While both sides have already denied it, talks could be a first step towards compromise. The road to negotiations though could be a long one.
A report that Iran has agreed to talk one-on-one with the United States after the November election roiled the race between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in its final two weeks, just one day before the two men engage in a 90-minute debate on foreign policy on Monday night.
Since the beginning of 2012, many analysts have argued that talks over Iran’s nuclear program wouldn’t be successful before the election. Indeed reports citing unnamed Western officials have said that Iran’s negotiators have told them as much themselves. That’s because the only plausible deal between the United States and Iran would involve significant concessions by Washington in exchange for Iran’s decision to limit its nuclear program to low-enriched, fuel-grade uranium and to accept much stricter oversight by inspectors with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Among those concessions would be allowing Iran to continue enrichment on its own soil and an end to economic sanctions.
In the context of an election contest in the United States, such concessions would be almost unthinkable. That’s a troubling commentary, perhaps, on the state of American politics, since a U.S.-Iran deal along those lines – which could be presented to domestic audiences in both countries as a “win-win” result – would greatly reduce the likelihood of war, and polls in the United States show little or no appetite for war with Iran. Still, hawks, including many of those in Romney’s camp, would waste little time seizing on concessions to Iran and turning them into yet another sign of President Obama’s alleged weakness abroad.
Following the report, first published in the New York Times, both countries denied that any one-on-one talks were agreed upon. And behind the scenes, former U.S. diplomats and intelligence officers warned that chances for a U.S.-Iran meeting could be scuttled by the premature report. There have been widespread reports that the United States has engaged in what the Times called “intense, secret exchanges between American and Iranian officials” for some time, and other sources, including the Wall Street Journal, reported that talks could begin as soon as November or December between Iran and the P5+1 powers with, Wendy Sherman, a top State Department official, and Said Jalili, the Iranian chief negotiator, leading negotiations on their respective sides.
Photo Credit: Office of Iran's President
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Mohammed
I like the answer of this German Scholar when he was asked about terrorism and Islam: He said:
· Who started the First World War, which killed 37 million and injured 22, 379, 053 that includes 7 million civilians? Muslims?
· Who started the Second World War, which killed over 60 million, which was over 2.5% of the world population? Muslims?
· Who killed about 20 million of Aborigines in Australia? Muslims?
· Who drop the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which killed 166,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki? Muslims?
· Who killed more than 100 million Red Indians in North America? Muslims?
· Who killed more than 50 million Indian in South America? Muslims?
· Who took about 180 million African people as slaves and when 88% of them died, threw them into the Atlantic Ocean? Muslims?
NO
NO
They weren’t Muslims! First of all, you have to define terrorism properly…. If a non-Muslim does something bad… it is crime. But if a Muslim commits the same, he is a terrorist. So first remove the double standard… then come to the point.
*** Just for your information ***
DEVINDRA SETHI
In Diplomacy all options must be considered.Full marks to the current administration led by President Obama for persisting with current financial sanctions and yet be willing to talk.There are three major events occurring presently in Asia.The first is the Afghanistan imbroglio, the second is that of of Iran's persistence to become a Nuclear Weapon State and finally the situation in East Asia between Japan & China & in the South China Sea between ASEAN/ China.There is a cardinal rule in Diplomacy, " Never fear to negotiate but Never negotiate from fear". All actors in the above three theaters should bear that in mind for jaw jaw is better than war war. Make no mistake all countries in Asia from the far East to the Middle East are watching closely especially India and Russia.With the center of gravity of economic endeavour having shifted to this side of the globe,the economic well being of globalisation hangs in the balance especially in these waters.
Talos
It's better to jaw-jaw than war-war.