Iran STRONG11!1!! sets preconditions to talks with US

[Mr.Flint]

Iran's Vice President Sets Two Preconditions for Talks with US
TEHRAN (FNA)- Vice President for Media Affairs Mehdi Kalhor said on Saturday that Iran has set two preconditions for holding talks with the United States of America.

http://media.farsnews.com/Media/8601/Images/jpg/A0281/A0281939.jpg
In an exclusive interview with the Islamic Republic News Agency, he said as long as U.S. forces have not left the Middle East region and continues its support for the Zionist regime, talks between Iran and U.S. is off the agenda.

It is the Americans who are in dire need of reestablishing ties with Iran, he underlined.

Iran is not obliged to reestablish ties with the U.S., he said.

"If they take our advice, grounds for such talks would be well prepared," he said.

It is stupidity to hold talks without any change in U.S. attitude, he underlined.

They are so certain that Obama will win, that they already rolled out the special carpet for his kowtow.

[WarDancer]

Well, Im sure Barack HUSSEIN Obama is receptive to this idea!

[Lau]

Well, Im sure Barack HUSSEIN Obama is receptive to this idea!

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b306/Lau_HC/facepalm1.jpg

[Erik Sleivöks]

The most plausible reason for this “opening” of talks is in my opinion that Iran does not want a good relation with the US.

Obama is very dangerous for them (the Mullahs), no more big Satan, no more imperialist, ohhh… difficult times to come.

[Abbadon the Despoiler]

god, damn you! Erik beat me to it.


They are so certain that Obama will win..I can't say that I'm certain, I don't watch the US presidential elections that closely, but I belive that Barack Obama will be the new president.
of the world
pardon but you brought it first.

[annihilation]

I'm ok with leaving the region......

[darz]

well, im sure barack hussein obama is receptive to this idea!

hussein

hussein

hussein

hussein

[Buffalo_soldier]

The most plausible reason for this “opening” of talks is in my opinion that Iran does not want a good relation with the US.

Obama is very dangerous for them (the Mullahs), no more big Satan, no more imperialist, ohhh… difficult times to come.

I think it has more to do with the idea that the US is on the downswing, and that they can exact greater terms from any grand-bargain. You have to remember that over the years Iran has steadily gained concessions on its nuclear programme through its defiance. And like any rational actor, they can see when they might have a strong bargaining position.

Imo Iran issuing red-lines is simply a slap in the face to the US. It says that Iran is powerful and can engage the US from a higher plane.

And i don't think Obama will change things. It all depends on whether he changes policy. And i doubt he will.

And for those of you who follow the news: you can even see the "mocking" element of the use of "red lines". It's a term that has been used extensively by the media and the US/Israeli governments. The whole article screams of "you need us more than we need you". Iran is essentially rubbing America's nose in it. Even the threadstarted picks up on it by saying: Iran sets "preconditions".

[Buffalo_soldier]

I also don't think Obama is dangerous for them. In fact i don't think that McCain is either. Unless of course he launched a crazy war in the middle of a financial meltdown.

The damage has been done to the foundation of the United States itself - regardless of who comes to power. They will all have to work with the same conditions. The world is just changing.

One of the most telling aspects was the response against Russia most recently. The US pushed a hardline; but in the end the European response was meek (depending on your perspective and what you believe Russia and Europe's relationship should be). I think it shows the fracturing dynamic of the world. In this instance the European solution has prevailed, despite harder US rhetoric. And it's a sign of things to come imo.

[C.MAXIMUS]

Well, he said he wanted to talk to Iran without any condition, apparently maybe he can offer then more than what is already on the table ( and get a big nooooo and humiliate the free world again)

[Buffalo_soldier]

Well i agree with that. Unconditional talks with Iran are the way forward for everyone's prosperity.

Not talking to Iran has achieved diddly squat. Hopefully obama can usher in a new US policy that repairs relations between the US and Iran.

[The Balkan]

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b306/Lau_HC/facepalm1.jpg

x2.............

[TR1]

Well, Im sure Barack HUSSEIN Obama is receptive to this idea!

:cantbeli:
..................................

[gaijinsamurai]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4Xi8JnfAHI

[cinoeye]

hussein

hussein

hussein

hussein
Hahah, and what exacly was better with...?


