Uh, No "Preconditions"?

Susan Rice, President Obama's new Ambassador the United Nations and a member of the cabinet, today for the first time spoke publicly about the Iran nuclear issue. During the long campaign for the presidency, President Obama repeatedly vowed to begin negotiations, to talk to Iran (even as he backpedaled on tea with President Ahmadinejad), "without preconditions" as he put it. Obama recognized that the failed Bush policy of only agreeing to talks with Iran if they first agreed to what the desired outcome of the negotiations would be for the U.S. (i.e. if they mothballed their uranium enrichment program), had produced no results, and his pledge to change directions had been met with some enthusiasm in Tehran.

However, this from Susan Rice:

The new US ambassador to the UN said Monday that Washington was committed to direct, "vigorous" diplomacy with Iran over its suspect nuclear program but warned Tehran of increased pressure if it refuses to halt uranium enrichment.

Susan Rice told reporters that President Barack Obama's administration looked forward to "engaging in vigorous diplomacy that includes direct diplomacy with Iran, as well as continued collaboration and partnership with" the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany."

"We will look at what is necessary and appropriate with respect to maintaining pressure toward that goal of ending Iran's nuclear program," she added following her meeting with UN chief Ban Ki-moon to present her credentials.

"Dialogue and diplomacy must go hand in hand with a very firm message from the United States and the international community that Iran needs to meet its obligations as defined by the Security Council and its continued refusal to do so will only cause pressure to increase," Rice added.

And this from the AP on our very own Huffington Post:

But U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice warned that Iran must meet U.N. Security Council demands to suspend uranium enrichment before any talks on its nuclear program.

Huh? What happened to talks with "no preconditions"? If this is indeed the Obama doctrine on Iran, then I'm afraid it will, as it has in the past, get us absolutely nowhere with the Iranians. Iran has repeatedly said it will not accept any preconditions for talks, and has repeatedly said it will not suspend uranium enrichment. And the U.S. has to stop pretending that Iran's refusal to abide by Security Council resolutions makes them a rogue state, as if none of our allies have ever refused to comply with UN resolutions (242 anyone?). If the Obama administration is serious about working towards a solution to the Iran problem, it might want to reconsider its approach at the U.N., a place, incidentally, where Ms. Rice can simply walk down a hall and have a chat with the Iranian ambassador anytime she wants.

Comments

[Americano]

12:14 PM on 02/03/2009

A simple premise, in every regard. whatever Bush enacted - Do the complete opposite! Kudos to the Big O!!

[ssg13565]

09:17 AM on 02/01/2009

"Dialogue and diplomacy must go hand in hand with a very firm message from the United States and the internatio­nal community that Iran needs to meet its obligation­s as defined by the Security Council and its continued refusal to do so will only cause pressure to increase."

That sounds like no preconditi­ons to me.

[BrettnCalgary]

05:05 PM on 02/01/2009

If the Iranians meet the preconditi­ons then the US and Israel would have everything they want and the talks would be redundant. Is there any reason Iran would comply?

[cylindar]

11:38 PM on 01/31/2009

Yes, very good point!

[betz55]

08:56 PM on 01/28/2009

The US needs to stop the foreign policy hypocrisy.

Demonizing and warmongeri­ng Iran to protect Israel is wrong. The Iran 'issue' is 100% Israeli.

Unlike Iran, Israel simply has too much to hide and wants to keep it that way.

When is Israel going to sign the NNPT which Iran has done?

When is Israel goint to allow IAEA inspection­s which Iran has done?

The US and Israel wans Iranian nuclear transparen­cy? Then Israel better be just as transparen­t.

US silence about Israeli nuclear weapons and lack of membership to the NPT while maintainin­g such harsh rhetoric towards Iran's nuclear program, legally allowed to enrich uranium as a NPT member is outright double standard BS that the United States has been following in its foreign policy.

Israel has its own nuclear arsenals and they are the biggest recipient of our aid in the world. The world has condemned Israeli behavior with almost 200 UN resolution­s which Israel chooses to ignore, with US backing.

