U.S., Iran signal openess to direct talks over nukes

Iran is not opposed to direct talks with the U.S. to resolve its nuclear standoff with the West, the country's top leader said Thursday in comments that appeared to soften its long-held policy of outright rejection of bilateral talks with Washington.

Following that speech, a senior Obama administration official in Jerusalem told reporters the president "was open" to a direct dialogue with Iran, CBS News chief White House correspondent Major Garrett reports.

But Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said he's not optimistic that such talks would yield results unless Washington stops imposing sanctions against the Islamic Republic. His remarks came as President Obama visits Iran's archrival, Israel, which has repeatedly threatened to take military action should Iran appear to be on the verge of obtaining a bomb.

Addressing a crowd in northeastern Iran on the first day of the new Persian calendar year, Khamenei also had a strong warning for Israel.

• Iran threatens to "raze" Israeli cities in nuclear standoff
• Obama's Mideast trip: What to expect

"Sometimes, leaders of the Zionist regime threaten us. They threaten to take military action. They are not in the size to be put in the list of Iranian nation's enemies," Khamenei said in comments broadcast live on state TV.

In a strong warning to Israel, Khamenei said that if Israel attacked Iran, Tehran would "level Tel Aviv and Haifa to the ground."

Play Video

President Obama will not allow Iran a nuclear weapon

The U.S. and Iran have conducted sidebar talks at meetings of the so-called P5+1 group of nations conducting long-running but so far fruitless talks with Iran to dismantle its nuclear weapons program.

"We would be open to bilateral discussions, provided Iran understood what our expectations are," the Obama administration official said. "We have a forum for diplomacy with Iran (the P5+1)."

Under pressure from the P5+1 group, the United Nations has approved a series of tighter economic sanctions against Iran. The sanctions are designed to coax Iran toward trading greater economic freedom for cessation of its feared pursuit of nuclear weapons.

The Obama administration official told reporters the sanctions mean Iran "is facing significant economic consequences."

"The way out of that pressure," the official said "is negotiations."

The White House prefers the larger group of nations bringing pressure on Iran but is willing to entertain direct talks under the right circumstances.

Khamenei said the U.S. has sent messages to Tehran, sometimes in writing, saying it is willing to hold bilateral talks with Tehran separately from the negotiations Iran is holding with five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany.

"I'm not optimistic about these talks, but I'm not opposed to it either," he said.

In Jerusalem on Wednesday, Mr. Obama said he continues to prefer a diplomatic solution to the nuclear dispute with Iran and thinks there is time to achieve one. Whether that works, he said, will depend on whether Iran's leaders "seize that opportunity."

Although Mr. Obama did not promise that the United States would act militarily against Iran if Israel decided that must be done, he offered an explicit endorsement for Israel to take whatever unilateral measures it deems necessary to guard against the threat.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said both he and Mr. Obama agree that it would take Iran about a year to manufacture a nuclear weapon.

[JOE1965A]

Labeling entire races of people as "liars" (be they Israeli, Iranian, American, or the dreaded New Zealanders!!) doesn't move forward any conversation about these very tough issues. The fact is there are many honest decent Israelis and Iranians, and both nations have their share of scoundrels. This is true of every nation on Earth.

Nuclear proliferation is a very serious issue, and we need to start discussing this with a common framework of respect. This starts with acknowledging some realities:

1. Israel has long been in a precarious (and existentially risky) security position. It is fully understandable that they would feel justified in possessing nuclear weapons.

2. Iran has long considered itself an opponent of Israel (for a number of reasons, the Palestinian issue being one of them). As an opponent of Israel, it is similarly understandable that Iranians would look at Israel's nuclear weaponry and say that they should also possess nuclear weapons as a counter-balance. Who can give one nation in a region a moral authority to possess the world's most frightening weapons, but not another?

If these two points are both true (which I believe they are), then it leaves us in a very difficult position. We can't just keep on giving global blessings to more and more nuclear nations. However, you can't bully nations like Iran into submission, unless you're prepared to keep invading one nation after another (eventually risking a broader global conflict).

