Iran has followed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s recent letter to President Bush with explicit requests for direct talks on its nuclear program, according to U.S. officials, Iranian analysts and foreign diplomats.
The eagerness for talks demonstrates a profound change in Iran’s political orthodoxy, emphatically erasing a taboo against contact with Washington that has both defined and confined Tehran’s public foreign policy for more than a quarter-century, they said.
Though the Tehran government in the past has routinely jailed its citizens on charges of contact with the country it calls the “Great Satan,” Ahmadinejad’s May 8 letter was implicitly endorsed by Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and lavished with praise by perhaps the most conservative ayatollah in the theocratic government.
They wanted those direct talks so eagerly they refused to suspend enrichment of uranium to get them, all the while knowing Bush would never agree to these talks unless they did suspend that enrichment.
But now that a President is coming in who is just as eager to have direct talks with no preconditions they have suddenly changed their tune.
Shocking I tell ya:
Since 2006, Iran’s leaders have called for direct, unconditional talks with the United States to resolve international concerns over their nuclear program. But as an American administration open to such negotiations prepares to take power, Iran’s political and military leaders are sounding suddenly wary of President-elect Barack Obama.
“People who put on a mask of friendship, but with the objective of betrayal, and who enter from the angle of negotiations without preconditions, are more dangerous,” Hossein Taeb, deputy commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, said Wednesday, according to the semiofficial Mehr News Agency.
“The power holders in the new American government are trying to regain their lost influence with a tactical change in their foreign diplomacy. They are shifting from a hard conflict to a soft attack,” Taeb said.
For Iran’s leaders, the only state of affairs worse than poor relations with the United States may be improved relations. The Shiite Muslim clerics who rule the country came to power after ousting Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, a U.S.-backed autocrat, in their 1979 Islamic revolution. Opposition to the United States, long vilified as the “great Satan” here in Friday sermons, remains one of the main pillars of Iranian politics.
And there you have it. The liberals have said over and over again that the only stumbling block between better relations with Iran was Bush and his demand for preconditions. Now that fallacy is in bright neon lights for the liberals to see.
I guess that one’s message of hope and change doesn’t resonate to well with those who want to see Israel wiped off the map, and wouldn’t be too sad to see the US wiped off as well.
See author page
Curt-
I am afraid that you have it all wrong 🙂
Once Obama and his new SecState amply demonstrate our sincerity in “negotiation” then Iran will be more than willing to sit and discuss our differences.
Iran (Germany) has legitimate greivances with USA and Israel (Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, Russia) and once those have been honestly addressed (appeased) we have nothing but peace (war) to look forward to in the coming decades.
Keith
Love your acerbic sense of humor, newguy…. stick around, would ya?
When you assume that President Bush is a dunce, it is easier to look really stupid!
This is what is known as a straw man. Show me a single quote from a credible “liberal” political leader to the effect that “the only stumbling block between better relations with Iran was Bush and his demand for predonditions.” The only thing which anyone has claimed is that there is nothing to be lost by sitting down and talking.
Basically, Obama called Iran’s bluff. He exposed their bluff. Certainly “Flopping Aces” can appreciate this. Obama was a card shark. The world now has one less thing to blame on the USA. Obama continues the restoration of American esteem and credibility in the world.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Larry, your kool-aid poisoning is showing.
Actually, Larry, is the left has been insisting that Bush refuses to speak to Iran. Actually, it’s not the case as our ambassadors have worked with the Iranians INRE Iraq. It’s also not the case as Bush would have been quite happy to sit down with Iran had they ceased enrichment, and agreed to stop supporting terrorism.
Ooops… I guess I won’t miss Bush’s foreign policy on Iran as Obama’s is identical, despite his campaign promises.
But here’s the interesting thing, Larry. You admire and give Obama kudos for the Bush stance. Why, because it’s Obama doing it? Makes no sense….
Larry;
I found several liberal websites that would support Curt’s statement. Yet since you asked specifically about credible liberal political leaders; Would these count?:
Zbigniew Brzezinski?
http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=13184
BTW, I do notice the other “graybeard” is a Republican General, but that does not fit your criteria.
Feinstein or Dr. Hans Blix?
http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/4620
Harry Reid?
http://democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=288161&
Obama?
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/6182
These are just some of the sources being touted by the Lib websites.
We can honestly say now that it’s been YEARS since this pipedream took grip. Using “talks” to stop Iran from killing Americans in Iraq, from threatening to destroy Israel, and from developing nuclear bomb factories, or backing terrorist groups…using talks just ain’t gonna work. I love the idea too, but it literally had a snowball’s chance in hell.
Ok, so “TALKS” aren’t likely to even happen (they never were). What’s next? Sanctions? That hasn’t worked, and won’t work because Russia and China will not back them. What’s next?
The time to make a decision on Iran will come very soon for President Obama. He has the luxury of thinking about it for years before getting elected, and months before taking office. There will be NO EXCUSE for voting PRESENT. A decision will have to be made by President Obama-one which will come with accountability, political consequences, and cost.
Bush tried talking to them and it was clear they had no desire to reach a peaceful solution. What was determined is that they planned to use it to gain any concession from the U.S. they could use to their advantage and/or buy time as they worked toward their goal.
The left is full of gutless cowards and that is why terrorists and tyrants want them in power. They know they get to do whatever they want with the dems in control.