Obama Is Making Allies Nervous

[Annie]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne...le3994513.ece?print=yes&randnum=1211656508015

May 24, 2008
David Miliband 'queries' Barack Obama's Iran policy
Foreign Secretary David Miliband

David Miliband, who visited the US this week
Image :1 of 2
Tom Baldwin, Washington, and Richard Beeston, Foreign Editor

David Miliband has raised questions over Barack Obama’s policy on Iran, which officials in Washington and Europe fear threatens to undermine the tough stance adopted by the West towards Tehran over recent years.

The Foreign Secretary, on his visit to the US this week, has held talks with all three presidential campaigns, including those of Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

But when he met Mr Obama’s team of foreign policy advisers on Wednesday, Mr Miliband is understood to have queried the presumptive Democratic nominee’s declared willingness to meet leaders from rogue states such as Iran.

They also discussed trade — with Mr Obama advisers saying that they still intended to renegotiate deals such as Nafta — and how much European support there would be for a US military surge in Afghanistan.

British intelligence chiefs are understood to have identified Iranian nuclear proliferation as the second greatest security threat, behind Islamic terrorism but ahead of renewed aggression from Russia.

There is also deep concern about Iran’s support for Iraqi Shia militias or terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. “The role of Iran as a source of instability in the region is undoubtedly a concern,” Mr Miliband said this week. “No one can watch armed militias coming on to the streets in defiance of UN resolutions with equanimity.”

...

http://www.asharqalawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=2&id=12839

Wrong Signals from Washington

23/05/2008

By Amir Taheri

Amir Taheri
was born in Iran and educated in Tehran, London and Paris. Between 1980 and 1984 he was Middle East editor for the London Sunday Times. Taheri has been a contributor to the International Herald Tribune since 1980. He has also written for The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. Taheri has published nine books some of which have been translated into 20 languages, and In 1988 Publishers'' Weekly in New York chose his study of Islamist terrorism, "Holy Terror", as one of The Best Books of The Year. He has been a columnist Asharq Alawsat since 1987
Previous Articles
China's Other 'Forgotten People'
The Offer He Will Refuse
Sarkozy is Wrong About Turkey
Why Does Ahmadinejad Want Russian Troops in Iran?
Yesterday and Tomorrow: The Wrong Debate on Iraq
When Choosing Not to Choose Becomes a Choice
The Iranian Model, Mexico and Kangaroo
Putin's Achievements and What's Expected of Medvedev
Unconditional Talks with Iran Could Lead to War
Iran Elections: Limited but Interesting
With Iraq fading as an election issue in the United States, Iran is moving up to replace it. For much of the past week, the three remaining candidates for the presidency played rhetorical ping-pong on the subject.

However, none seemed quite sure what the problem was, let alone what the solution might be.

Only Senator Barack Obama, the likely Democrat nominee, offered something concrete: If elected, he would invite his Iranian counterpart President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for unconditional talks.

This is what Obama said at a press conference: "Preconditions, as it applies to a country like Iran, for example, was a term of art. Because this administration has been very clear that it will not have direct negotiations with Iran until Iran has met preconditions that are essentially what Iran views, and many other observers would view, as the subject of the negotiations; for example, their nuclear program."

Talking without preconditions would require the US to ignore three resolutions passed unanimously by the United Nations' Security Council, making a set of demands from the Islamic Republic.

Before starting his unconditional talks with Ahmadinejad, would Obama present a new resolution at the Security Council to cancel the three that he Islamic Republic president does not like? Or, would Obama act in defiance of the UN, thus further weakening the authority of the Security Council?

The preconditions that Ahmadinejad does not like and Obama promises to ignore were not set by President George W Bush.

They were decided after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported the Islamic Republic to be in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and, acting in accordance with its charter, referred the issue to the Security Council.
...

 

[jillian]

asharq al awsat??/

I thought all Arabs couldn't WAIT for Obama to be president.

 

[jreeves]

asharq al awsat??/

I thought all Arabs couldn't WAIT for Obama to be president.

Hamas, not all arabs

 

[Annie]

asharq al awsat??/

I thought all Arabs couldn't WAIT for Obama to be president.

You're going to fault an Arab reporting source. Give me a break.

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

I'd really love an explanation from the headline writer of this thread.

Explain how these two articles caused you to write Obama "is" making allies nervous?

 

[midcan5]

Allies???? isn't there a enormous contradiction here? Since when did we care about allies, especially on the right?

 

[jillian]

You're going to fault an Arab reporting source. Give me a break.

Why? Have I ever used one? And did I fault the source? Or is it that I think the conclusion you draw is intentionally misleading?

But good to know you guys haven't lost the ole propaganda arm...

