Help The Middle ClassNews and Information For The Heart Of America
Christine Amanpour/CNN: White House ‘Confused’ On Iran
President Obama spoke Wednesday at the U.N. General Assembly as he tackles a range of thorny international issues with his counterparts.
Obama said Iran and North Korea “must be held accountable” if they continue to ignore international nuclear weapons treaties.
Iran recently reiterated its unwillingness to give up its nuclear program, which the United States and other Western nations fear is being used to develop nuclear weapons. Iran insists its program is strictly for civilian power.
U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice said she didn’t expect a direct meeting between Obama and Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, at the U.N. session.
CNN Chief International Correspondent Christiane Amanpour says the White House is confused about how to deal with Iran. She joined Kiran Chetry and John Roberts on CNN’s “American Morning” Wednesday. Below is an edited transcript of the interview.
Kiran Chetry: Ahmadinejad spoke to reporters late last night saying he’s willing to push for leniency in the case of the three American hikers detained in his country, accused of entering illegally from Iraq.
Through a translator he said, “We’re not happy that this has happened, but when the law is broken, the law itself foresees a procedure that has to be carried through. What I can ask is that the judiciary expedites the process and gives it its full attention. … And to basically take a look at the case with maximum leniency.”
Chetry: Ahmadinejad is saying he would appeal to the court for maximum leniency. That’s a pretty strong statement. Why is he coming out with that now?
Christiane Amanpour: Well, it is. It’s conciliatory and it reminds me of what he said about Roxana Saberi all those months ago. He won’t come out and say, “I’m going to get them released” but he did back then and he has just now said he will tell the judiciary to act expeditiously and with leniency. So perhaps that will mean some movement on it, as it did with Roxana Saberi.
And why is he doing it now? Because he’s in the United States, obviously he’s going to speak at the U.N., but beyond that, the U.S. government has decided to break with the Bush administration policy and now enter direct and bilateral talks with Iran, including being in the group of the P-5-plus-1 over the nuclear and other negotiations. So that’s new. And I suppose he wants to pave some kind of different atmosphere. But it’s going to be difficult because of the tension still about that disputed election.
John Roberts: So what is the way forward for the White House? The White House has come out saying that President Obama will not directly engage Ahmadinejad during the United Nations proceedings, but they are looking for some sort of a diplomatic opening. So how do you see the way forward here?
Amanpour: Well, I think they’re confused, and I think everybody at the moment, about how to deal with Iran and how to deal with the bigger issue. Because at the beginning, if you remember, President Obama and his administration were thinking about entering a big sort of global negotiation with Iran, engaging them, obviously on the nuclear issue, but in a way to end the 30 years of hostility that has been between them because of the beginning of the Islamic Revolution.
Now with the disputed election, that makes it much more difficult. It just [puts] so much pressure on the administration not to engage with the Iranian government because of this disputed election and particularly, obviously, what went on afterward, with the protests, the arrests, the allegations of torture and killings and all of that.
So this has been very difficult. They’re going to see what they can do. And it looks like they want to engage and if that doesn’t work, then try to pave the way for sanctions. But that’s also fairly risky because the Russians have already said they’re not going to go towards sanctions. So the way forward is a little unclear at the moment. But it seems like the opportunity for that attempt to enter negotiations with the view to really trying to hammer out all the issues between the two countries may have been stalled and stymied somewhat for the moment.
Roberts: Certainly Ahmadinejad is not making it easy either with what he said about the Holocaust again last week. You know, Germany threatening to walk out of his speech at the U.N. General Assembly if he mentions that today. How do you negotiate with this guy?
Amanpour: Well, he says many, many things. He keeps saying the same things. These are not new things that he keeps saying. He said this over and over again about the Holocaust. He also makes it much, much tougher when he’s speaking inside Iran than when he’s speaking here.
