Trump says he is willing to talk to Iran's leader without preconditions

By Roberta Rampton

 

FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump speaks about trade relations with President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, U.S., July 25, 2018. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts/File Photo

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Monday he would be willing to meet Iran's leader without preconditions to discuss how to improve ties after he pulled the United States out of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, saying, "If they want to meet, we'll meet."

 

"I'd meet with anybody. I believe in meetings," especially in cases where war is at stake, Trump said at a White House news conference when asked whether he was willing to meet with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.

 

No U.S. president has met with an Iranian leader since the United States cut diplomatic relations with Tehran a year after the 1979 revolution that toppled the shah, a U.S. ally. President Barack Obama broke a three-decade freeze with a phone call to Rouhani in 2013.

 

There was no sign that Trump's potential willingness to meet with his Iranian counterpart would mean any change in his administration's intent to ratchet up sanctions and rhetoric against Tehran with the stated goal of "seeking changes in the Iranian government's behaviour."

 

But Trump's remarks did represent a marked softening in rhetoric from a week ago, when he lashed out at Rouhani in a tweet, saying "Never, ever threaten the United States again or you will suffer consequences the likes of which few throughout history have ever suffered before."

 

Shortly before that July 22 tweet, Rouhani had addressed Trump in a speech, saying that hostile U.S. policies could lead to "the mother of all wars".

 

On Monday, speaking at a news conference with visiting Italian prime minister Giuseppe Conte, Trump said: "I would certainly meet with Iran if they wanted to meet. I don't know that they're ready yet. I ended the Iran deal. It was a ridiculous deal. I do believe that they will probably end up wanting to meet and I'm ready to meet any time that they want to."

 

Trump said he had "no preconditions" for a meeting with the Iranians, adding: "If they want to meet, I'll meet."

 

"If we could work something out that's meaningful, not the waste of paper that the other deal was, I would certainly be willing to meet," he added, noting that it would be good for the United States, Iran and the world.

 

ECONOMIC PRESSURE

In May, Trump withdrew the United States from the landmark 2015 international agreement designed to deny Tehran the ability to build nuclear weapons. Since then, Tehran's clerical establishment has been under increasing U.S. pressure and the prospect of renewed sanctions.

 

Barely a week ago, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo launched a rhetorical assault on Iran’s leaders, comparing them to a “mafia” and promising unspecified backing for Iranians unhappy with their government.

 

Washington aims to force Tehran to end its nuclear programme and its support of militant groups in the Middle East, where Iran is involved in proxy wars from Yemen to Syria.

 

Iran and other signatories have been working to find a way to salvage the nuclear agreement, even as the United States has begun reimposing some sanctions on Iran.

 

In spite of fierce verbal exchanges between Tehran and Washington in the recent weeks, Iranian authorities have kept the door to diplomacy open.

 

While warning the United States over waging a war against Iran, Rouhani also said last week that “America should know that peace with Iran is the mother of all peace”, leaving open the possibility of peace between the arch foes.

 

Hours before Trump's statement, however, Tehran had poured cold water on talks with Washington.

 

"With current America and these policies, there will definitely not be the possibility of dialogue and engagement, and the United States has shown that it is totally unreliable," Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahram Qasemi told a weekly news conference on Monday.

 

As the country's economy falters and its currency slides, stirring street protests, Iranian figures familiar with policymaking say Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei could consider diplomacy with Washington and drink from “the chalice of poison,” a reference to the phrase used by his predecessor Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini when he reluctantly agreed to a U.N.-mediated truce that ended the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war.

 

Economic hardship in Iran forced Khamenei to reluctantly back Rouhani's efforts in securing the 2015 nuclear deal.

 

But if Trump were to pursue diplomacy with Iran's leadership, he would have to overcome deep-seated concerns among Washington's closest regional allies, such as Saudi Arabia and Israel, who are deeply sceptical about negotiating with Rouhani's government.

