It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The White House is warning Iran's leader to take seriously a year-end deadline over its nuclear program, responding sternly to defiant language by the Iranian president.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday dismissed a looming deadline from the Obama administration and its allies for Tehran to accept a U.N.-drafted deal to swap enriched uranium for nuclear fuel. President Barack Obama wants Iran to respond to an offer of dialogue and show it will allay fears of weapons development.
Otherwise, Washington and its allies are warning of new, tougher sanctions on Iran.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Ahmadinejad may not recognize the deadline but ''it is a very real deadline for the international community.''
President Obama said Friday that Iran faces a September deadline to show good-faith efforts to halt its nuclear weapons program, and said the statement issued by the world's leading industrial nations meeting here this week means the international community is ready to act.
President Barack Obama took office promising to pursue a diplomatic solution to the standoff over Iran's nuclear program, but so far, he's gotten little out of Tehran. So little, in fact, that the President has given Iran a Sept. 15 deadline to respond positively to his offer of negotiations, or face a heightening of sanctions. As U.S. officials huddled with their European, Russian and Chinese counterparts in Germany on Sept. 2 to review the issue, Iran signaled that it will indeed respond — by offering its own package of proposals to achieve a diplomatic resolution to the standoff. Western leaders at the meeting in Germany urged Iran to agree to a meeting with Russia, China, the key European nations and the U.S. before Sept. 23. But nobody is expecting Iran's proposals to come close to meeting Western demands, and that could leave Obama facing the unenviable choice of being painted as feckless or having to move down a road of escalation that puts a diplomatic solution further beyond reach.
Unconditional talks with Iran began even before BHO faced the voters in our recent elections!
Would Americans have voted for a man who proclaimed to require "conditions," yet was already meeting with Iranian and Syrian diplomats?
Despite his protestations otherwise, Obama used back channels to assure Iran AND Syria that he would be willing to open up discussions once he was elected!
Did this give Iran and Syria the "Green Light," through Hamas, to step up the pressure on Israel?
US President Barack Obama has already used experts within the last few months to hold high-level but discreet talks with both Iran and Syria, organizers of the meetings told AFP.
US President Barack Obama's offer to talk to Iran shows that America's policy of "domination" has failed, the government spokesman said on Saturday.
"This request means Western ideology has become passive, that capitalist thought and the system of domination have failed," Gholam Hossein Elham was quoted as saying by the Mehr news agency.
"Negotiation is secondary, the main issue is that there is no way but for (the United States) to change," he added.
Officially, Obama's overtures toward both Tehran and Damascus have remained limited. In reality, these discussions began, even as he denied it, while Obama was still campaigning!
Even before winning the November 4 election, Obama had already begun negotiations with Iran, and used what experts call "track two" discussions to approach America's two foes, Syria and Iran, in the region.
After nearly three decades of severed ties, Obama said shortly after taking office this month that he is willing to extend a diplomatic hand to Tehran if the Islamic republic is ready to "unclench its fist".
In response, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad launched a fresh tirade against the United States, demanding an apology for its "crimes" against Iran and saying he expected "deep and fundamental" change from Obama.
Former US president George W. Bush refused to hold talks with the Islamic republic -- which he dubbed part of an "axis of evil" -- unless it suspended uranium enrichment, and never took a military option to thwart Tehran's atomic drive off the table.
A lot of this depends on just how real the reports of possible rebellion in Iran are and how the U.S government believes any imposed sanctions may effect the growing sense of discontent with its people against its government .
I do not feel threatened by Iran in any way, nor do I care what they do in their country.
Of course, this is the second one, anyway. Recall the prior deadline that got laughed off the table?
I just wonder when will Obama actually sit down and meet face to face with the U.S. "enemies", and give talks a chance?
Has he met with Ahmadinejahd
Originally posted by endisnighe
Get the frell out of all of these situations. Then, tell the world if one attack against a US interest can be traced back to any government of the world, there will be hell to pay.
I am so sick of our interventionistic attitudes toward other countries and than to complain about how things are not going the way we had hoped. Hell, I think 90% of what we seeing going down everywhere, is what our government wants to happen. To instill are aggressionistic and obstructionistic policies around the world.
Maybe I am just blathering.
Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by jdub297
No, not the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive but maybe more the Teddy Roosevelt theory of kick ass and take no prisoners.
Their is something we are not seeing in this whole mid-east situation.
I wish secrecy was not the standard in today's government.
I feel we need to step back from being the world police for awhile and reassess the situation.
If we are to be at war, we need to use both 12 gauge barrels, not the bb gun we are using now.
To hell with only 30k troops, how about 2 million. If we are going to be at war, let us settle it NOW. Not 8 years later and to hell with pussy footing around.
In with the whole kit and kabootle or not in at all.
That is kind of my position. I would have to reassess the whole war doctrine and foreign affairs situation if a couple of little secrets that are not being released were given to me.
There is something we are just not seeing.
Why has the US government spent over the last 30 years, more money than can even be imagined. I feel the Trillions we have gleaned is just the tip of an iceberg that would dwarf the one that sank the Titanic.
Sometimes I just do not know. A little wine has fogged my normal attitude this evening.