 

[Dogger]

This is what Obama said at a press conference: "Preconditions, as it applies to a country like Iran, for example, was a term of art. Because this administration has been very clear that it will not have direct negotiations with Iran until Iran has met preconditions that are essentially what Iran views, and many other observers would view, as the subject of the negotiations; for example, their nuclear program."

Obama: the more you know him, the more you gotta love him

This passage clearly differentiates Bush’s intransigent negotiation policy from that of his predecessors, and hopefully his successor. In normal times, a rational precondition would be that Iran is willing to accept the three Security Council resolutions if an agreement can be reached at negotiations. We have no reason to discuss terms if Iran refuses to even consider our objective. If Iran agrees to negotiate, we get together to discuss terms.

The Bush League, however, wants Iran to agree to accept the three Security Council resolutions in advance of negotiations. They have to show all of their cards before we even ante up. That is more than a precondition – that is a demand for capitulation. It requires Iran to give us everything we want before we give them anything. No sane person would agree to unconditional surrender in these circumstances, and no sane person would expect Iran to do that either.

Would you buy a house from someone who demanded that you agree to pay full market price as a condition to negotiate?

 

[rayboyusmc]

British intelligence chiefs are understood to have identified Iranian nuclear proliferation as the second greatest security threat, behind Islamic terrorism but ahead of renewed aggression from Russia.

And the current Misadminstration's approach of not talking at all has led to what?

The Iranian nuklar program has continued to advance. How stupid is it to say we won't talk to our enemies and then it will all get better?

Right, let's be like Bush and say, "Until you do what we want you to do we won't meet with you to discuss what we want you to do." Frigging idiots.

 

[DeadCanDance]

I have the distinct impression that rightwingers are tossing around the word "preconditions!", without any thought to what it really means. Its a word they have been repeatedly exposed from the rightwing media, and have been trained to chant it pavlovian dog style.

What exactly do they mean "no preconditions"? Has Obama offered to give away something? Are we supposed to never talk to them unless they agree beforehand, to give us what we want?

And why is Bush calling Israel appeasers? Israel is meeting with the terrorist state Syria, with no preconditions, in peace talks. Is Israel appeassing?

 

[José]

Israeli-Arab "peace talks" = the same endless blah-blah-blah that leads to nowhere we've been seeing for the last 60 years.

 

[José]

Contrary to popular belief, Camp David is not a peace treaty at all.

Just a non-aggression pact bought with american money.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And the current Misadminstration's approach of not talking at all has led to what?

The Iranian nuklar program has continued to advance. How stupid is it to say we won't talk to our enemies and then it will all get better?

Right, let's be like Bush and say, "Until you do what we want you to do we won't meet with you to discuss what we want you to do." Frigging idiots.

Well except Bush has spoken repeatedly on the Issue, he left it to Europe to handle and the UN. We do not need to hold everyone's hand on every matter. As I recall we get bad mouthed for doing JUST that. But nice spin on that.

 

[jreeves]

This passage clearly differentiates Bush’s intransigent negotiation policy from that of his predecessors, and hopefully his successor. In normal times, a rational precondition would be that Iran is willing to accept the three Security Council resolutions if an agreement can be reached at negotiations. We have no reason to discuss terms if Iran refuses to even consider our objective. If Iran agrees to negotiate, we get together to discuss terms.

The Bush League, however, wants Iran to agree to accept the three Security Council resolutions in advance of negotiations. They have to show all of their cards before we even ante up. That is more than a precondition – that is a demand for capitulation. It requires Iran to give us everything we want before we give them anything. No sane person would agree to unconditional surrender in these circumstances, and no sane person would expect Iran to do that either.

Would you buy a house from someone who demanded that you agree to pay full market price as a condition to negotiate?

Can you provide a link to said press conference?

 

[jreeves]

And the current Misadminstration's approach of not talking at all has led to what?

The Iranian nuklar program has continued to advance. How stupid is it to say we won't talk to our enemies and then it will all get better?

Right, let's be like Bush and say, "Until you do what we want you to do we won't meet with you to discuss what we want you to do." Frigging idiots.

Even people in your own party says Obama is wrong on Iran....but it is funny to watch you guys scramble to defend the undefendable....

http://newsblaze.com/story/2008052314130400004.pnw/newsblaze/PRNEWSWI/PRNewswire-Releases.html
At A July 2007 Debate, Obama Announced He Would Personally Meet With Leaders Of Iran,North Korea, Syria And Other Hostile Nations "Without Precondition." Question: "[W]ould you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, inWashington or anywhere else, with the leaders ofIran,Syria,Venezuela,Cuba andNorth Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"... Obama: "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration - is ridiculous." (CNN/YouTube Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate,Charleston, SC, 7/23/07)