 

Trump drew a comparison with his diplomacy towards North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, who Trump met in a June 12 summit with the aim of convincing Pyongyang to give up its nuclear arsenal, a decades-long objective that has eluded several U.S. presidents.

 

"We met as you know with Chairman Kim and you haven't had a missile fired off in nine months. We got our prisoners back. So many things have happened so positive," Trump said.

 

(Additional reporting by Yara Bayoumy in Washington and Parisa Hafezi in Ankara; Writing by David Alexander and Mary Milliken; Editing by Doina Chiacu and James Dalgleish)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-07-31

 The Trump Two Step.

Create a crisis make bellicose statements,  , like North Korea, Tariffs with EU,  then meet with their leaders, back pedal on the whole thing , afterwards declare  victory and claim credit. 

Now it's Iran, he created a crisis by backing out of the agreement, . he will meet with Iran's leader , back pedal, and come out of the meeting declaring victory and claiming credit. 

. China and the Chinese Tariffs will be next.

Good move, trust Trump to go into the snake pit to wrestle the cobra, and what will add more pezzaz is to have this meeting in Tel Aviv...

More evidence in support of Trump's wrestling prowess:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-spy-agencies-north-korea-is-working-on-new-missiles/2018/07/30/b3542696-940d-11e8-a679-b09212fb69c2_story.html?utm_term=.79dcbfeb8809

I do not have any problems with him saying this. What he will do is another matter, but a president wanting to meet I think it fine. 

2 hours ago, webfact said:

Trump says he is willing to talk to Iran's leader without preconditions

Nah, I guess it´s more like: "Okey, okey, slowly guys! I know I´ve f-up, and that I have to meet with them and clear up all misstakes before I am seen like a bigger idiot then I actually am." Trump sitting in the oval room thinking by himself: "Is that really possible?"

Edited July 31, 20187 yr by Get Real

2 hours ago, ezzra said:

Good move, trust Trump to go into the snake pit to wrestle the cobra

 

What is it with Republicans and wrestling?

2 hours ago, utalkin2me said:

I do not have any problems with him saying this. What he will do is another matter, but a president wanting to meet I think it fine. 

Actually, it's not fine. It's already pinned Trump down in relation to Korea. It's moronic to attach the prestige of POTUS to preliminary negotiations. 

Oh...without preconditions?

Like...say...an all caps- war threat or the threat to terminate the Iran- deal, that was a multinational effort with the US being a part of it?

 

Yeah...I love the smell of Nobel in the morning!

 

2 hours ago, utalkin2me said:

but a president wanting to meet I think it fine. 

 

Too bad Melania doesn't share your thought.

 

 

This charlatan has no diplomatic skill. He is tearing treaties, agreements, and partnerships asunder. And he is risking war with Iran. They could be the worst enemy America has seen since Germany during WWII. They have alot of cash. A lot of oil. And ideology to stand behind a long and bruising war campaign. Iran could bankrupt the US. It could be a 50 year war, costing $30 trillion or more. They have no issues with waging terrorism, and could do it within the US. Their hacking skills could cripple the US satellites and the electrical grid. More Bush Jr. style hubris. Going into a situation armed with no information, no preparation, and no wisdom. That is the very definition of Diet Orange. 

 

The tangerine tornado. The art of I cannot make a deal to save my life. I have bankrupted five companies. I lost 17 out of 19 of my merchandising deals, since coming into office, due to being such an offensive person. I have swindled thousands of small contractors out of billions of dollars. I was involved in 3,600 lawsuits at the time I took office. And I fired my driver of 25 years, still owing him 3,000 hours of overtime, when I got my secret service driver. I just do not care about people, and never, ever honor my commitments. Ever. Why would I? More money for me. And I had a fake university too. Lost my steak company. Lost my airline. Lost nearly everything. All of my brands are now radioactive. Nobody will touch them. I cannot sell or rent my units. Nobody wants them. My name is mud. I did this to myself. Now, I am trying to bankrupt America with my hair brained new tax hikes known as tariffs. I am a one man wrecking crew.