I believe we must first acknowledge the legitimacy of both sides' claims (sorry to the partisans on either side, but BOTH sides do indeed have legitimate reasons to argue that they should have the bomb), and then start to address the causes underlying the enmity.

In the long run, how did we prevent France and Germany from bashing each other's brains out in yet another war? After three major wars in 70 years, friendship between the two seemed impossible, until someone suggested creating the European Coal and Steel Community (forerunner to the EU). France and Germany have been allies for the 60+ years since. I'm not saying that economic ties solve everything, but it might be a good starting point for a seemingly hopeless situation.

[Louis_Chez]

Iran has obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

The world takes those obligations seriously.

[JOE1965A]

LOUIS_CHEZ: I'm not entirely sure I see what point you are trying to make with that comment, but yes, the world does take the NPT seriously. And Iran's leadership is obviously signalling that it wants to test the boundaries of how far they can push the NPT's limits, or the world's resolve in enforcing it.

My point, however, is that using the implied threat of force against Iran is a fruitless game. The United States does not presently have the political resolve for a full-scale invasion and the ensuing long-term occupation of Iran. Israel does not have the military capacity for such an invasion. Other major powers likely wouldn't support such an invasion. Air strikes would accomplish very little. Sanctions have proven ineffective already.

Therefore, respect, engagement and constructive dialogue are the only logical options. Unless the U.S. really wants another Iraq-style war, only at three times the scale. I guarantee you that the American public will NOT support such a war right now, and in about 18 months, Iran will be a nuclear power. Maybe now we be a good time to start talking.

[Aussie_convict]

Snoopkk - Hows the weather in Tel Aviv today?

[hamiltongrad]

That is insane. They are not to be trusted. IT is part of their culture to lie and cheat. It is a belief.

[akibeel]

Don't trust them, at all.

[mjlewis6]

Rachel Maddow's Hubris: Selling of the Iraq War missed one important element on Bush "Dubya" was pre-disposed to the ouster of Saddam Hussein under any conditions due to a 'missed assasination plot' that was to have killed the elder Bush during the timeframe of the Clinton Administration.

What most people do not realize about President Amadinejad is that he has been recognized as one of the students/leaders who were part of the occupation of the US Embassy in 1978-79. To this day, even I have a preference that may be easily fed by the media/politicians towards war with Iran. This has LITTLE to do with Israel and the Nuclear weapons threat. We HELPED Iran fight Iraq to a standstill(8 year war) with tow missiles during the Irangate Scandal during the Reagan Administration. It is not a cooperation the Iranian government wishes to admit. Plus our defeat of Saddam Hussein has created an OPEN BORDER in the West.

Any openness with Iran over the nuclear issue to pursue in talks may have us supporting a SIDE DEAL with Iran to restrain Hezbollah while a MIDDLE EAST PEACE DEAL between Israel and the PLO goes forward.

There are too many pieces to deal with and war seems a way to change the playing field. Do not make that side deal. It did not work during the Shah's reign, it did not work during the Reagan Administration, and with the kind of Hardliners like the Ayatollah and Amadinejad and the Quds forces...It will not work now.

By the way, do you know who was CIA chief over the Iran region during the Shah's reign and did not see the revolution coming....just think BUSH...
and you might see the nefarious methodology of killing state leaders to change a political system does not work...i.e. Diem brothers in Viet Nam, Mosadegh in Iran...to name a few. We could go to Chile and see the US role as well during the Nixon Administration. Please no side deals...

[Robert4787]

As a member of the Association Of Former Intelligence Officers (AFIO), I saw the whole speech and especially liked his statements about Iran and their nuclear weapon development. It was a fresh breath of air for the youth of Israel to hear. I wrote an article about what it means to have a Nuclear Iran and offer it free to CBS news readers.

http://www.examiner.com/article/should-we-accept-a-nuclear-iran