Jump to content

Rouhani says Iran ready to talk to U.S. if sanctions lifted


webfact

Recommended Posts

Rouhani says Iran ready to talk to U.S. if sanctions lifted

By Parisa Hafezi and Bate Felix

 

2019-07-14T203651Z_3_LYNXNPEF6D0DJ_RTROPTP_4_MIDEAST-IRAN-USA-NUCLEAR.JPG

FILE PHOTO: Iranian President Hassan Rouhani speaks during a meeting with tribal leaders in Kerbala, Iraq, March 12, 2019. REUTERS/Abdullah Dhiaa Al-Deen

 

DUBAI/PARIS (Reuters) - Iran is ready to hold talks with the United States if Washington lifts sanctions and returns to the 2015 nuclear deal it quit last year, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said in a televised speech on Sunday.

 

U.S. President Donald Trump's administration says it is open to negotiations with Iran on a more far-reaching agreement on nuclear and security issues.

But Iran has made any talks conditional on first being able to export as much oil as it did before the United States withdrew from the nuclear pact with world powers in May 2018.

 

"We have always believed in talks ... if they lift sanctions, end the imposed economic pressure and return to the deal, we are ready to hold talks with America today, right now and anywhere," Rouhani said in his Sunday speech.

 

Confrontations between Washington and Tehran have escalated, culminating in a plan for U.S. air strikes on Iran last month that Trump called off at the last minute.

 

Iran is ready to hold talks with the United States if Washington lifts sanctions and returns to the 2015 nuclear deal it quit last year, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said in a televised speech on Sunday (July 14). Rough cut (no reporter narration).

U.S. President Donald Trump's administration says it is open to negotiations with Iran on a more far-reaching agreement on nuclear and security issues.

But Iran has made any talks conditional on first being able to export as much oil as it did before the United States withdrew from the nuclear pact with world powers in May 2018.

Confrontations between Washington and Tehran have escalated, culminating in a plan for U.S. air strikes on Iran last month that Trump called off at the last minute.

 

Calling for dialogue between all parties to resume, France, Britain and Germany -- parties to the 2015 pact -- said on Sunday they were preoccupied by the escalation of tensions in the Gulf region and the risk the nuclear deal might fall apart.

 

"We believe that the time has come to act responsibly and to look for ways to stop the escalation of tension and resume dialogue," they said in a joint statement that was released by the French president's office.

 

In spite of calling for talks with Iranian leaders, Trump said on Wednesday that U.S. sanctions on Iran would soon be increased "substantially".

 

In reaction to U.S. sanctions, which have notably targeted Iran's main foreign revenue stream in the shape of crude oil exports, Tehran announced in May that it would scale back its commitments under the deal.

 

Defying a warning by the European parties to the pact to continue its full compliance, Tehran has amassed more low-enriched uranium than permitted and it has started to enrich uranium above the 3.67% permitted by the agreement.

 

"The risks are such that it is necessary for all stakeholders to pause, and consider the possible consequences of their actions," France, Britain and Germany, who have been trying to salvage the pact by shielding Tehran's economy from sanctions, said in their statement.

 

Iranian clerical rulers have said that Tehran will further decrease its commitments if Europeans fail to fulfil their promises to guarantee Iran's interests under the deal.

 

The nuclear deal aimed to extend the amount of time it would theoretically take Iran to produce enough fissile material for an atomic bomb -- so-called breakout time -- from several months to a minimum of one year until 2025.

 

Iran denies ever having considered developing atomic weapons.

 

(Writing by Parisa Hafezi; Editing by Catherine Evans)

 

reuters_logo.jpg

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-07-15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HappyinNE said:

Give us everything we want then we will talk.  Not going to work with Trump like it did in the past.

Or more correctly...

give us back, that which you took in contravention to an internationally sanctioned agreement, such that we can talk.

 

but you might be right... the trump might continue down his pathway to war, after all, there’s no trump towers in Tehran, so no skin off his nose, and when the once empty body bags begin arriving back in the land of the free, he’ll be retired, and laying the blame on the democrats, no doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems Trump is the only one, who worries about the situation from 2015, when there are NO restrictions on whatever Iran does on nuclear field, nor intercontinental ballistic missiles.

