US President Obama and Iran's Rouhani speak in historic phone call

[webfact]

It's a three-decade first: Presidents of U.S., Iran talk directly, if only by phone
By Chelsea J. Carter, CNN

(CNN) -- U.S. President Barack Obama spoke by telephone Friday with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani -- the first direct conversation between leaders in Washington and Tehran since 1979 -- raising the possibility a deal can be reached over Iran's controversial nuclear program.

Describing the conversation as a starting point, Obama said he believes an agreement is possible regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions that could lead to better relations.

"While there will surely be important obstacles to moving forward and success is by no means guaranteed, I believe we can reach a comprehensive solution," Obama told reporters during a White House briefing.

Western leaders have expressed cautious optimism about Iran's more moderate tone under Rouhani, whose recent comments have raised hopes that a deal could be struck over the Middle Eastern nation's nuclear program.

Full story: http://us.cnn.com/2013/09/27/politics/us-iran/index.html

-- CNN 2013-09-28

[Jingthing]

It's worth a try but clearly it's yet another stalling ploy by Iran. However, why not test that?

Ironic that the author of that news item is named CARTER.

It's hard for older Americans to forget the hostage incident just as it's hard for Iran to forget the history of U.S. machinations in Iran.

[Suradit69]

It's worth a try but clearly it's yet another stalling ploy by Iran. However, why not test that?

Ironic that the author of that news item is named CARTER.

It's hard for older Americans to forget the hostage incident just as it's hard for Iran to forget the history of U.S. machinations in Iran.

And on the other hand we have those who are in a rush to spend a few trillion more of unfunded dollars and put thousands or maybe hundreds of thousands, of lives at risk because that has worked so well in the past.

Sen. Lindsey Graham is one of the strongest advocates of an American military strike against the Assad regime in Syria. He was unhappy when President Obama decided to seek congressional authorization for an attack, and then unhappy when his fellow lawmakers voiced disapproval of the president's plan. Graham believes the diplomatic path chosen by the administration will lead to a debacle.

Given all that, Graham now says he will work with a bipartisan group of senators to craft a resolution authorizing the president to use military force -- not against the Syrian regime but against Iran. In an appearance on Fox News' Huckabee program over the weekend, Graham argued that such a resolution is essential, because American inaction in Syria will encourage Iran to go forward with its nuclear weapon program, eventually leading toward a Mideast conflagration if the U.S. doesn't intervene.

[dao16]

Well, I am sure there are many things happening all at once--you have the presidents talking, the diplomats maneuvering and intelligence agencies from all over North America, Europe and the Middle East watching what is happening. Any of these things could throw negotiations off, but I would hope things could get settled now as Iran is an important country in that region and a source of a lot of the history of the world. It would be nice to see them find a more productive role on the world stage.

[Exsexyman]

It's worth a try but clearly it's yet another stalling ploy by Iran. However, why not test that?

Ironic that the author of that news item is named CARTER.

It's hard for older Americans to forget the hostage incident just as it's hard for Iran to forget the history of U.S. machinations in Iran.

And on the other hand we have those who are in a rush to spend a few trillion more of unfunded dollars and put thousands or maybe hundreds of thousands, of lives at risk because that has worked so well in the past.

Sen. Lindsey Graham is one of the strongest advocates of an American military strike against the Assad regime in Syria. He was unhappy when President Obama decided to seek congressional authorization for an attack, and then unhappy when his fellow lawmakers voiced disapproval of the president's plan. Graham believes the diplomatic path chosen by the administration will lead to a debacle.

Given all that, Graham now says he will work with a bipartisan group of senators to craft a resolution authorizing the president to use military force -- not against the Syrian regime but against Iran. In an appearance on Fox News' Huckabee program over the weekend, Graham argued that such a resolution is essential, because American inaction in Syria will encourage Iran to go forward with its nuclear weapon program, eventually leading toward a Mideast conflagration if the U.S. doesn't intervene.

I would imagine that after having to deal with war mongering hawks like Sen. Graham, and others in the Senate like Sen. Cruz, who seem determined to force the US economy into default, Obama would have found it refreshing to have a rational conversation!

[Jingthing]

Don't get carried away. Iran still wants nuclear weapons. Anyone who believes differently is simply very naive. The question is can they be finagled into giving that up. I don't think so, but approve of negotiations and communication. I know some people think it is OK for Iran to have these weapons. That is not the American position.

[Publicus]

The fact is the US's economic sanctions against Iran have, over the past ten years, crippled the Iranian economy and financial system. Prez Obama's order three years ago to the US Treasury Department to cut off Iran from access to US dollars has been particularly devastating as it and major central banks throughout the world have prevented Iran obtaining or dealing in US dollars.

Forcing Iran off he dime by its electing the new president also diminishes the influence in Iran of Russia, which is constructing the nuclear facilities in Iran.

Even Beijing, which is sucking up energy resources from everywhere, significantly stopped doing business with Iran (electronic intercept surveillance confirms the fact).

The ayatollah has now issued a fatwa prohibiting Iran developing nuclear weapons, so it sounds like the elites of Iran are getting serious about limiting their nuclear program and restoring relations with the United States in particular and the West in general.