 

As many know, I accomplished nothing in North Korea. That was one big show. A great benefit for Kim. Same with Russia. A great benefit for Putin, but nothing for me or for America. Just the way I roll. All show and no substance. 

 

Moving America backwards at an astonishing and breath taking pace. Definitely not making America great again. Tiny Don.

Edited July 31, 20187 yr by spidermike007

A repeat of n Korea?more kibble for his base maybe his master Putin has a plan we all know Donald doesent

He really is Agent Orange, it too stripped away any beauty and made places unbearable to live. Is it medical? Is he bi-polar and off his meds or truly just a dimwitted buffoon?

The man  offers to meet and talk things out and the geniuses of TVF  vilify him.   had he said no talk, no meeting, the same people would vilify him from that too.

 

12 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

The man  offers to meet and talk things out and the geniuses of TVF  vilify him. 

had he said no talk, no meeting, the same people would vilify him from that too.

 

 

Perhaps in a few days time he will change his mind once again.

 

If he hadn't torn up the US involvement with Iran and then come out with this he would probably get more support.

 

His problem is that he makes a decision without any consultations with the people who have to try to make it work, Then he changes his mind once again.

 

Fair play to him in trying to deflect from the Mueller investigation. Unlucky it doesn't work no matter what he tries.

26 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

The man  offers to meet and talk things out and the geniuses of TVF  vilify him. 

had he said no talk, no meeting, the same people would vilify him from that too.

 

If he were to heed the advice of qualified people and send them to preliminary talks that would make sense. But had he heeded the advice of qualified people, he wouldn't have backed out of the agreement in the first place.

47 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

had he said no talk, no meeting, the same people would vilify him from that too.

 

Really? The same people? Sounds like some sort of alternative fact to me.

 

I mean last week he was "talking" a different tone...and those with Trump Derangement Syndrome were quick to defend him. His passive-aggressive behavior is a bit off-putting.

 

 

 

Basicly US and EU have no interest in change of current regime in Iran as long as those clerics follow US policy in the Middle East. 

The cleric leader can remain in power as long as he plays the game right.  ??

 

 

Edited July 31, 20187 yr by The Theory

22 minutes ago, The Theory said:

Basicly US and EU have no interest in change of current regime in Iran as long as those clerics follow US policy in the Middle East. 

The cleric leader can remain in power as long as he plays the game right. 

Selling natural resources of Iran for dirt cheap to EU and being a great market for their products. And by being a great danger in the Middle East providing a huge weapons market for US and UK.

It will be beneficial for Russians as well. 

 

otherwise no one really cares what the people of Iran want !!! 

 

USA does not sell ams to Iran and hasn't since 1979. Russia and China have had the market to themselves since 2005. On the other hand, Iran has been selling/providing  military arms to conflict zone participants in Sudan, Syria, Lebanon(Hizbollah) and Yemen despite international sanctions to prevent those sales.

16 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

USA does not sell ams to Iran and hasn't since 1979. Russia and China have had the market to themselves since 2005. On the other hand, Iran has been selling/providing  military arms to conflict zone participants in Sudan, Syria, Lebanon(Hizbollah) and Yemen despite international sanctions to prevent those sales.

I guess you did not read it right !!

US , UK & Russians selling fighter jets and weapons to “Arabs” recently. The market is hot and never been as much. 

You are knowledgeable and absolutely right :

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Contra_affair

Edited July 31, 20187 yr by The Theory

57 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

 

Really? The same people? Sounds like some sort of alternative fact to me.

 

I mean last week he was "talking" a different tone...and those with Trump Derangement Syndrome were quick to defend him. His passive-aggressive behavior is a bit off-putting.

 

 

 

Actually, what is remarkable is the intellectual flexibility Trump's supporters need to exercise, as they often have to defend an opposite view from one day to another. ?

