{"id":8196,"date":"2010-09-23T13:54:37","date_gmt":"2010-09-23T21:54:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/?p=8196"},"modified":"2010-09-24T12:51:46","modified_gmt":"2010-09-24T20:51:46","slug":"thursday-iran-talking-points-7","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/2010\/09\/23\/thursday-iran-talking-points-7\/","title":{"rendered":"Thursday Iran Talking Points"},"content":{"rendered":"

from LobeLog<\/a>: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for September 23rd, 2010:<\/em><\/p>\n

The Wall Street Journal<\/a><\/em>: Jay Solomon and Richard Boudreaux (with Farnaz Fassihi) write that while Iran hints it might be ready to resume talks on its nuclear program, U.S. and EU officials remain skeptical of any breakthrough. They note criticism from U.S. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153allies such as Israel\u00e2\u20ac\u009d who think \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Tehran could be only months from achieving a nuclear weapons capability\u00e2\u20ac\u009d and that talks are just a stalling technique. Nonetheless, an unnamed U.S. official tells the Journal <\/em>that the U.S. and its allies are \u00e2\u20ac\u0153focused heavily on preparations for […] talks.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Even so, the sanctions track continues with the U.S. applauding a Russian ban on selling missiles to Iran (see below). Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is scheduled to meet her counterpart from Syria on Monday for the first time. The authors note that, with Syria as one of Iran\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s closest allies, this could portend an effort to weaken the ties between these two countries.<\/p>\n

Foreign Policy<\/a><\/em>: Former National Iranian American Council assistant policy director Patrick Disney writes about the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK) \u00e2\u20ac\u201d the dissident Iranian exile group labeled a \u00e2\u20ac\u0153foreign terrorist organization\u00e2\u20ac\u009d by the State Department<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201d and its efforts to make inroads on Capitol Hill. Disney frames the piece with a resolution sponsored by Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA), which already has 83 co-sponsors<\/a>, which calls on the U.S. government to support regime change by supporting the MEK. Disney gives a summary of the group and its activities, its supporters (in and outside of Congress) and detractors (including former members), and what appears to be MEK\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s ultimate goal: \u00e2\u20ac\u0153to be removed from the terrorist list and to gain US backing in their fight against Iran\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s clerical government.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Describing the group as a sort of \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Ahmad Chalabi for Iran\u00e2\u20ac\u009d (something we\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ve written about<\/a>), Disney enumerates reasons why using the MEK for regime change \u00e2\u20ac\u201d and regime change itself \u00e2\u20ac\u201d is not such a great idea: \u00e2\u20ac\u0153[T]hey continue to call for American bombing, invasion, and occupation of Iran. De-listing the MEK would signal US backing for the group\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s agenda, including regime change operations\u00e2\u20ac\u00a6\u00e2\u20ac\u009d He concludes, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153It should go without saying that Rep. Filner\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s proposal is the wrong way for Iran\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

The New York Times<\/a><\/em>: Andrew E. Kramer reports Russia has ended its talks on exporting S-300 air defense missiles to Iran. Through a post on his website, Russian President Dmitri A. Medvedev announced that Russia interprets the latest round of UN sanctions as prohibiting the sale of major weapons systems to Iran. This announcement puts to rest U.S. and Israeli concerns that Russia might go forward with a major arms deal with Tehran, which could have strengthened Iran\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s air defenses against a military strike on Iran\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s alleged nuclear weapons program.<\/p>\n

The Wall Street Journal<\/a><\/em>: In his weekly column, Bret Stephens<\/a> describes attending a Tuesday morning breakfast host by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Stephens, known for his hawkish views on Iran, describes the breakfast as, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153We get access to Ahmadinejad\u00e2\u20ac\u201dand the feeling of self-importance that goes with that. In exchange, we pay him court.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Ahmadinejad, according to various accounts, deflected questions by offered lengthy monologues tangential to the issues. He denied the Iranian economy was negatively impacted by sanctions and rejected allegations that opposition leaders\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 offices were raided last month. He also stated, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153There is a good chance that [nuclear] talks will resume in the near future,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d and downplayed the threat of an Israeli or U.S. military strike. Stephens concluded with a cautionary warning. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Perhaps I haven\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t achieved the appropriate degree of jadedness, but my own impression of Ahmadinejad was that he was easily the smartest guy in the room. He mocked us in a way we scarcely had the wit to recognize. We belittle him at our peril.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for September 23rd, 2010: The Wall Street Journal: Jay Solomon and Richard Boudreaux (with Farnaz Fassihi) write that while Iran hints it might be ready to resume talks on its nuclear program, U.S. and EU officials remain skeptical of any breakthrough. They note criticism from U.S. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":75,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-8196","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"meta_box":{"disable_donate_message":"","custom_donate_message":"","subtitle":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8196","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/75"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8196"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8196\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8218,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8196\/revisions\/8218"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8196"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8196"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8196"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=8196"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}