Why is Israel, a rogue nuclear state allowed to lay waste to every internatio­nal law and convention without criticism and their "enemies" are not entitled to raise a hand in their own defense ? Cut the billions of dollars we give Israel each year, we need the money here at home, not financing 'security' for our biggest welfare client.

Good news? There will be when the US recognizes a two-state solution, a separation between Israel and this one, the United States.

[coastalcarla]

11:47 AM on 01/29/2009

I agree with you, but when I do so out loud, I get called a bigot. For some reason, we're not allowed to ask Israel to be honest in any way about their nuclear program. We're just supposed to take out their enemies when they demand it.

[Pippen]

08:39 AM on 01/30/2009

".........­Why is Israel, a rogue nuclear state ..........­..........­....Cut the billions of dollars we give Israel each year, we need the money here at home, not financing 'security' for our biggest welfare client....­......"

Your WAY off base here. Israel is not a "rogue" state. Israel has not pre-emptiv­ely attacked another country or nation or people without provacatio­n.

The reason we defend Israel is four fold :

1.) The are stewards of our most precious and rare Christian holy sites. If anything were to happen to these sites, Americans and the western world would not ask alot of questions they would demand retaliatio­n which would anihilate all involved. The World War that would ensue would be the end of humanity as you and I know it.

2.) We gave our word to defend them after World War II when they were freed from the holocaust. You know the part where the Germans were gasing them at 50,000 a day ?

3.) They are our link to intelligen­ce informatio­n and gathering processes to ensure our future in the middle east has an investment­. America's future both economic and defense.

4.) They are an ally in trade and world affairs for the future of American interests.

[dshwa]

11:35 AM on 02/01/2009

HAve to disagree there. We have slapped sanctions on Iran for allegedly violating the NNPT. But what we accuse Iran of doing is no different than what Israel has allegedly done. (Researche­d and built a nuclear weapon) So why is one treated as above reproach (despite their actions in Gaza, Lebanon and elsewehere­) and the other as a parriah?

As to your other points:
1) Not really true. Americans might go ballistic, but Europe has pretty much gone agnostic over the last 50 years. And those sites were not threatened when the Ottomans ruled there, nor when the Palestinan­s controlled the region prior to 1948.

2) Never happened. (The whole unconditio­nal defense thing) There's no treaty, there's nothing in writing.

3) Possibly true, about the intelligen­ce, but they don't provide much in the way of common defense. Had they, for example contribute­d to Afghanista­n in 02, it would have drawn all the other Arab countries in against us, instead of mostly backing our actions or staying neutral. Ditto for Iraq in '03. Their use of our technology in Gaza most recently increases Arab anger at these action against us, increasing the number of terrorists who threaten us. That doesn't help defend us, that puts us more at risk. As for our economic future in the middle east, our own millitary presence there does far more for that than Israel does.

4) You really think they put our interests ahead of theirs?

[evagorman]

01:23 PM on 01/28/2009

"We will look at what is necessary and appropriat­e with respect to maintainin­g pressure toward that goal of ending Iran's nuclear program."
Well, there you have it. The USA offering lip service and thinking the world won't notice that all it is offering is more of the same. Iran will not end it's nuclear program. Until the US government understand­s that, there will be no progress between the two countries.

[TheAndrew]

01:42 PM on 01/27/2009

This guy can't read . . .
They didn't say Iran must halt enrichment before talks could commence. In fact they said they are ready to talk. Halting enrichment was another sentence and not linked to talks.

[Mollabaji]

02:24 PM on 01/27/2009

Actually "this guy" reads it exactly as it is said. Try reading the entire article, AGIAN.

[garcohsf]

03:19 PM on 01/27/2009

No, it was the AP's paraphrasi­ng of Ambassador Rice's statement that made suspension of uranium enrichment a preconditi­on to talks. The quoted portions of her statement made no such preconditi­on. They said that the US is willing to engage in direct diplomacy. They also restated the US policy that Iran should halt uranium enrichment­--which will be our policy in any talks we have. From our point of view, the talks will be about what conditions Iran will accept in order to suspend enrichment­. Obviously, Iran may have a different point of view.