I suppose he calculates as follows:

- reelection 2020, so president till mid Jan 2025

- 2023 and following: Ivanca Trump running for next (vice) president. No way he wants her to be cursed with a nuclear Iran, being able to attack all Europe and even the USA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to Darroch, the recent US ambassador, Trump scrapped the agreement simply to spite Obama.

Americans have elected a capricious, vindictive narcissist, whose only concern is for himself. Let's hope they don't pay the price in body bags.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, IAMHERE said:

Sanction is over when Obama left office, it was his agreement not Americas.

Agreement was NOT signed by a lawyer in Hulauhla county, but by Barack Obama, in the function of President of the United States.

I g=have to agree with an Iranian on TV who said: when we sign an agreement, with THIS president ( Trump), is it valid for a next president, and so on ? Or can every4 years all be open again ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IAMHERE said:

Sanction is over when Obama left office, it was his agreement not Americas.

Can you tell me where you get your misinformation from?

Iran Nuclear Deal Reaches Key Number of Senate Supporters

Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland announced this morning that she will support President Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran, giving the administration sufficient support in the Senate to ensure a major foreign policy victory for the president in his final 18 months in office.

https://time.com/4020062/iran-nuclear-deal-senate-veto/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, IAMHERE said:

Sanction is over when Obama left office, it was his agreement not Americas.

Yep... well done... you have just outlined why other countries should never trust those United States of America, moving forward, unless those United States of America change their laws, such that future leaders cannot unilaterally make or change agreements on a whim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

"We have always believed in talks...."

 

Err. No. You did not.

 

With regard to the current stand-off, the Iranian regime initially said it wouldn't "talk" about anything that's not included in the JCPOA. Even in negotiations leading to the JCPOA, it was pretty much routine for Iran to declare this-or-that if not negotiable, only for it to appear on the agenda for discussion later on.

 

As for talks for lifting of sanctions and return to the JCPOA framework - I think that, eventually, there will be some give and take which may see a conditional/partial lifting of sanctions and Iran negotiating all the same. Returning to the JCPOA framework will probably not happen under Trump. Maybe a similar agreement under a different label, with a few extras tossed in.

 

With regard to outcomes - issues relating to nuclear stuff are doable. Iran's ballistic missile program, maybe less so. Iran's regional involvements and interventions, probably harder to tackle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Can you tell me where you get your misinformation from?

Iran Nuclear Deal Reaches Key Number of Senate Supporters

Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland announced this morning that she will support President Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran, giving the administration sufficient support in the Senate to ensure a major foreign policy victory for the president in his final 18 months in office.

https://time.com/4020062/iran-nuclear-deal-senate-veto/

Did you even read the article? It said she was the 34th to support it, and that they thought it would delay a war by 10 years. So Obama just wanted to skate out and dump it the next President? 

 

The problem for those who have never lived in that area, there already is a war, not nuclear yet, but still a war. I don't think this agreement was even slowing them down much, and not like they couldn't try buy something if they wanted it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Damrongsak said:

My then 20 year old son came back in a box from Iraq in 2005. Younger son won't go there. He votes independent.

 

image.jpeg.5197a4d7fff4269ad7caa08361cf9d98.jpeg

The chicken hawks talk a big talk but when their turn comes , get bone spurs, sending our kids to die.

No parent should ever have to say what you just said, or have to go through what you must have gone through. 

As a father,My heart goes out  to you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Lacessit said:

According to Darroch, the recent US ambassador, Trump scrapped the agreement simply to spite Obama.

Americans have elected a capricious, vindictive narcissist, whose only concern is for himself. Let's hope they don't pay the price in body bags.

According to Darroch the totally discedited and debunked pee pee dossier author Mr Steele is "100% legit". So we can take Darroch's words with a pinch of salt. He is clearly acting on his emotions and hatred of Trump rather than any rational logic based approach to matters. 

 

 This Iran saga is amusing. Trump played hardball, the Iran govt had a tantrum and said they will never talk to the USA again EVER. And the forum melts down, Trump bad, agent orange bla bla, and now here we are a week later and the Iranians are begging to return to the table. The art of the deal in action!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, beechguy said:

Did you even read the article? It said she was the 34th to support it, and that they thought it would delay a war by 10 years. So Obama just wanted to skate out and dump it the next President? 

 

The problem for those who have never lived in that area, there already is a war, not nuclear yet, but still a war. I don't think this agreement was even slowing them down much, and not like they couldn't try buy something if they wanted it.

