"Rouhani: Iran willing to participate in ‘serious negotiations’" WP

 

"In his first news conference since taking office, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, the man known as the “diplomat sheik,” reiterated his willingness to participate in nuclear negotiations with the international community but stopped short of saying he would welcome direct talks with the United States. “I as president say that the Islamic republic has a serious political intention to resolve the nuclear issue while maintaining our rights and trying to ease the concerns of all parties in the short term,” Rouhani said."  Washpost

------------------------------------------

 "Chuck" Todd is one of MSNBC's stable of commentators.  This AM he went out of his way to denigrate the possibility that the new Iranian president might be willing to talk out differences with the US over Iran's nuclear program.  Ali Rouzi is MSNBC's Teheran bureau chief.  He patiently tried to explain to Todd that the quotes from Rouhani that Todd repeated were in fact misquotes and that Rouhani is a man who is careful in his speech but that simply annoyed Todd.  Todd is as neutral on ME affairs as Andrea Mitchell and IMO for the same reason.

It is the policy of the US to seek regime change in Iran.  IMO Rouhani's expressed willingness to settle the problem will be vetoed by Natanyahu and his friends in the US.  Natayahu wants the US to "neuter" Iran as a rival for power in the ME.  Personalities in Teheran are irrelevant to him.

If Obama and Kerry the peacemaker want peace with Iran let them send Graham and McCain to Teheran to talk to the new man.  pl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/rouhani-iran-willing-to-participate-in-serious-negotiations/2013/08/06/772be048-feb5-11e2-8294-0ee5075b840d_story.html

 

Comments

[DH]

Graham and McCain? That would certainly keep the journalists busy for several months. Or was that sarcasm?

[JohnH]

Yes, regime change is the goal. But most analysts prefer to hide behind the nuclear issue (and before that other issues), though no amount of Iranian concession will make the US more amenable to the government in Iran.

This is the foreign policy behavior that I find most troublesome. Why not just state the intention of regime change? How does constant obfuscation help?

Oh, I know, making the issue nuclear makes the gullible American people support the policy. But even that is changing. The government has gotten caught in so many whoppers that even large swaths of the gullible are starting to catch on.

[William R. Cumming]

Agree with PL!

[Bill H]

I'm hoping you are joking, Colonel. You do these things with such a straight face that I sometimes ahve to take your pulse to be sure. Send "bomb, bomb bomb" McCain to Iran for negotiations? Yes, whew, you are joking.

This is the McCain whi was in Eygpt yesterday saying that the Army and the Morsi crowd should "sit down and seriously negotiate," after specifically referring to the Army takeover as a "coup." Let's see if we have this right. He wants the Army to remove the man from office by force, throw him in prison, and then negotiate with him? Is he raising winged pigs back home?

[The beaver]

It is incredible that since the WE, the networks are spewing the same stupidity coming from Bibi.
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/video-shows-irans-president-elect-was-misquoted-on-israel/?_r=1

The press has written about the misquotes but if one listen to the networks, the new President is another Ahmedinedjad :(

You make me laugh with "If Obama and Kerry the peacemaker want peace with Iran let them send Graham and McCain to Teheran to talk to the new man. pl " Remember how giddy McCain was for having had a chat with Gaddafi at "his ranch" in the desert :-)

[confusedponderer]

Graham and McCain - great choice, though I think you forgot Liebermann.

These foreign policy giants would savvily formulate a US offer along the lines of: 'Die! As an expression of our goodwill, we will impose tougher sanctions on you! Prove to us that you are not enriching Uranium! And now cooperate with us! Our hostility is just our way to express our love to the Iranian people - who you do not represent!'

Well, perhaps they wouldn't QUITE put it that way, but anyway. In any case they would return utterly, utterly disappointed that the Iranians, villains that they are, refused America's generous offer - and will then call for more and ever tougher sanctions.

Because, just like lowering taxes, sanctions are good for and against everything. You can't go wrong with either.

In that sense, like lowering taxes for Republicans, toughening sanctions is to Liebermann, Graham and McCain what sugar is to Mormons - you can't ever do without and there is no such thing as too many.

[turcopolier]

DH
Sarcasm is such a negative word. I prefer irony or perhaps parody. OH1 Sorry. Graham is already a parody or maybe a "travestie." pl

[turcopolier]

CP

"Deputy Dawg" Joe would have to go as a private person. Yes. These two or three could begin with "Negotiate your surrender or die!" pl

[Charles]

Now that I look at it, that picture bears a striking resemblance to depictions of both the Devil Dog and Wolf Man from Mountain Monsters

[confusedponderer]

Oh of course - I forgot he reitred!

[lally]

Right on time, former head of Israeli military intel Amos Yadlin claims Obama red light on an Israeli attack on Iran is changing to yellow.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/?p=627312

[Tony]

USG is not (and has not been) interested in a peace deal with Iran, as Netanyahu’s buddies in Congress will prevent anything remotely close to such a deal. Doing so, US is pushing Iran further into the lap of Russia and China.

[Walrus]

No one outside the U. S. thinks that America could possibly engage in substantive good faith negotiations with Iran. Furthermore, the Washington Post is merely a slimy conduit for successive Administrations to spread their propaganda.

The obvious purpose of the article is to start the process of demonizing rouhani by establishing false expectations. When the surrender talks then reach their predictable failure, the WaPo then writes one of their " Our hopes for peace were dashed" articles, opining that Rouhani turned out to be not as moderate as originally thought.

Regarding my "slimy conduit" assertion:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/10/washington-post-walter-pincus-correction

[blowback]

Rouhani's expressed willingness to settle the problem will only be regarded by Washington as a sign of his or Iran's weakness so the neo-con (the usual suspects)/neo-lib (Rice, Powers, etc.) hawks will press for even more sanctions on Iran and Netanyahu doesn't need to say anything.

[Matthew]

Our politicians ignore our IC's good-faith estimates on Iran (i.e., no bomb or weapons program), and State suddenly goes mute when the Syrian "rebels" commit yet another atrocity. See http://rt.com/news/syria-kurds-massacre-lavrov-132/

Not our finest hour.

[turcopolier]

Matthew

And what do you suppose the jihadis are doing in the Alawi villages they have captured in the last week? pl

[Matthew]

Exactly the same thing.

The Syrian rebels have emphatically answered the question, "Who is worse than Assad?"

They are.