Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

US refuses to discuss Iran's nuclear plans in face-to-face talks on Iraq

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
cal04 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 09:03 PM
Original message
US refuses to discuss Iran's nuclear plans in face-to-face talks on Iraq
Although the US is resisting pressure to deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions through direct talks with Tehran, rather than sanctions or military strikes, it still intends to meet senior Iranian officials for discussions on Iraq at which it will demand an end to Iranian meddling, according to Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador in Baghdad.

He is to head the US team at face-to-face talks, which will be the first formal diplomatic meeting between the two countries since the Islamic revolution in 1979 and are expected to open in Baghdad shortly. Leading Republican and Democratic senators have urged the Bush administration to engage Iran in full-scale talks, but in an interview with the Guardian Mr Khalilzad made it clear that the talks would be limited to Iraq. The US wanted Iran to halt aid to Iraq's sectarian militias, and stop smuggling al-Qaida fighters and weapons across the border, he said.

He criticised Iranian "negative propaganda". "The Shias have been the main beneficiaries of this change, yet Iran has been very critical of the liberation and the liberators," he said. "A lot of media in Iran exaggerate the problems here ... They are inciting people against the forces that have come to liberate Iraq."The talks with Iran have the backing of Iraqi leaders, who also insist on their own representation at the table. "We have no objection," Mr Khalilzad told the Guardian. "We're not going to negotiate on behalf of Iraq." The talks were put on hold until Iraq had a new government because "in this part of the world people always think in great conspiracy theories ... We didn't want people here to think that the Iranians and the Americans are together deciding on the Iraqi government."

(snip)
At the forthcoming talks, the US envoy will speak to the Iranians in their own language. Mr Khalilzad was born in Afghanistan in 1951 and his mother tongue is Dari, which differs little from Farsi. The third US overlord in Baghdad since the invasion, Mr Khalilzad is considered the most successful. As a Muslim, educated in Beirut, he understands local culture. But in a constant reminder of the risks he runs, he keeps a tailor's dummy draped with his flak jacket and helmet in his office. Mr Khalilzad is a neo-con who felt the US should have toppled Saddam Hussein after expelling him from Kuwait in 1991. His technique for countering the fall in support for the war in US opinion polls is to offer lurid scenarios for what might happen "if we were to leave prematurely before Iraq can stand on its own feet".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1755750,00.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 09:14 PM
Response to Original message
1. So let me guess how this 'dialog' is going to go.
US: we are in a bit of a bind here in Iraq, would you mind helping us out?

THEM: that would be difficult.

What possible incentive do the Iranians have for helping to keep things calm in Iraq? In what universe do our arrogant asshats think that they can threaten a regime with destruction on one hand, and then ask that same regime to aid and abet their own destruction by freeing up our troops in Iraq? How stupid do we think the Iranians are?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robbien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-17-06 09:31 PM
Response to Original message
2. The press has short memories. Iran stated they would not talk nukes
but the press now pushes the story as if it was a dictum from the US.

What a load of cow patties.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 06:32 AM
Response to Original message
3. US refuses to discuss Iran's nuclear plans in face-to-face talks on Iraq
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1755751,00.html

Although the US is resisting pressure to deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions through direct talks with Tehran, rather than sanctions or military strikes, it still intends to meet senior Iranian officials for discussions on Iraq at which it will demand an end to Iranian meddling, according to Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador in Baghdad.

He is to head the US team at face-to-face talks, which will be the first formal diplomatic meeting between the two countries since the Islamic revolution in 1979 and are expected to open in Baghdad shortly.

Leading Republican and Democratic senators have urged the Bush administration to engage Iran in full-scale talks, but in an interview with the Guardian Mr Khalilzad made it clear that the talks would be limited to Iraq. The US wanted Iran to halt aid to Iraq's sectarian militias, and stop smuggling al-Qaida fighters and weapons across the border, he said.

He criticised Iranian "negative propaganda". "The Shias have been the main beneficiaries of this change, yet Iran has been very critical of the liberation and the liberators," he said. "A lot of media in Iran exaggerate the problems here ... They are inciting people against the forces that have come to liberate Iraq."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patricia92243 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 06:48 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Why, why, why in God's name will we NOT talk to Iran about anything that
might even possibly avert a war? Can someone some where stop Bush. This is not a political game - this is suicide.

If Bush thinks we nuke Iran and none of the other Islam nations will hit us, he really is delusional. I, for one, do not want to suffer from his idiocy.


I was wondering if Iran would let us send in inspectors (like Iraq did) and be sure they are using their stuff just for making electricity. It never entered my mind that the thing in the WH would not even have diplomatic talks.

I'm the most upset over this of anything I've been lately. I think we are in real danger from this clown.

What are the talk shows saying about this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cantstandbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 07:16 AM
Response to Original message
5. Well, great. That's how we got Iraq and how Israel got to where it is in
the ME. Refusing to talk directly to your enemies is a stupid, dangerous, and even uncivilized way to behave, especially for a super power holding all the weapons of mass destruction. If we are afraid having all the power, what the hell would we be once the weapons and the threat of using them have no power?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baby_mouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 07:20 AM
Response to Original message
6. That's because they're gonna nuke Iran and they know no-one wants them to.

They're a bunch of fucking buffoons. They have no credentials, no plan, no strategy, no mandate, no back-up, no fucking clue what they're doing and they're gonna do it anyway, biting the bullet and crying fake crocodile tears all the way, weeping for the poor lost troop lives and posing with cardboard turkeys.

What a bunch of fucking disgusting pieces of crap.

VILE. PESTILENCE. POISONOUS. INESCAPABLY CORRUPT. LIARS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minnesota Libra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 07:25 AM
Response to Original message
7. Plenty of "high level" talks are no doubt going on behind the scenes......
....but even those - if directed by idiot boy and "shoot um up in the face" Cheney won't go anywhere and we will pay for generations to come for this administration's screw ups. I loathe these jerks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 03:58 PM
Response to Original message
8. meeting face to face with oil rich brutal dictators is another story
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HuffleClaw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 05:10 PM
Response to Original message
9. nice spin
"an end to Iranian meddling"

as opposed to american overt support of terrorists who target iran, support of 'pro-democracy groups in iran'? THAT sort of 'meddling' ?

also, as other posters note, it wasn't the US that refuses to discuss irans nuclear energy program
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-18-06 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. This is some sick and dangerous international diplomacy ... eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 08th 2024, 12:15 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC