Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter 2 Share on Facebook 1 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend (3 Shares)  

Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   No comments
OpEdNews Op Eds

Direct US/Iran Nuclear Talks

By       Message Stephen Lendman     Permalink
      (Page 1 of 4 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

Author 194
Become a Fan
  (191 fans)
- Advertisement -

Direct US/Iran Nuclear Talks

- Advertisement -

Nuclear issue is red herring cover for regime change.

by Stephen Lendman

To talk or not to talk. What's sensible is twisted to be complicated. Claiming an existential Iranian threat is red herring cover. At issue is long-planned regime change. 

Washington's had no direct diplomatic relations with Iran since 1980. Instead of forthrightly explaining why, the State Department said America "has long-standing concerns over Iran's nuclear program, sponsorship of terrorism, and human rights records."

- Advertisement -

In fact, millions worldwide have well-founded fears about Washington on these and other major issues. Iran threatens no one. Its nuclear program is peaceful. America threatens humanity. Global wars it wages may destroy it.

On October 20, The New York Times headlined "US Officials Say Iran Has Agreed to Nuclear Talks," saying:

Direct one-on-one negotiations were agreed to for the first time. Doing so "set(s) the stage for what could be a last-ditch diplomatic effort to avert a military strike on Iran."

Iranian officials insist on waiting until after US elections. Better be sure they're talking to their right counterparts.

"News of the agreement".comes at a critical time in the presidential contest".(I)intense, secret exchanges" preceded it. Obama may want to claim a diplomatic breakthrough. At the same time, he risks opposition elements claiming he's letting Tehran buy time.

In campaign mode, Romney is hardline. He accuses Obama of being soft on Iran and expressing less than full support for Israel. If elected, conciliatory efforts won't be fast-tracked. Regime change perhaps by war will be prioritized.

According to White House spokesman Tommy Vietor:

- Advertisement -
"It's not true that the United States and Iran have agreed to one-on-one talks or any meeting after the American elections." He added that Obama officials are open to such talks. They "said from the outset that we would be prepared to meet bilaterally."

The Times said Iran wants multiple issues discussed. Much more is important regionally than its nuclear program. An unnamed US official told The Times, "We've always seen the nuclear issue as independent. We're not going to allow (Tehran) to draw a linkage."

Former Bush administration under secretary of state Nicholas Burns said, "It would be unconscionable to go to war if we haven't had such discussions."

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4


- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It

I was born in 1934, am a retired, progressive small businessman concerned about all the major national and world issues, committed to speak out and write about them.

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting
/* The Petition Site */
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

The McCain-Lieberman Police State Act

Daniel Estulin's "True Story of the Bilderberg Group" and What They May Be Planning Now

Continuity of Government: Coup d'Etat Authority in America

America Facing Depression and Bankruptcy

Lies, Damn Lies and the Murdoch Empire

Mandatory Swine Flu Vaccine Alert