Posted on 10/21/2012 1:39:45 PM PDT by Kaslin
If you’re one of the people who tend to spend their Saturday nights hanging out at Hot Air, (and let’s face it… why wouldn’t you?) you already know that we raised a few questions about a New York Times story claiming that Iran had agreed to some unilateral nuclear talks with the United States. That story in the Paper of Record still doesn’t appear to contain any updates or corrections, but the response from both sides of the world has been the same. Nobody is willing to back up their reporting.
First up, Iran.
“We don’t have any discussions or negotiations with America,” Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said in a news conference on Sunday. “The (nuclear) talks are ongoing with the P5+1 group of nations. Other than that, we have no discussions with the United States.”
The White House, for once, seemed to be on the same page with somebody else. (Even if it was Iran.)
The Obama administration has moved quickly to water down a report that the US and Iran have agreed in principle to meet one-on-one for negotiations on Iran’s nuclear programme…
However the National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said in response that the United States would continue to work with fellow permanent members of the UN security council and Germany.
“It’s not true that the United States and Iran have agreed to one-on-one talks or any meeting after the American elections,” the statement said.
So what happened? There seem to be a few possibilities for us to bat around while we watch football today. (And even though Ed didn’t take sides on it, I’m not holding out much hope for the Jets today, sorry.)
Theory 1: The story is true, but the actors on both sides don’t want to jinx it by bringing it out in public until the plan ripens a bit, so they’re denying it for now. (Yeah, yeah… I know. But we’re trying to cover the full spectrum here.)
Theory 2: The story is garbage, but the New York Times was misled by an Iranian activist trying to kick-start the process.
Theory 3: The story is garbage, but the New York Times was misled by an Obama administration official who wanted to plant a seed to make it look like the President’s foreign policy platform isn’t a complete shambles right before the foreign policy debate.
Theory 4: The story is utter, complete, and journalistic libelous garbage created out of whole cloth by the New York Times in an effort to make the President look more effective on foreign policy.
None of these theories look very pretty, and I’m open to others that I haven’t thought of yet. Either way, barring somebody coming forward to give up the goods, we’re left to speculate. And speculate we shall! Ready? Go.
I would imagine that it’s mostly all true, and was supposed to wrap up two weeks ago. The Iranians dragged this out, and the White House suddenly realized three days ago that nothing was going conclude. I suspect that you’ve got a couple of folks who’ve never dealt with the Iranians, and they thought this would be real easy to rig up a fake treaty.
Rat ploy prior to debate? Just askin.
Zero will announce at the debate that he has negotiated a peace agreement with Iran, just don’t tell Israel.
And then there’s the real reason: the Administration wants to freeze Israel from any action until after the election.
How about: the Administration wants to freeze Israel from any action until after the election.
-PJ
It’s not just a planted story.
The buzz has been going around the diplomatic circles for several weeks.
Where there’s smoke, there’s choom gang.
If it was true, it would probably turn out the same way North Korea did. That one did not work out so well and this one with Iran would not either.
I’m going with your theory. —involves the most treachery, fits BHO’s MO like a glove.
I wonder if Panetta will be traveling to Iraq in late Oct and discussing anything with Ahmadinejad?
It added that Carter told Maliki he had come to Iraq to discuss Baghdad’s defense and counter-terror needs, and that he told the premier U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta would visit Baghdad soon for similar reasons.
h ttp://www.defensenews.com/article/20121018/DEFREG03/310180009/Iraq-PM-Calls-U-S-Speed-Up-Arms-Deliveries
_________________________________________________
Ahmadinejad to attend global anti-terrorism forum in Iraq
(Ahlul Bayt News Agency) - The conference is scheduled to be held in Baghdad in late October and is to be attended by countries like Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
http://abna.ir/data.asp?lang=3&Id=358451
It’s bullshit.
Helped by the MSM.
One would presume talks of this magnitude would involve our SoS but Hillary is nowhere in sight. The last I heard she was in Peru meditating and gaining spiritual strength from the Llamas (no one has the nerve to tell her it's the Dalai Lama she needs)
The Drudge article said that it was leaked from the Obama administration that VALERIE JARETT had been meeting with Iranian officials to discuss further talks on nuclear disarmament.
I would not consider it to be a good thing that Obama was talking to Iran.
First, they’re talking. Who cares? “Talking” is a political word that can mean anything and nothing all at the same time.
Second, Adolf Hitler, another Jew-hating, extermination-of-the-Jews racist, also held talks with nations. He lied, he manipulated, and he was not deterred in his gruesome objective. Ask Nevil Chamberlain. “Talks” are subterfuge for those who strongly desire them to be.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.