George



George




George

[KET]

x2.............

x10000000000

[Erik Sleivöks]

I think it has more to do with the idea that the US is on the downswing, and that they can exact greater terms from any grand-bargain. You have to remember that over the years Iran has steadily gained concessions on its nuclear programme through its defiance. And like any rational actor, they can see when they might have a strong bargaining position.

Imo Iran issuing red-lines is simply a slap in the face to the US. It says that Iran is powerful and can engage the US from a higher plane.

And i don't think Obama will change things. It all depends on whether he changes policy. And i doubt he will.

And for those of you who follow the news: you can even see the "mocking" element of the use of "red lines". It's a term that has been used extensively by the media and the US/Israeli governments. The whole article screams of "you need us more than we need you". Iran is essentially rubbing America's nose in it. Even the threadstarted picks up on it by saying: Iran sets "preconditions".

Yes for sure they have a strong bargaining position (thanks Georges) and their capabilities in negotiations do not have to be proven anymore.
If Iran wants to obtain a lot by negotiations they are currently in a perfect position.

However the question is rather what do the Iranians want?

They only have two options; either the right to have nuclear weapons, or to maintain a strong conflict situation with the “west”.
Therefore I am not 100% sure that their situation is so comfortable as they want to display it as, and the “stakes” for the regime are maybe higher than what expected.

[Erik Sleivöks]

I also don't think Obama is dangerous for them. In fact i don't think that McCain is either. Unless of course he launched a crazy war in the middle of a financial meltdown.

The damage has been done to the foundation of the United States itself - regardless of who comes to power. They will all have to work with the same conditions. The world is just changing.

One of the most telling aspects was the response against Russia most recently. The US pushed a hardline; but in the end the European response was meek (depending on your perspective and what you believe Russia and Europe's relationship should be). I think it shows the fracturing dynamic of the world. In this instance the European solution has prevailed, despite harder US rhetoric. And it's a sign of things to come imo.

Correct, I do not think either that one or the other is dangerous in a military way, at least not in the near future.

It is rather that I suspect that Obama will “bend forward” a bit more and give in to many of their requests, but still without completely accepting their goal.
In this situation the US cannot be anymore the great Satan (on the home front) but the “right” to obtain nuclear weapons cannot be achieved either.
This is a situation that does not suit the Iranian regime at all, and it is rather counter productive in their opinion.

[Buffalo_soldier]

Yes for sure they have a strong bargaining position (thanks Georges) and their capabilities in negotiations do not have to be proven anymore.
If Iran wants to obtain a lot by negotiations they are currently in a perfect position.

I disagree. Iran is in a position where they don't have to give up that much.

But they aren't in a strong position.



However the question is rather what do the Iranians want?

They only have two options; either the right to have nuclear weapons, or to maintain a strong conflict situation with the “west”.

I don't think they have only two options at all. There is far more at stake than just the issue of nuclear power. The "conflict with the west" hinges on US power/dominance. That's what the article alludes to.

My own general impression of what the regime wants is respect. I see it mentioned in almost every press release by Iranian officials.



Therefore I am not 100% sure that their situation is so comfortable as they want to display it as, and the “stakes” for the regime are maybe higher than what expected.

I don't think it is comfortable. I just think they are happy that their biggest enemy is hitting hard times.

[Erik Sleivöks]

I disagree. Iran is in a position where they don't have to give up that much.

But they aren't in a strong position. .

I think that they are in a “strong” position mainly because they will be satisfied with keeping the situation as it is, something that will give them more time (that they desperately needs).
How “strong” this should be considered to really be can always be discussed, but I think that we can say that the situation is at least very satisfactory from their side.





I don't think they have only two options at all. There is far more at stake than just the issue of nuclear power. The "conflict with the west" hinges on US power/dominance. That's what the article alludes to.

My own general impression of what the regime wants is respect. I see it mentioned in almost every press release by Iranian officials.




Yes the regime certainly wanting “respect” (or at least consideration) but that is not at all the final goal. The regime needs the “bomb” to say in power forever, and the whole game is about getting the rest of the world to accept this. If it takes 3 or 7 years doesn’t matter, it is the survival of their system that is the question.


I don't think it is comfortable. I just think they are happy that their biggest enemy is hitting hard times.

Sure they are happy (at least in short term), however time will tell if they can take advantage or not.