Sunday, October 21, 2012
Iran has agreed to Nuclear Talks..What, Again?
According to the New York Times, the U.S. and Iran "have agreed in principle for the first time to one-on-one negotiations."
Iranian officials have insisted that the talks wait until after the presidential election, a senior administration official said, telling their American counterparts that they want to know which American president they would be negotiating with.
News of the agreement — a result of intense, secret exchanges between American and Iranian officials that date almost to the beginning of President Obama’s term — comes at a critical moment in the presidential contest, just two weeks before Election Day and a day before the final debate, which is to focus on national security and foreign policy.
Just a coincidence this gets leaked right before the coming presidential debate that focuses on foreign policy no? Rest assured that President Obama will mention it as proof 'my policies on Iran are working.' Nicely timed,isn't it?
Interestingly enough, the AP has a story quoting National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor saying that there is no agreement for any talks.
And of course, the unnamed officials who leaked this conveniently said that they weren't sure Iran's Supreme Leader the Ayatollah Khamenei had signed off on any one on one talks. Which means that after the election, this 'scoop' can be dismissed by simply saying that the Ayatollah Khamenei was unwilling to proceed.
Let's sort through this mess.It's nice because it's meaningless no matter how you look at it.
Obviously, if Pravda-on-the-Hudson simply came up with something just to help a favored candidate ( and it would not be the first time they've done so) than it can be dismissed as what it is, a campaign contribution in kind. If the president mentions it, all Mitt Romney has to do is replay Vietor's own words back at him.Along with repeating that out of the 25 nations who import significant amounts of Iranian oil, 20 of them have received waivers on observing the sanctions courtesy of our State Department.
If someone in the Iranian regime actually made such an overture it's meaningless unless Khamenei signs off on it.
And even if Iran's Supreme Leader okayed the approach,let's look at Iran's history in these matters.
The west has been engaged in talks with Iran over its illegal nuclear program for seven or eight years now. In every case, it's simply been a ploy to get the nuclear football closer to the goal post. They have lied, cheated and obfuscated in every instance to buy time to continue to develop their nuclear weapons program.
It is also worth considering that to the Ayatollahs, no agreement Iran makes with non-believers is valid according to Islam.
The Muslim concepts of Kitman and Taqiyya, lying to non-believers to advance Islam are sanctioned in the Qur'an by Qur'an 1:10, 9:3 - "...Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters ..." (remember, to most Muslims Christians are considered polytheists and idolators), 3:54, 66.2 and a host of others.
And of course, by this famous quote attributed to Mohammed in the Hadiths "war is deception."
I would love nothing better than for the Iranians to decide that nuclear weapons are no longer a priority and what they really want is better relations with the west, so that peace prevails. I'd also like for some unknown distant relation to pass on to their eternal reward and leave me a couple of million dollars. The two events have about an equal probability.
It's important to remember that the Iranians already signed one agreement with the west - the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty - and broke it with impunity. There's no real way to monitor compliance with any future agreements they make as long as the present regime is in power.
And in any case, Iran is a dying nation, demographically and economically. And obtaining nuclear weapons and using them to blackmail the neighboring GCC countries or as a military tool to take over the primarily Shi'ite regions of, say, Bahrain or the eastern, oil bearing provinces of Saudi Arabia is the only way the regime can survive.
They will not give up their nuclear weapons program voluntarily. And unlike this New York Times piece, that's a simple fact that isn't meaningless.