No harm in talking, eh?
This is the guy that Barack Obama would agree to meet with, without preconditions. A quote from Ahmadinejad in the article:
I must announce that the Zionist regime (Israel), with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene. Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States has come and the countdown to the annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has started.
Sounds like a great idea, B.O.
What are the preconditions you think should be met before Obama would meet with Ahmadinejad?
Oh, I don’t know, how about honoring the three unanimous UN Security Council resolutions, for a start?
And if they don’t?
Then no talks. It’s pretty simple. Forget for the moment the undeserved attribution of legitimacy to this lunatic that would be conveyed by meeting with him on his terms.
What kind of message does it send to the other nations we joined in S/2006/521 (China, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the UK, and Northern Ireland)?
We jointly stated a requirement for negotiations to begin:
Now we are going to say, “Forget you guys, Obama has decided he knows better, what with his vast experience in foreign policy, and wants to go hang out with Ahmadinejad.”
What the heck? I thought liberals were supposed to be all about being a good world citizen?
I don’t think anyone is saying that Obama will hang out with Ahmadinejad.
Obama’s Web site talks about “preparation” which he describes as “…starting with low level-lower level diplomatic contacts, having our diplomatic corps work through with Iranian counterparts, an agenda.” He says, “…what I have said is that at some point I would be willing to meet.”
He’s not going to invite Ahmadinejad to the White House on day one for BBQ and beers.
Another one of his points is that trying to get Iran to agree with the preconditions the Bush administration has been seeking is exactly what the negotiations would cover.
If negotiations can help resolve the situation (i.e. stop the nuclear program), why not engage? Additionally, Obama hasn’t outlined what would need to happen in order for him to meet with Ahmadinejad. If he refuses to meet under any circumstances short of full adoption of the Security Council resolutions would preclude talks like the ones that led to much progress with curbing North Korea’s nuclear program.
I agree that sanctions should be taken to their limit, but I’m opposed to taking an option as valuable as negotiations off of the table. I would not like to see Obama circumvent the work done by the UN, rather I would like him to be able to further that work with negotiations if it’s the right thing to do. Obama isn’t going to thumb his nose at the world, especially if it will alienate our closest allies.
From http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#iran :
I don’t see how that isn’t backing out on the terms we originally presented which I outlined above. Saying we are asking them to do the very things we want to come to the table to negotiate about is disingenuous, and Barack should know that. Terminating a program is not the same as suspending it as a sign of good will during negotiations.