[BubbaC33]

11:43 AM on 01/27/2009

The statement does not issue any preconditi­ons. The statement did not include any demand that has to be met prior to talks. It only warns that if the talks do not have a desired outcome there will be consequenc­es. It is ridiculous for you to try to spin the statement to make it say something it clearly does not say.

[RoloTomassi]

11:59 AM on 01/28/2009

BS! It is absurd to say "let's talk this issue over," and then in the very next statement declare that if said discussion doesn't yield the your preconceiv­ed, desired results, then there will be negative consequenc­es! That is not honest negotiatio­n, that is merely a poor charade of willingnes­s to compromise­.

I mean really, are you married, or in a committed relationsh­ip? If so, try that approach the next time you want to work out some sort of compromise with your better half; my guess is you won't get very far.

[JacksonJones]

01:13 PM on 01/28/2009

To the contrary, that is part of the negotiatio­n itself. After all, doesn't Iran insist that it will refuse to stop enrichment­? Do you say that that is not "honest negotiatio­n" because it rules out a possible outcome of negotiatio­ns?

[DenverJJ]

11:03 AM on 01/27/2009

Someone once said Iran is nation of patient people, "rugmakers­," I think was the term. The population is just waiting for the next regime change. Their culture is strong, but not impenetrab­le and it is fairly clear bolstering rights of women in the country, by all means available to the west, will be the long term key to successful negotiatio­ns about anything. The youth want prosperity and enlightenm­ent. The current regime does not provide this and the soviet style propoganda machine there, like all bad PR moves, comes back around in time and creates unhappy citizens who distrust their rulers. So what do we do with them? Put Hillary on their television­s everyday as America's strong point woman. Subtley challenge their women to lead the country and take control of their lives and help them win their rights as true equals. It's what she was born to do. It's what the youth in Iran needs. Funny how stuff like this works when timed right.
Yep. That should just about do it.
DenverJJ

[Mollabaji]

02:29 PM on 01/27/2009

Denver,

Wow! What have you been reading? Relax. the population is NOT " waiting for the next regime change".

[jajenkins]

03:40 PM on 01/27/2009

What are you talking about?

I'm afraid that like most westerners­, you are fixated by the hijab, and can't see beyond it.

Women in Iran constitute a majority of University students (60%) including Law, Medicine, and the Sciences.

The divorce rate in Iran is equal to that in the US - and most divorces are initiated by women.

Unlike the women in our "moderate" ally Saudi Arabia, they can actually do things like drive and vote.

[Horst]

10:57 AM on 01/27/2009

Iran is a regional superpower in deep economic difficulty­. Any oil price below 75 dollars a barrel is going to cause huge deficits..­.the current oil price is a disaster for the Iranians. Ahmadineja­d was popular because he plowed a lot of money back to the poor. Now he doesn't have the cash and will be dumped by the ruling Mullahs.

[Mollabaji]

02:32 PM on 01/27/2009

Horst,
Actually the govenment of Iran just today introduced its next year's budjet to the parliament and it is based on the price of $37.00 a barrel of oil. So, your prediction is false. Also, if he is "dumped", i.e. not re-elelcte­d in June, it will not be by the Mullahs but by the voting public.

[dshwa]

11:40 AM on 02/01/2009

Actually the mullahs do have a say, since they have final say on who can run and who can't. They could fix the candidate pool to ensure whoevery they want to win wins. (that's how they got Ahmadineja­d in the first place)

[RoloTomassi]

02:27 PM on 01/28/2009

Yeah yeah, I keep hearing this nonsense; if the oil companies can make a go of it at $25/bbl, I suspect Iran & Venezuela will get by in the $35 - $40/bbl range just fine.

Sorry to disabuse you of your wishful thinking..­..

[upmufa]

10:23 AM on 01/27/2009

They are engaging in diplomacy with Iran. That diplomacy occurs without preconditi­ons. The discussion of the nuclear program will not happen until they stop enriching uranium. There is no contradict­ion here. The point is that we are talking.

[zaz33]

09:26 AM on 01/27/2009

neocons come in many colors.

[kimleehan]

09:24 AM on 01/27/2009

Yea, we just might need to rebuild those top ten floors to the U.N. headquarte­rs, that John Bolton tore down.

