Nuclear Talks with Iran were denied by the Obama administration after the New York Times published a story saying that White House officials were preparing for a "last-ditch diplomatic effort" to "avert a military strike on Iran".
The NYT article comes before the third and final presidential debate, which will be focusing on foreign policy. The concern highlighted in the article is that if such talks were to occur, they would only be a ruse from Iran's perspective to "ease international pressure" regarding their nuclear program.
Iran's nuclear program "is the most difficult national security issue facing the United States," said R. Nicholas Burns, who led negotiations with Iran during the Bush administration. Additionally, Harretz reports that France's foreign minister, Laurent Fabius said on Sunday that Iran "appears on track to reach the ability to produce a nuclear weapon by the first half of next year." It seems that everyone is taking Iran's nuclear threat very seriously, with the exception, of course, of Vice President Joe Biden, who referred to concerns as "bluster" and "loose talk".
During the vice-presidential debate, Joe Biden downplayed Iran's nuclear capabilities. He said, in part,
"There is no weapon that the Iranians have at this point. Both the Israelis and we know — we'll know if they start the process of building a weapon. So all this bluster I keep hearing, all this loose talk — what are they talking about?
The remarks were criticized by Jeffrey Goldberg at Bloomberg, who said:
"Over the past three years, I've been impressed with Obama's seriousness on the issue of Iran's nuclear program, the urgency with which he treats the subject, and the measures he has taken to keep the regime from crossing the atomic threshold. But last week, in the vice-presidential debate, Biden attempted to portray Representative Paul Ryan as a hysteric on the subject, even though Ryan's seriousness on Iran matches the president's."
Watch Uncle Joe downplay Iran's nuclear capabilities here:
The New York Times article has become somewhat of a story in and of itself, as the Daily Caller reports that the article was "quietly" updated to reflect statements made by National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor's statement, "It's not true that the United States and Iran have agreed to one-on-one talks or any meeting after the American elections..." After the White House complained, the original article also removed a key sentence (without noting the update, as is usual practice), "Even with possible negotiations in the offing, there is no evidence Iran has slowed its fuel production." The question begs to be asked...Why would the NYT edit a story without noting the edits?
The story with these edits is clearly presenting a much more favorable view of the Obama administration, particularly in light of the upcoming debate. It is no wonder, with these types of shenanigans, that the public is weary of the mainstream media, which has been referred to as the "largest single domestic threat to our liberty, our values, and our national and economic security," by an article by IBD. This author agrees. The lack of objectivity and obvious mainstream media bias is reflective of the "dumbing down" of America, also (sadly) apparent in American universities.
Banafsheh Zand
Banafsheh Zand is an Iranian political analyst and human rights activist. Her father, Siamak Pourzand, committed suicide in protest against the oppressive Iranian regime. She is warning the world in a brilliant and well-produced new video about Iran's nuclear capabilities and explains the ramifications of a nuclear Iran.
Zand explains that she knows how to stop the Iranian regime.
Watch the important video here:
Iran has also come out saying that they are not engaging in nuclear talks with the United States.
Image Source: Cox&Forcum/Yalibnan.com
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 83
The issue is WHEN to intervene--and whether intervention is viable.
If you literally believe that the Obama administration would actually allow Iran to HARNESS a nuclear weapon, by a viable delivery system--without, military action, that would try to thwart such an aggressive tack on the part of the Persians--then you are even more politically biased than I thought.
Did you actually believe that we should follow what Romney had actually stated, as theoretical plausibility, in the Primary Debates--the possibility of invading Iran?
If we had invaded Iran in the past, or now, or in the future--in order to thwart the deeply entrenched nuclear site that may, possibly, not be penetrated by bunker busters [nuclear tipped weapons that we have, reportedly, supplied to Israel, during the Obama administration], it is quite possible that would have, or will, trigger WWIII.
While it's true that there are multiple centrifuges involved
--whereby, at 20% enrichment (where apparently the Iranians are), the process can go, more rapidly, to 80%, which accelerates the manufacturing program, generally, and specifically (because of the multiple centrifuges) to preparing more than 1 bomb, at the same time--
the red line, drawn linearly on the diagram by Netanyahu at the UN, is the issue.
