AP/ October 20, 2012, 8:26 PM

White House: No agreement now to meet with Iran

WASHINGTON The White House says it is prepared to talk one-on-one with Iran to find a diplomatic settlement to the impasse over Tehran's reported pursuit of nuclear weapons, but there's no agreement now to meet.

National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said Saturday that President Barack Obama has made clear that he will prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and will do whatever's necessary to prevent that from happening. Vietor said Iran must come in line with its obligations, or else faced increased pressure.

"The onus is on the Iranians to do so, otherwise they will continue to face crippling sanctions and increased pressure," Vietor's statement said.

Iran has been a recurring issue in the presidential election. The New York Times reported that the U.S. and Iran have agreed for the first time to negotiations. The paper said Iran has insisted the talks wait until after the Nov. 6 election.

Obama and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney will meet Monday night in a debate focusing on foreign policy.

Despite unprecedented global penalties, Iran's nuclear program is advancing. Western nations fear the Islamic republic is determined to develop nuclear weapons and fundamentally reshape the balance of power in the Middle East. That would pose a grave threat to Israel. Iran says its program is for peaceful energy and research purposes.

Obama has said he'll prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. He hopes sanctions alongside negotiations can get Iran to halt uranium enrichment. But the strategy hasn't worked yet. Obama holds out the threat of military action as a last resort.

Romney has accused Obama of being weak on Iran. He says the U.S. needs to present a greater military threat.

© 2012 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
30 Comments Add a Comment
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Repubs_R_Fiscal_Liberals says:
CHUCK766
I certainly do not want war!

-----------

Your other words betray you.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Repubs_R_Fiscal_Liberals says:
CHUCK766
Nobody wants another war!

---------

YOU do.
reply
Repubs_R_Fiscal_Liberals replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Sometimes it's not a choice, but a necessity!
----------

Iran is not our problem. Let Israel deal with it, pay for it, and let their troops die, rather than asking us to do that for them.

And if Israel won't handle it on its own, and it's a real problem, then other countries in the region can handle it. The Middle East has plenty of money and troops.
Repubs_R_Fiscal_Liberals replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Retaliation is ALWAYS a choice.

Look at Reagan's reaction to the Beirut Marine barracks bombing.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Repubs_R_Fiscal_Liberals says:
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/

Jews against Zionism. A site well worth reading.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
MICAH_STONE says:
White House: No agreement now to meet with Iran
,,,OBOZO won't sell out Israel unless he's re-elected and has "more flexibility." Then what he'll do to one of America's best allies will be worse then than a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Repubs_R_Fiscal_Liberals says:
CHUCK766 replies: linkiconreporticonemailiconRomney doesn't want war any more than Obama does!

---------------

Romney plans on making his first State visit to ISRAEL, of all undeserving places.

He's willing to bend the US over for their sake, ignoring our own interests in the meantime.

There's a reason he wants to give the military $2 TRILLION they didn't askf for and which we don't have.

.
reply
Repubs_R_Fiscal_Liberals replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Also, I fully support any funding for our military!

----------

That's what makes you a raging liberal.


WWIII? Are you one of those clowns praying for the "End Times"???
Repubs_R_Fiscal_Liberals replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
As long as Iran continues their nuclear weapons ambitions, WW3 is inevitable!

---------

Not in the least. And Netanyahu has been saying this about Iran since 1992 - TWENTY YEARS!

Israel is the only country in the region with nukes. Another country with nukes would create a M.A.D. scenario, which would balance peace, as it did between the US and USSR.

Seriously, Chuckles, and I don't mean to sound mean, but you simply aren't very bright, aren't familiar with history, or both.

.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
jessue says:
What Does Iraq, Afganistan, Iran and Syria all have in common ! Sounds like THE GOP is ONCE AGAIN saying...WAR! HERE WE GO AGAIN !!
reply
Repubs_R_Fiscal_Liberals replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Chuck also goes by Sam, and by Jack.

Do you have something wrong with admitting you're female, Chuck? Another female poster pointed that out yesterday, and you dodged.
Repubs_R_Fiscal_Liberals replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
It does - it means you are ashamed of something, since you keep switching first names - from "Sam" to "Jack" to "Chuck".
linkicon reporticon emailicon
eroteme2 says:
It would seem that Ahmadinejad has entered himself into our election. He apparently believes it would be better to have a U.S. president who he knows as being a Nobel peace prize winner/Community Organizer instead of Romney who is an unknown to him.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
mark648 says:
"by any means necessary" If any means any than Obama just put nuclear war on the table!
reply
arthanyel replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
A pragmatic Commander in Chief (which Obama IS) is always going to say, and mean, that all options are on the table. And using nukes against Iran is so small a probability it isn't even worth discussing. But if that was the ONLY way to prevent a world wide war, a pragmatic President would authorize it.

This is why we need people like Obama and not Romney in the big chair - because Obama would only go to war (or use weapons of mass destruction) when EVERY OTHER option had failed. Romney would go to war as the FIRST option.
Repubs_R_Fiscal_Liberals replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
"Chuck", aka Sam, aka Jack:

The fact that you are willing to drive us broke makes you a huuuuge liberal.



Romney talking about increasing military spending with the National Debt Clock running in the background.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89BXyOlcYY0
linkicon reporticon emailicon
msimamaji says:
Once again, the lies and rumors spread by the Republicans.

They are clearly showing everyone that they are unfit to govern this country.

We need to re-hire Obama and fire the entire lyin'-Ryan, Shifty-Mitty GOP.

P.s. Note all the hysterical anti-Mulim tirades that will appear on this blog. Then you will see good reasons for my advice.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
prarprlr says:
This entire scenario was predicted a month ago. This is the 2012 October surprise. Oh my- right before the election Iran finally cries uncle to these terrible sanctions and tells the world "you are right...we are sorry and we will stop going after nuclear weapons". Thank the lord we have a president that saw the virtues of these sanctions...was tough on Iran...and now the world is safe...until of course after the election and Iran gives a the old single fingered solute!!
reply
arthanyel replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Nonsense. You don't understand how fanatics think. Below someone spouted the same stupidity - if that were true, by your logic Iran would have released the hostages in 1979 and helped Carter stay in the White House.

Fanatics don't CARE what we think, and they don't CARE who is President, they are going to do whatever they are going to do anyway. The only thing they respond to is implacable action, which is exactly what Obama has been doing.
See all 30 Comments