In a recent editorial, the New York Times gave President Obama similar, blunt advice. “Whatever package is offered has to include meaningful relief from sanctions or there will be no incentive for Iran to do anything,” said the editors of the Times.
There’s reason for optimism, administration officials claim. An Obama administration official told the Washington Post in mid-December, “Our assessment is that it is possible that they are ready to make a deal.” Yet there is no concrete sign whatsoever that the administration is planning to make significant changes to the offer that it has placed on the table since 2011; namely, that in exchange for Iran suspending production of medium-enriched uranium the United States would merely allow Iran to purchase spare parts for American-made aircraft. The official told the Post that it’s possible that the deal could be sweetened, but he gave no specifics. Other reports, too, say that the administration is considering nothing truly new or dramatic in its offer to Iran and no sweeping proposal or grand bargain.
Several times, Iran has rejected this idea outright, and there’s no reason to believe that Tehran has softened its stance. Indeed, although Iran has signaled a new willingness to find a diplomatic solution to end the long-running standoff, top officials continue to insist that Tehran won’t suspend its enrichment of medium-enriched, 20-percent uranium fuel ostensibly being produced for a medical reactor. Whether that refusal might be altered if Iran were offered significant relief from sanctions is what needs to be tested, according to experts in Washington.
Adding to the cautious optimism is the fact that various Iranian hardliners have started to express a desire for direct talks with the United States. Mohammad Javad Larijani, the secretary of Iran's High Council for Human Rights and one of three powerful brothers who are close to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said recently, “To protect the interests of our system, we would negotiate with the U.S. or anyone else even in the abyss of hell.” Other hardliners have joined Larijani by suggesting that it might be useful for Iran to work out a deal with the United States. This includes Mohsen Rezaie, a former commander of the Revolutionary Guard, who said that Iran is now in a position to talk to the United States on an equal footing, as well as General Muhammad Reza Naqdi, the head of the Basij militia, who allowed that “if the United States behaves properly we can negotiate with it.”
Media reports and Russia have both suggested that talks between Iran and the P5+1 world powers could begin as early as next month.
Adding to the positive momentum is the fact that separate talks, on a parallel track, between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency might be making headway. Without providing any details, both Iran and the IAEA said that unspecified “progress” was made in talks held in mid-December, and a new round is tentatively scheduled to take place in Tehran in mid-January. Despite the reports of progress, however, it appears that the two sides went over the same ground that has been covered repeatedly for many years, and that the IAEA’s continued refusal to give Iran access to documents about its nuclear program continues to be an obstacle to such an agreement.
In addition, the IAEA has been seeking access to a military site at Parchin, a complex southeast of Tehran, where IAEA officials suspect Iran may have previously carried out explosive tests of an atomic nature. On Wednesday Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Hassan Qashqavi was quoted by Iranian media outlets as saying: "If the trans-regional threats (against Iran) dissipate, then they will find it possible to visit Parchin,” an apparent reference to Israeli threats to launch airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilitates.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Michael Guy
Ahmadienajad seems to be the Kaiser Wilhelm of the 21st Century, with a re-anactment of the American foreign policy of the progressive Wilson , urged on by the Zionist plutocrats and owners of the federal Reserve bank. IN 1917 the wealthy disciples of Herzl instigated the shedding of copious gentile Blood so that the balfor Agreement would be implemented, the wresting of Palestine from Turkey. Since 9-11 it has been the Sunni-wahabi-jihadist have attacked America yet we wage war on every Shia rival to Riyadh. Pakistan, which sends terrorist to attack India, is nuclear and none raises any concern,. Why is it acceptable for a Sunni nation rife with terrorists to be nuclear armed but not for a Shia nation? Al qaeda, the Talibam , Muslim brotherhood et all are Saudi financed and controlled. But becaise of Tel, Aviv, AIPAC and the fed Owners we are to go further into debt becuase Israel and Riyadh demand this of their vassal, America?