THAT'S where the Bombs would be ready for delivery application.
THAT'S where--apparently now--Bibi and Obama have found the same page to be on.
That's where there will likely be a joint strike--unless Iran dismantles.
HOWEVER, it does not necessarily stop the deeply interred, underground facility that may not be ready for many, many months, maybe much longer.
There seems to be much speculation as to whether this site can be penetrated, by military strike--once its completed.
It is this site that could, in my view, trigger WWIII--because the level of devastation to Iran by airstrike and even a possible special invasion would almost certainly result in retaliation and counter-retaliation...thereby bringing in Russia and even, possibly, China.
However, Intel may be quite sketchy, at this point, about this Installation.
[It seems as if the earlier anxiety about the number of installations, all about the countryside, is no longer as challenging, as it once was....at least there doesn't seems to be as much of a buzz about that part of the sortie operation.]
How do you figure? How do you know? Do you have information that France's foreign minister, Laurent Fabius does not? He just said on Sunday that Iran "appears on track to reach the ability to produce a nuclear weapon by the first half of next year."
Dudes no more than 14.
And that's all that really matters.
The US, in the last year and a half, for example, has reportedly given Israel state-of-the-art defensive installations.
To suggest that the US holds up the ball on one end of support to Israel, but does not so on the other end, is laughable.
The Iran talks were probably supposed to be a surprise to help Obama's numbers , but the NYT jumped the gun so now they will have to come up with something else. Maybe they can pay one of David Axelrod's broke Bimbo's to try to say they were sexually harassed by Romney or to get Obama's "bodyman" To say Romney tapped his foot while sitting on the john. I'm sure they'll try to come up with some BS real soon.
"If the New York Times are printing false stories then that is on them If The Obama administration is lying..."
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, wouldn't it be a Merry Christmas?
I mean seriously, nothing you said was substantive or at all relevant to the issue.
...sure, blind in stereo. Of course you would be impressed with a blind man (woman) finding anything.
Ralph Nader who is a democrat, calls Obama a War Criminal. He calls him out as a selfish candidate. Obama with his God Complex truly believes the world revolves around him, that he is the center of the Universe. Iran may just POP that bubble sooner than we think. Shouldthis be of concern? Yes. Should we consider this article trash? No.
Nader is Lebanese and is very critical of US Middle East policy, generally--and he would be even more critical of a more hawkish foreign policy....and, almost certainly, Romney would certainly be more hawkish than Obama.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Tony Stark.
Behave yourself or go and stand in the corner with all the other naughty schoolchildren that have come on here to insult. And as its you I want you to write out 100 times" that I must not come on peoples posts to deny, diminish, divert and to insult. Now of you go corner now.
I thought I told you to go and stand in the corner I will not tolerate naughty individuals NOW go and stand in that corner and for your insubordination You now will write out 1000 lines, that I must not come on peoples posts to deny, diminish, divert and to insult. CORNER NOW
...oh wait, that's an impostor.
I don't trust LIARS, and O is a LIAR. Liars are cowards and will do things that sane people would never think of doing. As a result, I SIMPLY DON'T WANT THE LIAR NEGOTIATING ANYTHING.
Now crawl back in your hole. It would be nice if you would also quit celebrating the deaths of our GIs. People like that make me SICK.
The Westboro Church--which is obviously COMPRISED of people (deranged people at that) are disliked by nearly everyone, including, and especially, me.
If you can't read English, then go back to grammar school.
Brett.
Behave yourself or go and stand in the corner with all the other naughty school children who have come on here to insult.
Regardless of whether you are being serious or facetious, because I happen to like you (I suspect that my liking you goes somewhat beyond me being an Anglophile), I will consider your comment....
Nevertheless, if you look at his comment, before my last one--the one that suggests that I sanction what the Westboro Church believes--I would have a hard time believing that you wouldn't have responded in kind.
And, if I didn't believe that, then I would be losing faith in that famously articulate and assertive Brit spirit.
Thank God, I haven't, as yet, lost that sort of impenetrable faith....