Matt Yglesias

15 Responses to “Iran Interested in Nuclear Talks Without Preconditions”

1. gregor Says:
   August 18th, 2009 at 10:29 am

   Given their utter incompetence shown in the health care reform fiasco, I am not holding my breath for the Obamaites to seize any opportunity that exists.

2. steve duncan Says:
   August 18th, 2009 at 10:36 am

   Sarah Palin can see Tehran from, well, wherever it is she is right now, and by God she knows they’re up to no good. Obama wants her son Trig to be blown up by an Iranian nuclear weapon. And if you squint the Iranian flag looks just like a birthmark Goebbels had on his ass. Just sayin…..

3. omellet Says:
   August 18th, 2009 at 10:36 am

   This just seems like a ploy to legitimize the unelected president; if the US accepts talks, it’s a de facto acknowledgment that Ahmadinejad is legitimate, and Iran doesn’t even have to commit to doing anything to reverse or dismantle their nuclear infrastructure.

4. Craig Says:
   August 18th, 2009 at 10:36 am

   Congress has very little say in whether we talk to Iran. If there is an opportunity here, I don’t see Obama passing it up. Obama is far more likely to error on the side of overestimating what diplomacy can accomplish and deluding himself into seeing a deal when none exists. Still excessive diplomacy is better than excessive war.

5. Gregg Carlstrom Says:
   August 18th, 2009 at 10:38 am

   Someone from the Iranian regime says this every six months or so. Nothing usually comes of it.

   It’s sort of like Netanyahu insisting he’s willing to negotiate with Syria “without preconditions” — let’s talk, as long as we don’t have to talk about the Golan! It leads nowhere.

6. Aqua Regia Says:
   August 18th, 2009 at 10:42 am

   Very good news, but as mentioned above, will have to walk a fine line to avoid legitimizing Ahmamidgetijad. That probably won’t actually be that difficult, since these kind of things are usually done at low levels, through third parties and envoys anyways.

7. BlueStreak Says:
   August 18th, 2009 at 10:45 am

   #3 “a de facto acknowledgment that Ahmadinejad is legitimate”

   Oh yeah? Well, this seems to be a de facto acknowledgement from Iran that Obama is actually a citizen and therefore the legitimate president and not Yosemite Sam (or whoever the nuts think it ought to be).

   So we got that going for us.

8. John Bolton Says:
   August 18th, 2009 at 10:48 am

   Bomb now! While the iron is hot!

9. pseudonymous in nc Says:
   August 18th, 2009 at 11:00 am

   This just seems like a ploy to legitimize the unelected president; if the US accepts talks, it’s a de facto acknowledgment that Ahmadinejad is legitimate

   That came to mind, though the standard line applies that he doesn’t have his finger on the button, and neither would any of the other candidates in the presidential election, had that election not been, to use the technical term, dodgy as fuck.

   It might be worth making that point a bit more loudly.

10. Why oh why Says:
    August 18th, 2009 at 11:04 am

    Why does Ahmydinnerjad hate Iran?

11. Why oh why Says:
    August 18th, 2009 at 11:07 am

    And where is Ahmydinnerjad’s birth certificate?

12. joe from Lowell Says:
    August 18th, 2009 at 11:11 am

    omellet Says:
    August 18th, 2009 at 10:36 am
    This just seems like a ploy to legitimize the unelected president; if the US accepts talks, it’s a de facto acknowledgment that Ahmadinejad is legitimate

    That’s an interesting theory, but the President of Iran doesn’t have anything to do with foreign or military policy.

13. Tim B Says:
    August 18th, 2009 at 11:24 am

    Preconditions always seemed to me like an easy way to claim that negotiation and diplomacy don’t work. You simply aren’t operating in good faith if you require your opponent to give up something for which they are at the table in the first place. If Russia agreed to sit down and discuss scaling back the missile shield program, but required us to stop all funding for the program as a precondition, I suspect we would laugh and leave. Why do we expect other nations to react differently? (That’s partly rhetorical – I know all about the doctrine of American Exceptionalism)

14. ron Says:
    August 18th, 2009 at 11:40 am

    The Arab League has had a peace proposal on the table since 2002. Its main points are 1. 1967 borders 2. East Jeruselem as Palestinian capital 3. negotiation of refugee rights. Iran has agreed to honor an agreement on those terms. Israel refuses to even formally reply.

    The Arab League proposal matches the stated US requirements.

    The IAEA maintains that there is NO evidence that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.

    The talk about the Iranian election is all assertion without evidence.

    It has been Iran’s consistent position that they will talk without preconditions. This is nothing new.

    The Iran ado is simply more zionist propaganda. Iran is no threat to the US.

15. hass Says:
    August 21st, 2009 at 10:38 am

    Actually, there’s zero evidence of election fraud in Iran, and Iran has always offered talks. According to IAEA head ElBaradei:

    I have seen the Iranians ready to accept putting a cap on their enrichment [program] in terms of tens of centrifuges, and then in terms of hundreds of centrifuges. But nobody even tried to engage them on these offers. Now Iran has 5,000 centrifuges. The line was, “Iran will buckle under pressure.” But this issue has become so ingrained in the Iranian soul as a matter of national pride.