Sen. Biden Said Obama Gave "Wrong Answer" On Negotiating Unconditionally With Hostile Foreign Leaders, But Then Falsely Claims Obama Has Changed His Position: Biden: "[Obama has] learned a hell of a lot. I think he has. What we're talking about here is that he has repeatedly since then said he would not negotiate unconditionally, meaning him sitting down, alone, right off the bat with these leaders. He's talked about his Secretary of State, his Secretary of Defense. Matter of a fact, the statements he use mirrors the statement the rest of us have been talking about. This is a fellow who I think shorthanded an answer that in fact was the wrong answer, in my view, saying I would within my first year, it implied he'd personally sit down with anybody who wanted to sit down with him. That's not what he meant. That's not what he has said since then for the last year or thereabout. And so I think he's fully capable of understanding of what's going." (ABC's "This Week," 5/18/08)


Former Sen. Gary Hart On CNN's "Late Edition" Said Unconditionally Meeting With Leaders Of Rogue Nations "Doesn't Lead To Anything," Went On To Misstate Obama's Stated Position. CNN's Wolf Blitzer: "But the question he was specifically asked at one of the Presidential debates is, would you personally as President, be willing to sit down with these leaders, whether leaders ofNorth Korea orVenezuela orCuba orIran without pre-conditions, in your first year as President, that was the specific question, he said yes. He later expanded. He said that there would be preparations that would have to be done by lower-level officials. But he was saying without pre-conditions, he personally would be willing to do so." Gary Hart: "Well, depends on how you define pre-conditions. I've been in those debates, and everything gets compressed. I don't think Barack Obama or any other President is going to meet with a head of state without lower-level discussions preceding that. It doesn't lead to anything. What you do is send diplomats and negotiators to explore areas of mutual interest. And if it does seem profitable, then you go to the heads of state. We did this with the Soviets throughout the Cold War. Richard Nixon did it with the Chinese. And the preparations led up to those discussions." (CNN's "Late Edition," 5/18/08)


DLC Chairman Harold Ford, Jr. On NBC's "Meet the Press": "I'll concede you cannot meet with foreign leaders - with terrorists rather - and those that lead rogue nations without some conditions." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 5/18/08)

 

[Dogger]

Can you provide a link to said press conference?

The link in the quote box works just fine.

 

[Annie]

This passage clearly differentiates Bush’s intransigent negotiation policy from that of his predecessors, and hopefully his successor. In normal times, a rational precondition would be that Iran is willing to accept the three Security Council resolutions if an agreement can be reached at negotiations. We have no reason to discuss terms if Iran refuses to even consider our objective. If Iran agrees to negotiate, we get together to discuss terms.

The Bush League, however, wants Iran to agree to accept the three Security Council resolutions in advance of negotiations. They have to show all of their cards before we even ante up. That is more than a precondition – that is a demand for capitulation. It requires Iran to give us everything we want before we give them anything. No sane person would agree to unconditional surrender in these circumstances, and no sane person would expect Iran to do that either.

Would you buy a house from someone who demanded that you agree to pay full market price as a condition to negotiate?

Actually it's not just 'Bush', also European nations and the UN that have been insisting on the preconditions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5036082.stm

 

[jreeves]

The link in the quote box works just fine.

Question: "[W]ould you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, inWashington or anywhere else, with the leaders ofIran,Syria,Venezuela,Cuba andNorth Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"... Obama: "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration - is ridiculous." (CNN/YouTube Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate,Charleston, SC, 7/23/07)


I guess when answered that he would meet without preconditions he was taken out of context, once again?

 

[Dogger]

Actually it's not just 'Bush', also European nations and the UN that have been insisting on the preconditions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5036082.stm

From your source:

On Wednesday, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said "as soon as Iran fully and verifiably suspends its enrichment and reprocessing activities, the United States will come to the table".

Ms Rice urged Iran to consider the new proposals


"It's time to know whether Iran is serious about negotiation or not," she added.

When asked about the possibility of pursuing a military option against Iran, she said President George Bush "was not going to take any of his options off the table".

Washington broke off diplomatic ties with Iran in 1979 and the two sides have had little official contact since.

Iran has frequently spoken of its willingness to negotiate with any country except Israel about its nuclear programme. But Washington has previously refused to countenance such talks.

But the Bush administration has been under growing pressure - both from within the US and from European allies - to make an overture to Iran to break the diplomatic deadlock.

Iran needs to put suspension of enrichment and reprocessing on the table; that's a proper precondition. The problem is that Rice and Bush want them to surrender on the issue in advance without knowing what they get in return. That's the distinction Obama was talking about in my earlier post.

 

[Annie]

From your source:

Iran needs to put suspension of enrichment and reprocessing on the table; that's a proper precondition. The problem is that Rice and Bush want them to surrender on the issue in advance without knowing what they get in return. That's the distinction Obama was talking about in my earlier post.

and that's what Iran is failing to do. It's why the UN put sanctions in place, when the Europeans couldn't get them to do the minimum, same even with Russia and China, which is why the resolution for sanctions happened.