To this interview that he just did last night, he tried to sort of soften the edges of, nonetheless, what he believes, that the Holocaust was a myth and that if it did happen, then it’s up to Europe to deal with it, not the Palestinians. That’s his standard public rhetoric. Some people do believe that there might be walkouts in the General Assembly today. Not just because of that, but that and because of the election and the way the government handled it afterwards.
FOR CONTINUATION OF THIS STORY, CLICK THE HERE FOR CNN: Amanpour: White House ‘confused’ on Iran – amFIX – CNN.com Blogs.
Dear ms. Amanpour,
Right now you are an influential input to world events. You have always offered a
view into sittuations although probably not compleatlyy unbias. does give people a sound prospective for alternative thought. Thank you.
Now my prospective. Today I watched Benjamin Netanyahu describing the opportunity to use sanctions against Iran. He specifically mentioned gasoline. Iran already has civil unrest and is putting pressure for a more democratized and uncorupted form of government. Would putting sanctions in place, to stir up civil unrest, that would hurt these same people be wise, or would it only lead to more anti American and anti World thinking? I hope this is clear. I just dont believe that taking away the necessities of people and telling them “it is for their own good” will convince them.
THANKS AGAIN
PHILLIP HAMM
I am walking on a street over looking Puget sound and the Olympic mountain range. The sun is always high. Suddenly three Bear Bombers come roaring from behind the snow caped mountain’s climbing all most vertical in to the sun. one turns south another heads east toward the lake the third circles over head climbing higher in to the sun. then the air raid sirens scream . There is a blinding white and orange flash and then every thing turns to super heated steam.
That nightmare has occurred throughout my life since early child hood. Fear of nuclear attack is prevalent over planet especially in non nuclear countries. The scientist who designed the first atom bomb J Robert Oppenheimer.gave the secret away hoping to prevent further mass destruction like the bombs had done to Japan. These weapons have never been used in sixty two years although further development and improvement in destructive capabilities has continued across that time. Nuclear weapons are no longer only delivered by an airplane dropping bombs they can be delivered via guided missile fired from a cannon or even left somewhere in a suet case. It’s no longer a stand off between super powers. Today there are about five powerful nations Dominating the planet. These nations tend to believe in a policy of imperialistic expansion to promote and defend there political ideologies across the planet they rationalize this policy as inevitable or even as granted by god. These nations seem blind to the idea that the people of the third world nations may not want to be dragged kicking and screaming in to the twenty first century in they’re way they are living in the same century as we are.
I can totally under stand the need of Iran for nuclear weapons especially because there is a small but powerful and rapidly expanding nation with nuclear weapons on the border. I also understand our (Americas) need to keep Iran from having weapons of mass destruction What I can not understand is the labeling of Iran as a rouge nation, is not Israel a rouge nation or the United States both nations occupy ground already occupied. I can’t understand why instead of demanding the rest of the world remain nuke free the five super powers don’t disarm themselves, not just talk and argue the shape of the table disarm DISARM, DO IT!
I agree that the recent election in Iran had many problems from the overall purist definition of democracy in western terms. But that is not what Iran is or now ever will be. It is an Islamic style of democracy, with commercial and social laws we westerners may find abhorrent, or unusual.
Having got that established I can see no reason why negotiations with Iran become more difficult or less tenable purely based on (the political oppositions even valid unrest/objections) unless the US and EU nations intent is regime change which I do not support.
Of course Iran and North Korea should be encouraged abandon Nuclear weapons development ( how if you USA /EU refuse to talk with its current government??) which is why Obama and his administration is not confused but smart by separately pushing the Arms reduction and Non proliferation international talks.
The policy of BUSH = no talks, unless you agree Pax Americana politics and ideology first, and we do not talk to Hamas, Hizbollah, etc simply continues to make Jihad thier only course.
The long long history of the world is talk and resolve your differences or forget talk and reasonableness and practically destroy the enemy with all that routes inhumane consequences= forget the idea of collateral damage being unacceptable.
Have we learned nothing…understanding, clearing confusions, comes from talk not bombs!!
Regards,
Hodgson.