37 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

USA does not sell ams to Iran and hasn't since 1979. Russia and China have had the market to themselves since 2005. On the other hand, Iran has been selling/providing  military arms to conflict zone participants in Sudan, Syria, Lebanon(Hizbollah) and Yemen despite international sanctions to prevent those sales.

That's right. On the other hand they did not provide weapons to Al Quaida and IS, and have been determining in fighting IS in Irak. Contrary to other countries, they also never nurtured terrorists who killed people in the USA or in Europe recently. So which country is worst in this conflict?

Just a reminder of a particular state of mind:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/jun/08/saudi-arabia-footballers-ignore-minutes-silence-for-london-attack-victims

 

No U.S. president has met with an Iranian leader since the United States cut diplomatic relations with Tehran a year after the 1979 revolution that toppled the shah, a U.S. ally the U.S.A. dropped like an old sock

Pompeo is already walking this back.

 

This tells us two things:

 

Trump is politically neutered.

 

Somebody with direct access to Pompeo wants (or needs) conflict and possibly war with Iran.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/31/trump-offer-to-meet-iran-president-rouhani-dismissed-by-both-sides

Edited July 31, 20187 yr by Chomper Higgot

Can't talk to the likes of these clerics as they detest us and everything about us...they just can't kill and blow us up just yet, but if they could then they would.

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Pompeo is already walking this back.

 

This tells us two things:

 

Trump is politically neutered.

 

Somebody with direct access to Pompeo wants (or needs) conflict and possibly war with Iran.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/31/trump-offer-to-meet-iran-president-rouhani-dismissed-by-both-sides

 

As pointed out in the beginning of the topic, this is pretty much how the Trump administration rolls. Trump tweeting one thing, then saying another, and people on his administration being caught off-balance by either is the new normal.Reading too much into these debacles is not necessarily supported by much. None of the two "things" suggested are actually demonstrated, not even by the linked article.

 

 

7 hours ago, Morch said:

 

As pointed out in the beginning of the topic, this is pretty much how the Trump administration rolls. Trump tweeting one thing, then saying another, and people on his administration being caught off-balance by either is the new normal.Reading too much into these debacles is not necessarily supported by much. None of the two "things" suggested are actually demonstrated, not even by the linked article.

 

 

I might agree with you if not for Trump’s earlier position, backed by the administration and further remarks by Bolton.

 

Neither the administration nor specifically Bolton challenged Trump’s ridiculous and dangerous retreat from the (‘Obama’s’) Iran nuclear deal.

 

I stand by my statement.

17 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

USA does not sell ams to Iran and hasn't since 1979. Russia and China have had the market to themselves since 2005. On the other hand, Iran has been selling/providing  military arms to conflict zone participants in Sudan, Syria, Lebanon(Hizbollah) and Yemen despite international sanctions to prevent those sales.

Spicoli were you that out of it in the early 1980's that you missed Iran Contra? Plenty of USA arms to Iran routed through Israel. Getting pretty bad when even the Mad Mullahs won't meet with you, 555!

6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I might agree with you if not for Trump’s earlier position, backed by the administration and further remarks by Bolton.

 

Neither the administration nor specifically Bolton challenged Trump’s ridiculous and dangerous retreat from the (‘Obama’s’) Iran nuclear deal.

 

I stand by my statement.

 

I agree with you.

 

So why didn't Trump say and do something before he tore the US side of the agreement up? Common sense tells me that would have been a better plan.

On 8/1/2018 at 4:51 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

I might agree with you if not for Trump’s earlier position, backed by the administration and further remarks by Bolton.

 

Neither the administration nor specifically Bolton challenged Trump’s ridiculous and dangerous retreat from the (‘Obama’s’) Iran nuclear deal.

 

I stand by my statement.

 

Nothing in either your posts explains how this is significantly different than the many other times Trump pulled the same stunt. As far as I recall, there were views, even within the Trump administration which did not support his pullout from the Iran Deal (Mattis, for example, if memory serves). Don't know what sort of "challenge" you expect, exactly - handing in resignations and such?