Michael Ledeen; Have The United States and Iran agreed for the first time to one-on-one negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program?
"I rather suspect that you don’t have to do anything to avoid an American military strike on Iran. I can’t imagine an Obama administration authorizing a military attack. An administration that can barely bring itself to fly air cover in Libya, and can’t bring itself to take any serious action in Syria, strikes me as very unlikely to unleash our armed forces against the mullahs."
....
"So what is happening? The most likely explanation is that Obama is still desperately seeking his grand bargain, the one that would validate his (and the Nobel Committee’s) claim to be a talented peace maker. That deal is not available, because the Iranians don’t want it. But he wants something to show for his efforts, so he settled for a big nothingburger: an agreement to talk some more."
However, following this article is this disclaimer: White House: NYT Report of U.S.-Iran Talks ‘Not True’
"The White House claimed this evening that a New York Times report saying that the U.S. and Iran have for the first time agreed to one-on-one nuclear talks isn’t true.
.png)
"The NYT quotes unnamed senior administration officials as saying Iran wants to wait after the presidential election is over to sit down and start talking — “a result of intense, secret exchanges between American and Iranian officials that date almost to the beginning of President Obama’s term,” states the paper." (Emphasis added)
From Globes, Israel business news; We don't support Israeli attack, US tells Iran " "Yediot Ahronot" says that the US sent the confidential message to Iran in order to prevent an Iranian attack on US installations in the Persian Gulf, where the US has stationed aircraft carriers and has several military bases, which could face a real risk in the event of an Israeli attack."
"I rather suspect that you don’t have to do anything to avoid an American military strike on Iran. I can’t imagine an Obama administration authorizing a military attack. An administration that can barely bring itself to fly air cover in Libya, and can’t bring itself to take any serious action in Syria, strikes me as very unlikely to unleash our armed forces against the mullahs."
....
"So what is happening? The most likely explanation is that Obama is still desperately seeking his grand bargain, the one that would validate his (and the Nobel Committee’s) claim to be a talented peace maker. That deal is not available, because the Iranians don’t want it. But he wants something to show for his efforts, so he settled for a big nothingburger: an agreement to talk some more."
However, following this article is this disclaimer: White House: NYT Report of U.S.-Iran Talks ‘Not True’
"The White House claimed this evening that a New York Times report saying that the U.S. and Iran have for the first time agreed to one-on-one nuclear talks isn’t true.
.png)
"The NYT quotes unnamed senior administration officials as saying Iran wants to wait after the presidential election is over to sit down and start talking — “a result of intense, secret exchanges between American and Iranian officials that date almost to the beginning of President Obama’s term,” states the paper." (Emphasis added)
From Consortiumnews, a very anti-Republican site: If President Obama wins a second term, Iran is signaling it would be ready for improved relations with the United States and the West.
Via I Acknowledge Class Warfare Exists, a site that claims Iran sanctions are working and that the Iranian rulers are pragmatic people, interested only in their survival and not in some religious martyrdom.
No comments:
Post a Comment