You're absolutely right. I got it wrong. I thought I had seen an article that said it was upheld by 52 votes but I guess not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, beechguy said:

Did you even read the article? It said she was the 34th to support it, and that they thought it would delay a war by 10 years. So Obama just wanted to skate out and dump it the next President? 

 

Here's what I was thinking of.

Senate Republicans' last gasp on Iran nuclear deal fails

https://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/17/politics/iran-nuclear-deal-senate-block/index.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

According to Darroch the totally discedited and debunked pee pee dossier author Mr Steele is "100% legit". So we can take Darroch's words with a pinch of salt. He is clearly acting on his emotions and hatred of Trump rather than any rational logic based approach to matters. 

 

 This Iran saga is amusing. Trump played hardball, the Iran govt had a tantrum and said they will never talk to the USA again EVER. And the forum melts down, Trump bad, agent orange bla bla, and now here we are a week later and the Iranians are begging to return to the table. The art of the deal in action!

I guess if Rouhani's words are begging, then Kim must be groveling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, beechguy said:

The problem for those who have never lived in that area, there already is a war, not nuclear yet, but still a war. I don't think this agreement was even slowing them down much, and not like they couldn't try buy something if they wanted it.

What you don't understand is that the Sunni regimes are at least as big a threat. It was they who backed Islamist extremists in Syria. As bad as the Syrian government is, the Islamists are worse. It's a good thing the Iranians and Hezbollah were there.

The Saudis have sent troops into Bahrain to back the government there. A government which treats its shia majority abominably.

Now the Saudis and UAE are backing the vicious and corrupt military regime in Sudan.

The Saudis nearly waged war on Qatar because it isn't sufficiently anti-Iranian.

They kidnapped the head of state of Lebanon.

They and the UAE sponsored the overthrow of the Morsi government in Egypt.

And there's more.

And where would Isis be now if not for the backing of Iranian supported militia in Iraq and Syria? The US and the Kurds were grateful for their help back then. Isis is defeated but not dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me make one thing clear, I am not a big fan of the Saudi's or Bahrain's, but there has been a problem with the Iranians since 1979, and before. There is already a war, it just hasn't turned nuclear yet, but that isn't because of some piece of crap agreement. Even the first article Bristolboy referenced, said it would only delay them about 10 years. 

One of the largest explosions in Bahrain I know of(about 2005), happened 200 yards from the front gate of the U.S. Navy Base, carried out by an Iranian. Fortunately, no one was injured, minor damage, only because he put the device in a trash container, with a rounded bottom.

So, I would just caution people not to take CNN or Wiki, too seriously, and certainly don't try to BS people like me, who were there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A troll post has been removed.   You do not need to live somewhere to post about it.   First hand experiences are appreciated, but not a  pre-requisite.   If used, please be civil.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, bristolboy said:

What you don't understand is that the Sunni regimes are at least as big a threat. It was they who backed Islamist extremists in Syria. As bad as the Syrian government is, the Islamists are worse. It's a good thing the Iranians and Hezbollah were there.

The Saudis have sent troops into Bahrain to back the government there. A government which treats its shia majority abominably.

Now the Saudis and UAE are backing the vicious and corrupt military regime in Sudan.

The Saudis nearly waged war on Qatar because it isn't sufficiently anti-Iranian.

They kidnapped the head of state of Lebanon.

They and the UAE sponsored the overthrow of the Morsi government in Egypt.

And there's more.

And where would Isis be now if not for the backing of Iranian supported militia in Iraq and Syria? The US and the Kurds were grateful for their help back then. Isis is defeated but not dead.

Ok, so let me try to rephrase this. I understand very well about the Iranians, Sunni, and Shia's, I lived with them from 1998 through 2008 in Bahrain! I was around them in Iraq and Afghanistan 2008 through 2012. Even with their faults, we are better suited to support the Saudi's and Bahraini's, than let the Iranians get any advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, beechguy said:

Ok, so let me try to rephrase this. I understand very well about the Iranians, Sunni, and Shia's, I lived with them from 1998 through 2008 in Bahrain! I was around them in Iraq and Afghanistan 2008 through 2012. Even with their faults, we are better suited to support the Saudi's and Bahraini's, than let the Iranians get any advantage.

Doubt the Shias in Iran, who are in the majority agree with you.

And the day that everyone who was in those places agrees with you, is the day your being there carries any special weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...