Matt
The incentive is that WMD's specifically nuclear weapons offer no protection from a country eating itself from the inside out like Syria. You can spend billions of dollars on development of nuclear weapons and the defense infrastructure to surround that development. Yet your country can be destroyed by a box of matches.
Bankotsu
I really don't see what the big deal about Iran having nuclear weapons is all about. Many countries have nuclear weapons in this world, there's no need to make a big fuss about Iran.
Iran being the regional hegemon is natural, there's no big deal on that.
Paul
In one comment you say Iran has the right to nuclear weapons. If Iran has the right, then surely Vietnam, Japan, South Korea, the Philipines, Indonesia (list goes on..) should get some.
I bet you are against that though.
You are against US global hegemony which has seen a relatively peaceful period since WW2. What you promote is the breaking up of the world into a multipolar world where regional hegemons dominate their 'sphere of influence'.
Why not say the truth? You are against US hegemony because you want to replace it with Chinese hegemony. You want to replace US imperialism with Chinese imperialism.
The corrupt (and moral bankrupt) communist party wish to export their will and repression onto the region. You are for Iran exporting it's will in the middle east, a theocratic extremist regime. I assume Russia will get Europe when America hands in it's badge? A virtual mafia state run by the FSB.
A future where people determine their own destiny, or a future of repression, exploitation and subjugation?
At least when liberal Europeans attack America, although I generally disagree I can respect their opinion.
Andrew Nutra
Why would Iran not build nuclear weapons? Countries that don't have them get beaten: Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan. Those who do get left alone: North Korea, Pakistan. Besides having nukes is very popular with the massess and will further solidify the mullah's power.
Admiring dah warmongers
The U.S. will attack Iran in 2013. The itch to launch some kind of attack against Iran definitely increases (exponentially) with the rise in the U.S. national debt. When the latter gets out of control the itch for war will also get out of control. Can't help but admire them warmongers as they go about their business. 2013 will be another great year for them. Let the actions unfold Panetta !
Bankotsu
Only in a multipolar world can there be true peace and harmony. Endless imperialist and hegemonic wars is what you get in a U.S unipolar world. That is why the U.S hegemony must be completely destroyed. There is no other way.
Paul
There is another way, the last few remaining dictators get on their bike.
That is a far more acceptable and rational outcome.
Bankotsu
Iran has the right to use of nuclear technology. I support Iran.
Schminner
The United States is God. They make world laws, the Ten commandments, etc… They don't ever want to be dethroned and detest competition. If they decided to declare war and invade any country, the world can only sit around and watch.
Bankotsu
"If they decided to declare war and invade any country, the world can only sit around and watch."
That is why we must have a multipolar world and why U.S unipolar system must be destroyed. This is a just cause that everyone must support. The U.S unipolar system must be exterminated.
SanMan
Last time we had a multipolar world it led to ww1 and ww2, and then finally the cold war. Yeah a multipolar does not seem very good because you are going to have aggressive regional powers going to war with each other.
Bankotsu
Not if there is a clear division of spheres of influence. There was no war between U.S and the Soviet because of the division of europe at Yalta.
Mohsin Syedain
Why any sanctions? Why should there be sanction in the first place? Just because it is able to arm twist? What need do we have for the UN? Iran has a right to enrichment and it will exercise its right, Let there be no doubts about that. It is the US that needs to put a stop to its criminal sanctions. What about Bahrain and compare that with the situation in Syria, why have the so called free thinkers not told the US administration to stop their meddling in the internal affairs of a sovereign country?
2old2ride
Mr. Censor, please put the 'u' in delusional for me.
2old2ride
Iran WILL build a nuclear weapon. The wishes of Israel hating Socialists will not change that. Those who refuse to see the single minded drive by Iran for a nuclear weapon for what it is are in for a shock. They think Iran will nuke Israel. They are wrong. Muslims want to overrun Israel, not turn it into a radioactive wasteland.
Iran will nuke New York, thinking that will cut American support for Israel.
The Mullahs are delsional about lots of things.