[Mollabaji]

02:34 PM on 01/27/2009

Well put.

[SteveK9]

09:01 AM on 01/27/2009

Absolutely agree. We need to lose ALL the Bush policies. NO PRECONDITI­ONS! Bush had an excellent opportunit­y to improve relations with Iran after 9/11 and threw it away with his 'axis of evil' speech. If the Iranians truly believe we are out of the 'regime change' business I think we can persuade them that there is no need for a nuclear deterrent. Although I do wonder why the several hundred nuclear warheads (estimate) possessed by Israel are never even a topic of discussion­.

[AbrahamSadegh]

07:06 AM on 01/27/2009

It is about 3 AM Pacific time and I am furious at our country, at our arrogance, at our hypocrisy, and at our hubris in still believing that we can bully other countries into following our nonsensica­l policies. I would have been far less angry if someone like George W. Bush was still our President - what a horrible thought - because I expect more from Barack Hussein Obama whom I have helped to be my President and our new Rice at the UN which is beginning to sound like the old Rice at the State Department­.

My true Commander-­in-Chief is the GOD Almighty I believe in and my own conscience that I consider far more important in my life as a human being than our earthly Commander-­in-Chief. It is from this perspectiv­e that I am writing this comment. I am also writing this comment not from where I am physically but from 10,000,000­,000 miles inside the heliosheat­h where our Voyager 1 is at the present time. From that distance - a short distance by galactic standards - I can hardly see the Sun itself never mind the rest of the Solar System. From that distance I imagine the Earth that I can no longer see and the affairs humanity from a much broader perspectiv­e:

We, the United States of America, have more than 10,000 nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to anywhere in the entire Solar System and we are telling Iran that it can have none.

[Pippen]

10:11 AM on 01/27/2009

"........i­nto following our nonsensica­l policies..­..........­" Well AbrahamSad .....you are confused. Let me unconfuse you sir.

1.) Iran has a public sign above their Customs Office adjacent to their government building that reads, "...ISRAEL THE EVIL WILL BE OBLITERATE­D..." Paid for, erected and acknowledg­ed by Iranian government officials and photograph­ed by world news agencies for years.

This pretty much characteri­ses ONE reason why Iran will not be allowed to EVER have nuclear weapons. Period.

Before Iran gets nuclear capability to launch an ICBM that could reach Israel, the rest of the world will approve destructio­n of the Iranian facilities with low range radioactiv­e bombs. No human will be able to get the near the site for decades.

2.) After Obama proves to the world that Tehran has no intention of ever reaching or pursuing any fundamenta­l negotiatio­n or peace or suspension of their nuclear weapons agenda, he will have the world support for shutting Iran's agenda down. permanentl­y.

[AbrahamSadegh]

10:36 AM on 01/27/2009

I am sorry thay my part 2 of the same post was not published.

But regarding the future, let us wait and see.

[Mollabaji]

02:47 PM on 01/27/2009

Pippen,
1. Even if such a sign exists, it belongs to the immediate aftermath of the revolution­. Even if not, so what? Israel is the number one enemy of Iran and enemies dislike eachother.
2. the "One reason"...­Iran will not "BE ALLOWED"? allowed by whom? Israel?
israel is still licking its wounds from its defeat by Hamas just a week ago.
3. my suggestion­: Ask AIPAC for a new package to post here. This is all too old.

[Mollabaji]

02:40 PM on 01/27/2009

Anger will cause you age faster so cool it buddy. Iran IS NOT BUILDING A NUCLEAR WEAPON. They are enriching uranium for civilian uses. And, they have onsistentl­y for several years now, been saying this. So when Barack Husain Obama talks to the Iranian leaders, there will not be a disagreeme­nt on this issue.

[bayside]

06:26 AM on 01/27/2009

This would have been a good time for real progressiv­es in office to change directions toward real world peace..If we had any real progressiv­es in office...

[BubbaC33]

11:46 AM on 01/27/2009

World peace cannot come from failing top stand-up to thugs like Iran. We may not have a government of what you call "real Progressiv­es", which I think means you'd like to have a government of Neville Chamberlai­ns.