Prez Obama is proceeding deliberately in this as well he should be, but a glimmer of a way forward has now appeared for the first time in more than 30 years.

Roughly half of Americans don't have a personal knowledge of the 1979 hostage crisis but those of us who do have its recollection seared in our memory. However, what's past is past. We need to focus on the present and to build a positive future. Nuclear proliferation in a sensitive region of the world is the issue here and for the first time in a long time, things in this respect can begin to look positive.

In two weeks SecState Kerry will meet in Geneva with the new and liberal Iranian foreign minister. The goal is to produce some little thing concrete and specific that is positive and encouraging. A handshake would be a good sign too.

[RickBradford]

I used to think the Americans were naive to deal with people such as the Iranians and North Korea who a) regard negotiations as a zero-sum game and America as weak and fearful, and thus never negotiate in good faith.

The cycle goes: Negotiations begin -> evildoers make concessions in return for cash/trade -> treaty signed -> evil-doers renege on agreement -> relationship breaks down -> pause -> evildoer short of cash again -> makes conciliatory noises (return to start).

But it could be that American thinking runs: "If we stop the talking, then these bozos might do something really extreme."

Am I somewhere near the correct interpretation?

[Publicus]

I used to think the Americans were naive to deal with people such as the Iranians and North Korea who a) regard negotiations as a zero-sum game and America as weak and fearful, and thus never negotiate in good faith.

The cycle goes: Negotiations begin -> evildoers make concessions in return for cash/trade -> treaty signed -> evil-doers renege on agreement -> relationship breaks down -> pause -> evildoer short of cash again -> makes conciliatory noises (return to start).

But it could be that American thinking runs: "If we stop the talking, then these bozos might do something really extreme."

Am I somewhere near the correct interpretation?

Your point is well taken but talks with Iran over the past 30 years have been sparse, sporadic, minimal.

With its economy and financial system in a shambles, I doubt Iran's elites want only to talk about it for the next 30 years.

[lomatopo]

I used to think the Americans were naive to deal with people such as the Iranians...

Well we (U.S. of A./CIA) did "deal with" Iran in 1953, not sure how naive this was, by overthrowing the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq and installed a dictator - it's what we do best (he says waving a giant foam finger).

Obviously, since then (1953) we've been dealing with the situation in Iran with somewhat less success.

Not counting helping Saddam Hussein use chemical weapons to attack Iran, of course. That we did quite well.

Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran

In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq's war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein's military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran

I just don't get why the Iranians don't like us?

[Publicus]

I used to think the Americans were naive to deal with people such as the Iranians...

Well we (U.S. of A./CIA) did "deal with" Iran in 1953, not sure how naive this was, by overthrowing the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq and installed a dictator - it's what we do best (he says waving a giant foam finger).

Obviously, since then (1953) we've been dealing with the situation in Iran with somewhat less success.

Not counting helping Saddam Hussein use chemical weapons to attack Iran, of course. That we did quite well.

The Islamists eventually were going to take control regardless of who was in government or which type of government existed.

The Islamists wanted to establish their own government, period. And they did so, in 1979 as it happened. It could have been sooner, however, it could have been later. But it was going to be. And so it has been.

[Publicus]

I used to think the Americans were naive to deal with people such as the Iranians...

Well we (U.S. of A./CIA) did "deal with" Iran in 1953, not sure how naive this was, by overthrowing the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq and installed a dictator - it's what we do best (he says waving a giant foam finger).

Obviously, since then (1953) we've been dealing with the situation in Iran with somewhat less success.

Not counting helping Saddam Hussein use chemical weapons to attack Iran, of course. That we did quite well.

Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran

In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq's war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein's military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran

I just don't get why the Iranians don't like us?

The world doesn't care about the use of chemical warfare unless the United States is involved.

The world is opposed to the United States either way.

But especially opposed when Barack Obama is involved. Whatever Obama's for, the usual suspects are against.

[MobileContent]

Let the Islamist of Iran do what they want to do. So far they didn't attacked any countries and they are now very close to Iraq for the first time in 60 years. It surely must upset the guys

Export is up by 9.8% of crude oil to China compared to the month of July 2013.

Iran will be fine.

[Exsexyman]

I used to think the Americans were naive to deal with people such as the Iranians...

Well we (U.S. of A./CIA) did "deal with" Iran in 1953, not sure how naive this was, by overthrowing the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq and installed a dictator - it's what we do best (he says waving a giant foam finger).

Obviously, since then (1953) we've been dealing with the situation in Iran with somewhat less success.

Not counting helping Saddam Hussein use chemical weapons to attack Iran, of course. That we did quite well.

Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran

In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq's war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein's military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran

I just don't get why the Iranians don't like us?

The world doesn't care about the use of chemical warfare unless the United States is involved.

The world is opposed to the United States either way.

But especially opposed when Barack Obama is involved. Whatever Obama's for, the usual suspects are against.

Paranoid nonsense. The world recognizes hypocrisy when they see it, that is the problem the US has.

