re: #320 John Neverbend

Reuters just announced that “Iran and world powers attempting to resolve a dispute of Tehran’s nuclear program will start talks on October 1.”

Here’s the article: Iran’s talks with world powers

If you read the article, you’ll come across this stunning paragraph:

“But the document (the proposals to be discussed) did not mention Iran’s own nuclear program, which the West suspects is aimed at making bombs, and officials have made clear it will not be part of any such discussions.”

I realized that such talks are probably pointless, even if Iran was going to be held accountable for their own nuclear program, but it seems that even that isn’t going to be discussed.

John, it’s even worse than that. Here’s post of mine from the other day:

This is a desperation move on the part of the US. There is no reason why the US should be meeting with Iran unless it is to discuss the Iranian nuclear program. Since this item is expressly removed from the agenda, the only thing this meeting will do is provide legitimacy to Iranian intransigence and to Ahmadinejad.

This is part of an exchange at the State Department briefing from the other day:

QUESTION: But they just sent you this response to your offer. You offered them talks on the nuclear issue and other issues. They came back to you and said we’re willing to talk, but not about our nuclear program. So what’s the point of talking to them if you got your response – I mean, then how can you say these are not talks about talks? I mean, they’ve shown you through their official paper their willingness to engage on the nuclear issue, which is not to engage on the nuclear issue. So why would you want to have talks with them if it didn’t? And are you saying that you would sit down with Iran to talk about whether they’re willing to engage on the nuclear issue, or are you not going to sit across the table from Iran unless the nuclear issue is on the table?

MR. CROWLEY: We would expect, if we have a meeting with Iran, that it will be a – we would hope that it would be a substantive exchange. We will go into such a meeting, should Iran agree to prepare to talk about the substance of the issues and concerns that we have on Iran’s nuclear program, as was outlined this week at the IAEA. We feel that they are out of compliance with their obligations under the NPT, IAEA, Security Council resolutions. We wish to have a direct dialogue with Iran. We believe, and the President has said repeatedly, that we feel this is the way in which we will be able to, and hopefully can, resolve these issues. Our objective is clear: to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. I don’t think that we can resolve this issue any other way but through the kind of direct dialogue —

Let’s look at that last sentence: If the Obama Administration believes that it can’t resolve the Iran nuclear issue any other way but through talks, then why pretend that stronger sanctions will do the trick? In addition, this statement rules out all military options. It tells the Iranian government that talking is the only option that we intent to pursue. Is it any wonder then that they ruled out talking about their nuclear program?