Obama-Iran October surprise

Fred
by Fred
22-Oct-2012
 

On Saturday a frontpage New York Times article reported:

“The United States and Iran have agreed in principle for the first time to one-on-one negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, according to Obama administration officials, setting the stage for what could be a last-ditch diplomatic effort to avert a military strike on Iran.”

Few hours later White House denied the report.

The third and final U.S. presidential debate is to take place tonight. The scheduled topic is foreign policy; it is a sure bet the illegal weaponized nuke program of the Messianic Islamist regime ruling over Iran will be on top of the discussion.

On numerous occasions both candidates, President Obama and Mitt Romney, have declared their firm stance against the Messianic terrorists going nuclear.

Meanwhile, the Messianic Islamist terrorists are going full steam ahead with their weaponized nuke program.

To avoid war, given the patently clear unpopularity of the regime with the enslaved Iranians, what is the point beyond which alongside the failed policy of making good with the Messianic Terrorists, supporting regime change by Iranians for Iranians with logistical help from Democracy Central, DC, becomes an actionable option?

Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

Recently by FredCommentsDate
ادا اطوار اسلامی
5
Dec 05, 2012
مسجد همجنسگرایان
1
Dec 05, 2012
Iranians are legitimate target
10
Dec 04, 2012
more from Fred
 
vildemose

This is from

by vildemose on Mon Oct 22, 2012 03:56 PM PDT

This is from Juancole.com

 Iran is going for a ‘Japan option’ or ‘nuclear latency,’ where it has the capability to make a warhead quickly if it looks as though the country were about to be invaded. Its government won’t give that up without, as one US general put it, being invaded and occupied. Is Romney willing to go that far? If not, how is he really different than Obama?

//www.juancole.com/2012/10/top-ten-republican-myths-about-obama-and-iran.html#comments

All Oppression Creates a State of War--Simone De Beauvoir


  •  
vildemose

 Obama's red line: To

by vildemose on Mon Oct 22, 2012 03:28 PM PDT

 

Obama's red line: To allow Iran to have the Japan option

Romney's red line:Would not allow nuclear weapon capabilities. 

 From Christiana Amanpour's article on this site:

Mohammad Javad Larijani, a senior adviser to Iran's Supreme Leader, called for a step-by-step process whereby the U.S. and its allies would receive total transparency from Iran, in return for lifting sanctions and providing security guarantees among other things.

But the U.S. and Iran are at odds over sequencing.

President Obama has vowed never to allow a nuclear-armed Iran, but says he believes there is still time for diplomacy to work as the sanctions take their toll.

But several rounds of talks between the U.S., its allies and Iran have not been conclusive, and a former member of Iran's nuclear negotiating team told me that so far the U.S. is "offering peanuts for diamonds".

Governor Romney has a lower bar than President Obama, saying if he were president he would not accept Iran reaching "nuclear weapons capability."

But experts are divided as to what exactly that means and how it would be defined.

In his recent foreign policy speech Romney said: “I'll put the leaders of Iran on notice that the United States and our friends and allies will prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons capability.”

The word "capability" means Romney’s red line is in a different place than Obama’s. Romney appears to be implying that any enrichment of uranium to weapons-grade would be prevented. So far, Iran has enriched uranium to 20 per cent, and has enough at that grade to produce four or five nuclear bombs, according to independent observers, should it decide to enrich that stock further. Highly-enriched uranium that would be usable in a nuclear weapon usually contains around 90% uranium 235.

All Oppression Creates a State of War--Simone De Beauvoir


  •  
amirparvizforsecularmonarchy

With Dumb Yanks the process could take forever.

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on Mon Oct 22, 2012 07:02 AM PDT

what is the point beyond which, alongside the failed policy of making good with the Messianic Terrorists, supporting regime change by Iranians for Iranians with logistical help from Democracy Central, DC, becomes an actionable option?

First the USA needs to stop loving IRI and extremists for Iran and the region above all else.  Lies are a tough habit to break for the USA.  Next the USA needs to take its hands off extremists (like MeK) and support the largest and most popular groups within Iran.  Sadly among the non-extremists the largest group are secular democratic monarchists and they have been betrayed for the last 33 years and the USA is therefore 100% opposed to helping those who they have thwarted and destroyed their alliance with coming to power.  Its about Stupidity built upon even more stupidity, to explain where the USA finds itself.  Its the biggest elephant of all with its head stuck between branches and it can't do a thing.


  •