Clinton Doubtful That Iran Will Respond To Any Kind Of Diplomatic Engagement

washingtonpost.com:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday expressed doubts in a private meeting with an Arab counterpart that the Obama administration's outreach to Iran would be successful.

Clinton "said she is doubtful that Iran will respond to any kind of engagement and opening the hand out and reaching out to them," said a senior State Department official, who requested anonymity because he was describing a closed-door conversation.

Read the whole story: washingtonpost.com

Comments

[leonel]

Best thoughts now seem to hope optimism is justified that Iran can relate to US in Afghanistan progress, they do not have conflict there and should have common long-term goals. Another consideration is that new elections may result with new spokesman for Iran. US hopes for change.

[sababa]

When you have the Supreme Leader describing Israel as a cancerous tumor, it's hard to imagine that any diplomatic engagement will occur.
http://www.governmentalityblog.com/my_weblog/2009/03/iranian-leader-to-palestinians-resist-the-cancerous-tumor.html

[thruthseeker]

Politicians privy to intel know much more than the whole lot of you.
Iran has the blind ambition of having a nuclear warhead.
And they are going full speed ahead.
Clinton is citing the obvious.
No amount of diplomacy is going to change Iran's goals.
Thats where Israel will come in.
It will be swift, highly technologic, and in the blink of an eye.

PS. with President Barack Hussein Obama tacit, if not overt support.

Iran will NEVER have their Bomb

[Hirnlego]

Again... the evidence for a weapons program does not even exist. And the country is closely monitored when it comes to all that nuclear stuff.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1829750,00.html

[arvay]

I almost wish the Israelis would do it, because the resulting global catastrophe resulting from the loss of 40 percent of the world's oil supply would sooner than later wipe the Israeli apartheid state from the map.

If attacked, Iran will most certainly build and retaliate with their bomb. All the Israeli arrogance in the world will not change that, even if Israel kills tens of millions in the process.

Just for your edification, if Iran wanted to disguise its nuclear weapons plans, it would publicly accept the offer of talks and keep everyone talking while it busily makes the weapons in secret sites.

Also for your edification, it's typical that diplomates "release" these kinds of conflicting and confusing statements. Quite possibly, if this is true, Clinton is trying to lull the Saudis and other Sunni Arabs. Kissinger used to give off lots of confusing messages, telling many what they wanted tom hear to keep the ball rolling.

So this means very little, really . . .

[breakfast]

This just in. What Clinton actually said was that she didn't think Iran would capitulate to U.S. bullying, so therefore, what's the use?

[Hirnlego]

So.. more designed diplomacy failures.

[who38]

Hear, hear. What a dumb statement for Hill to make. If this is her attitude, the Iranians should be "otherwise disposed" when she shows up.

[Samlas]

I don't trust washington post.

[GalenL]

Just when I was starting to respect our SecState, too bad.

[Macready]

I'm not sure what this really means: "Ross has written that if an overture to Iran were not reciprocated, it would strengthen the United States' efforts to stiffen international sanctions intended to pressure Iran to end its nuclear program. Iran says it is developing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, but the United States, Israel and other countries are worried that the country seeks to build nuclear weapons."

what overtures have they made, are there preconditions on how they are supposed to be received and acted upon by the Iranians? . . . there is no way any country or any consortium of countries is going to stop Iran from its nuclear programme . . . so end the sanctions now! engage with Iran . . . .

the big problem is israel . . . it is time to impose sanctions on israel to get them to end the Gaza blockade, to stop building illegal settlements on the West Bank and to pull down the Jerusalem Wall and then get them to disclose how many nuclear bombs they have . . . that is far more crucial to peace in the region than worrying about and wasting time and energy on Iran and it's nuclear power programme which they were encouraged to do by the US in the 1970s . . .it is time to stop spitting out the same old jargon . . . .

[who38]

Hear, hear.

[thruthseeker]

before Israel discloses how many they have, I'll do it for them.
Its about 450 . On ballistic missiles..Ready to fire in a 7 seconds window.