else will simply make a repeat of the North Korean fiasco in which that rogue regime went nuclear despite signing agreements with the West.
Talks are always better than war, but little good can come from negotiations that only serve the interests of a regime like Iran that plots genocide and sponsors terrorism. Given the track record of both Iran and the Obama administration, the announcement of post-election negotiations is an ominous portent of what the president might do in a second term.
Iran is agreeing to Obama running the clock out till early 2013 at which time Iran announces it has the bomb. Obama declares his own lack of action a great success for peaceful negotiation.
Because the MSM will trumpet the "coming" talks, I imagine they will also let out the info that the talks aren't to happen until after the election. I don't know how it will play with the voting public, but I would hope a lot will notice and be a little suspicious/cynical. Hopefully this will harm his re-election chances — which would also mean we wouldn't have to worry about him being more flexible after the election!
The Times and the President may have overestimated the bounce to be gotten by focusing attention, post-Benghazi, on the President's ability to wreck havoc in American foreign policy, in his dream the impossible dream mission of making the United States sufficiently small, powerless, and inoffensive to gain for him the big love of the international audience.
Let's be real. The elephant in the room (or IL*s donkey), the chief problem front and center with the talks is not some abstract argument against their utility or what message they send or the nature of the Iranian regime, its goals, and its past history of playing the system. It's who would be leading them on the American side if Obama has won a second term. n nRomney could be trusted. Not Obama. Who habitually lies to the American people while signaling in private (or accidentally over open public mics) that if only America's national enemies bide their time he will have the "flexibility" to up the ante of concessions when he is no longer accountable to the electorate and his dirigisme regime is in its second term. And if Congress tries to intervene he'll resort to his usual policy of obfuscation, lies, and executive orders. n nIsrael, so far societally and institutionally dead set against unilateral Israeli military action, might take a good hard look at realities on November 7 if Obama is re-elected and in position to begin his global flexibility outreach reset.
On possible Congressional intervention … The House can do nothing but make speeches. What scares me really bad is that the Senate does that advise and consent thing on treaties as well as appointments. That means if Reid is still in charge, Obama can negotiate any anti-American treaty … and the Senate will make it law! I think it requires a two-thirds vote and filibusters can derail it, but it scares me to think how close we truly are to those unfriendly to America as a shining city (at least) controlling our government with their rigid ideology!
possibility he could work out a series of reciprocal "understandings" short of a treaty? on the other hand the sanctions are written into law and we'd have to see how much he could pack into "waivers"–your comments on the Senate's advise and consent role are spot on–a Reid Senate riding flank for an Obama 2nd term…
"Talks are always better than war…" nNot true, Mr. Tobin. Talks might avert war today (do we need to say Munich again?) only to make the situation worse tomorrow. And I suppose Churchill could have resorted to talks in 1940 rather than continue the fight alone, but would that have been better? Hitler, at any rate, would have welcomed such jaw-jawing – and probably was expecting it. nOne-on-one talks with Iran would be stupid. Which explains why this administration might be seriously considering it.
I hadn't thought of that, but you're right: In 2009, Obama was all about the disarmament agreement with Russia. Now, he looks the naive fool. I hope Romney brings this up in the debate.
A problem with bringing it up (rather than reply if it is brought up with stressing American interests) is that it's one of those issues that the MSM makes sound bad — like it you're against giving teachers big raises, then you're against education and against children. The danger is the MSM will say Romney is against peace and that he's a warmonger. On the other hand, if it is brought up , one can criticize the safeguards, etc.
good points, but getting Obama to stick at least to commitments to prevent our nuclear deterrent from hollowing out through obsolescence might not be all that risky. An exchange on how many nukes we want to keep might be a little more iffy (or not?)
BHO Monday night at debate will refuse to discuss Iran because of the "delicate negotiations".
I continue to be puzzled by why everyone, most disappointingly conservatives, obstinately frames the threat of an Iranian bomb as Israel's problem alone. A nuclear Iran endangers not only Israel and its other ME neighbours, but all the US bases in the region, a big slice of Europe and with a low-tech delivery method…eg, hidden in a commercial freighter or given to one of the proxy terrorist armies… the continental US as well. Stopping Iran is an existential challenge for all democracies and Israel should not be made out as the sole beneficiary of any action.
This is just like Obama's campaign talk about the economy. n n'It's not about the past, it's about the next 4 years.' n nBut Mr. President, you have been President for the last 4 years, and we are worse off now than before. Why should we expect it to be any better? n n n n n n
'Tell us a little bit about the 'flexibility after the election' you offered Mr. Putin, Mr. President. Do you plan on showing the Iranians some of that 'flexibility' too?' n n n n
The French Foreign Minister today reported that Iran is on track for nuclear weapons no later than mid next year.
I don't know if this is going to be such a big deal to most voters. After all, since 2003 the Dems and their media machine have tried to convince us that Iran is not a threat, and that anyone who says so is a warmonger. So now they expect people to swoon because The One is going to talk to Iran, which is not a threat? With two weeks to go, this smells like yet more desperation. I'm trying to imagine under what circumstances this changes even one vote, let alone becomes a game changer. Anybody likely to see this as a big deal is already voting for Obama; anyone who is undecided at this point probably can't find Iran on a map; anyone planning on voting for Romney isn't going to change their mind over this. Anyone moving to the right over the past few weeks isn't going to suddenly reconsider because the President appears as though he just might finally do something somewhat presidential – after the election, of course. nMore likely, I could see quite a few people saying, "Gee, hasn't he been President for almost 4 years? And he's only now talking about Iran?"
'You are telling us that you have the endorsement of the Iranian Mullahs, who routinely egg on crowds to chant 'Death to American', and you expect us to be impressed with that?'
Romney should say "Sure seems like Iran would prefer Obama as president, doesn't it? So do Chavez, Putin, and Castro, who have all recently endorsed Obama. Kinda makes you wonder why."
It's not true that the United States and Iran have agreed to one-on-one talks or any meeting after the American elections