U.S. May Drop Key Condition for Talks With Iran

[cal04]

Source: NY Times

The Obama administration and its European allies are preparing proposals that would shift strategy toward Iran by dropping a longstanding American insistence that Tehran rapidly shut down nuclear facilities during the early phases of negotiations over its atomic program, according to officials involved in the discussions.

The proposals, exchanged in confidential strategy sessions with European allies, would press Tehran to open up its nuclear program gradually to wide-ranging inspection. But the proposals would also allow Iran to continue enriching uranium for some period during the talks, a sharp break in the approach taken by the Bush administration, which had demanded that Iran halt its enrichment activities.

The proposals under consideration would go somewhat beyond President Obama’s promise, during the presidential campaign, to open negotiations with Iran “without preconditions.” Officials involved in the discussion said they were being fashioned to draw Iran into nuclear talks that it had so far shunned.

A review of Iran policy that Mr. Obama ordered after taking office is still under way, and aides say it is not clear how long he would be willing to allow Iran to continue its fuel production, and at what pace. But European officials said that in talks with Mr. Obama and his aides during his trip to Europe, there was agreement that Iran would not accept the kind of immediate shutdown of its facilities that the Bush administration had demanded.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/14/world/middleeast/14diplo.html?hp

[iandhr]

1. may

Iran needs to slow down its program before we talk

[underpants]

2. There is no evidence that they are producing weapons

they have signed the non proliferation agreement and have adhered to all of its conditions

the Bush approach, here's a shocker, was based on domestic politics inside our news bubble

[iandhr]

3. Maybe I am concerned that its not politicly feasible

[underpants]

4. I understand that

but the fact is that they aren't a risk

Achmadinajad is nowhere near even having influence on Iranian military or national security considerations either

it is all a ghost

[iandhr]

5. What I learned in my middle east class is that

in Iran the regular army reports to the President and the Defense Minister. The Revolutionary guard report the the Ayotollah. Maybe that how is supposed to work but are you saying it does not work that way in reality

[AverageJoe5]

6. The news article states that .....

"......and aides (to Obama) say it is not clear how long he (Obama) would be willing to allow Iran to continue its fuel production, and at what pace."

Iran doesn't need to be "allowed" by Obama to continue its nuclear fuel production. Iran is a sovereign nation; it can do whatever it wants to do with its resources - it doesn't need permission from the U.S. president to enrich uranium.

Where does President Obama get the idea that he needs to give permission to Iran before Iran can proceed with its nuclear program? Isn't this an example of U.S. arrogance which Obama condemned last week when he was in Europe?

[Demit]

7. That's shorthand—for the U.S being a member of the UN Security Council, which passed the resolutions

calling on Iran to cease enriching uranium. All the permanent members of the Security Council—Britain, China, France, Russia and the U.S.—have been in discussions regarding Iran's compliance. It's not that Obama (or the other world leaders for that matter) would be granting 'permission', it's whether or not they decide to impose tougher economic sanctions. Such as not trading with them, not lending to them, etc. Which, as sovereign nations, they are perfectly entitled to do, right?