[Publicus]

I used to think the Americans were naive to deal with people such as the Iranians...

Well we (U.S. of A./CIA) did "deal with" Iran in 1953, not sure how naive this was, by overthrowing the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq and installed a dictator - it's what we do best (he says waving a giant foam finger).

Obviously, since then (1953) we've been dealing with the situation in Iran with somewhat less success.

Not counting helping Saddam Hussein use chemical weapons to attack Iran, of course. That we did quite well.

Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran

In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq's war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein's military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran

I just don't get why the Iranians don't like us?

The world doesn't care about the use of chemical warfare unless the United States is involved.

The world is opposed to the United States either way.

But especially opposed when Barack Obama is involved. Whatever Obama's for, the usual suspects are against.

Paranoid nonsense. The world recognizes hypocrisy when they see it, that is the problem the US has.

So now I'm paranoid.

So says another usual suspect.

The hypocrisy is in opposing the United States either way in chemical warfare. The common denominator is opposition to the United States, opposition in the absolute.

The US is doing the right things concerning Iran and the new liberal government there. However, rather than recognize the fact, the usual suspects dredge up the past and try to extend it into the future.

I favor building a positive future between the US and Iran. It's possible now to attempt that for the first time in more than 30 years. This is what's significant and this is the topic of the discussion.

[Scott]

I think that's enough of the personal commentary. Stick to the topic.

[Ulysses G.]

Don't get carried away. Iran still wants nuclear weapons. Anyone who believes differently is simply very naive.

Exactly right. Let's hope that we do not get played here as we probably have dealing with Syria. Preventing Iran from getting nukes is far more important.

[rotary]

Nothing but a publicity stunt from Obama.The White House chased the Iran President for a news stunt.

[lee b]

I wonder if they understud each other????

[sustento]

If you want to become friends with someone (or stop being enemies with them) the first thing you have to do is to start to talk to them. Ask General De Chastelain...

[boomerangutang]

In another historic phone call, a Thai ex-wife of a rich farang said, after they broke up, that she would let him keep one of the three houses he built for her and her family - and one of the two SUV's he bought. ha, ha, chortle.

[FangFerang]

I would imagine that after having to deal with war mongering hawks like Sen. Graham, and others in the Senate like Sen. Cruz, who seem determined to force the US economy into default, Obama would have found it refreshing to have a rational conversation!

Please note the hawk senators have vested interests in weapons pruduction, and seek profit at the cost of lives.

Despicable.

[Steely Dan]

I wonder how visible the latest boot print on the presidential tuchas will be?

[midas]

It's a shame that some people don't seem to want to give peace a chance

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24323192

[Jingthing]

It's a shame that some people don't seem to want to give peace a chance

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24323192

Can you blame Israel for being concerned?

Regarding a nation that has had an aggressively holocaust denying leader for many years and repeated calls to end the very existence of the Jewish state of Israel? Yes talking about Zionism, the very core of Israel.

I think Israel's role is useful here. Keeping it real. They are going to be to the right of the USA but a force of pressure to get a better deal from Iran if indeed there is any kind of deal even possible. Which there might not be.

This quote from this very excellent BBC show is apt here:

“The Jewish imagination is paranoia, confirmed by history”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/tv-and-radio-reviews/10279886/The-Story-of-the-Jews-BBC-Two-review.html

[Ulysses G.]

It's a shame that some people don't seem to want to give peace a chance

Yes, Ali Khamenei and he is the Supreme Leader of Iran.

Israel is right to be skeptical of the new second banana who has lied about Iran's nuclear program repeatedly in the past.

[midas]

It's a shame that some people don't seem to want to give peace a chance

Yes, Ali Khamenei and he is the Supreme Leader of Iran.

Israel is right to be skeptical of the new second banana who has lied about Iran's nuclear program repeatedly in the past.

You can't blame Ali Khamenei , who keeps calling for a totally nuclear free Middle East. But then that would have to apply to everyone

[Ulysses G.]

He also claims that Iran is not working on developing nuclear weapons. He is a proven LIAR.

[Scott]

There is another topic running which might be a more suitable thread to discuss the nuclear issue.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/671311-iran-nuclear-deal-could-be-reached-in-months-kerry/#entry6874385

[Chicog]

Well Netenyahu isn't falling for it:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appealed to the world community not to be fooled by the new Iranian president's conciliatory words, using a U.N. address to decry him as a "wolf in sheep's clothing."

Netanyahu, speaking to the U.N. General Assembly session on Tuesday in New York, sought to counter the positive reviews Iranian President Hassan Rouhani got over his debut at the international gathering. As the U.S. reaches out anew to Iran under its new leadership, the Israeli prime minister suggested Hassan Rouhani is no better than his predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"Rouhani didn't sound like Ahmadinejad, but when it comes to Iran's nuclear weapons program, the only difference between them is this: Ahmadinejad was the wolf in wolf's clothing. Rouhani is a wolf in sheep's clothing," Netanyahu said. "A wolf who thinks he can pull the wool over the eyes of the international community."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/01/netanyahu-decries-iran-rouhani-as-wolf-in-sheep-clothing/