Iran's Khamenei rejects talks with United States

[webfact]

Iran's Khamenei rejects talks with United States

By Parisa Hafezi

 

FILE PHOTO: Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei delivers a speech during a ceremony marking the death anniversary of the founder of the Islamic Republic Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, in Tehran, Iran, June 4, 2017. TIMA via REUTERS

 

DUBAI (Reuters) - Iran will never hold one-on-one talks with the United States but could engage in multilateral discussions if it returns to the 2015 deal on Iran's nuclear programme, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Tuesday, according to state television.

 

U.S. President Donald Trump has said he could meet Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, possibly at the U.N. General Assembly in New York later this month.

 

"Iranian officials, at any level, will never talk to American officials ... this is part of their policy to put pressure on Iran ... their policy of maximum pressure will fail," state television quoted Khamenei as saying.

 

Khamenei said Iran's clerical rulers were in agreement on this: "All officials in Iran unanimously believe it.

 

"If America changes its behaviour and returns to (Iran's 2015) nuclear deal, then it can join multilateral talks between Iran and other parties to the deal," Khamenei said.

 

Trump has stepped up sanctions against Iran since last year when he withdrew from the nuclear pact between Iran and six world powers and reimposed sanctions that were lifted under the deal in return for Iran curbing its nuclear programme.

 

In retaliation for the U.S. "maximum pressure" policy, Iran has gradually scaled backed its commitments to the pact and plans to further breach it if the European parties fail to keep their promises to shield Iran's economy from U.S. penalties.

 

"If we yield to their pressure and hold talks with Americans ... This will show that their maximum pressure on Iran has succeeded. They should know that this policy has no value for us," said Khamenei, who has the last say on all state matters.

 

Tensions between Tehran and Washington have spiked following a weekend attack on major oil sites in Saudi Arabia that sent oil prices soaring and raised fears of a new Middle East conflict.

 

Trump said on Monday it looked like Iran was behind the attacks but stressed he did not want to go to war. Iran has denied any involvement.

 

Iran's regional rival, Saudi Arabia, said the attacks were carried out with Iranian weapons and it was capable of responding forcefully.

 

Saudi Arabia urged U.N. experts to help investigate the raid.

 

(Additional reporting by Asma Alsharif; Writing by Parisa Hafezi; Editing by Andrew Heavens, Robert Birsel)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-09-17

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[GalaxyMan]

And why shouldn't he? What's the point of wasting time talking to a serial, pathological liar who has no concept of honor such as keeping his word? You know that he's lying when you see his lips move... ????

[Rimmer]

Troll post removed

[Morch]

Similar hard talk by Iran in the past. At the end, there are always some sort of negotiations. I don't think the Iranian regime is feeling half as confident as pretended. No negotiations means sanctions continue to bite. Further breaches of the JCPOA would eventually lead to its collapse - which would spell nothing good for Iran.

 

IMO, it's more like a setup for a meeting/negotiations, while trying to save face and set the goal posts.

[Sujo]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

Similar hard talk by Iran in the past. At the end, there are always some sort of negotiations. I don't think the Iranian regime is feeling half as confident as pretended. No negotiations means sanctions continue to bite. Further breaches of the JCPOA would eventually lead to its collapse - which would spell nothing good for Iran.

 

IMO, it's more like a setup for a meeting/negotiations, while trying to save face and set the goal posts.

Well because you think it so means it is correct. 

 

Trump has stated that sanctions will not be lifted because of talks.

 

Trumps word on any agreements are also not worth the crayon they are written with.

 

As galaxy man said, trump is not worth talking to.

 

 

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

Well because you think it so means it is correct. 

 

Trump has stated that sanctions will not be lifted because of talks.

 

Trumps word on any agreements are also not worth the crayon they are written with.

 

As galaxy man said, trump is not worth talking to.

 

 

 

No, the parts which are my opinion are clearly stated in the post. Work on your trolling.

 

Trump says a lot of things. Often enough contradicting himself and others on his administration. Seems like you're having some trouble deciding between Trump words ought to  be taken seriously (2nd line of your post) or them being totally unreliable (3ed line of your post).

 

Trump "not worth talking to" is one thing, Iran not having a whole lot of great alternatives is another. It's not necessary that anything concrete or meaningful will come out of such talks.

[Bluespunk]

5 hours ago, webfact said:

If America changes its behaviour and returns to (Iran's 2015) nuclear deal, then it can join multilateral talks between Iran and other parties to the deal," Khamenei said.

 

Hate say it, but fair enough. 

[sammieuk1]

Don't need to talk just a couple of thumbs and the turbaned one could be good to go tweeting bound to work????

[Tug]

He won’t because it works to trumps advantage I’m sure that the art of the deal master negotiator will have to make concessions before they will talk nice spot you have put us in Donald tired of winning yet?

[Sujo]

25 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

No, the parts which are my opinion are clearly stated in the post. Work on your trolling.

 

Trump says a lot of things. Often enough contradicting himself and others on his administration. Seems like you're having some trouble deciding between Trump words ought to  be taken seriously (2nd line of your post) or them being totally unreliable (3ed line of your post).

 

Trump "not worth talking to" is one thing, Iran not having a whole lot of great alternatives is another. It's not necessary that anything concrete or meaningful will come out of such talks.

Ergo iran is best not to talk to him and wait it out until saner heads are in the whitehouse. Or in israel.

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, Tug said:

He won’t because it works to trumps advantage I’m sure that the art of the deal master negotiator will have to make concessions before they will talk nice spot you have put us in Donald tired of winning yet?

 

If there are to be talks/negotiations, there would be some compromising from both sides. And if Trump is indeed a bad negotiator, than outsmarting him in such talks shouldn't pose a problem - and would work to Iran's benefit.

[Chazar]

5 hours ago, GalaxyMan said:

And why shouldn't he? What's the point of wasting time talking to a serial, pathological liar who has no concept of honor such as keeping his word? You know that he's lying when you see his lips move... ????

Toss a  coin ,as  opposed to a  serious  religious  fruitcake and unelected at that.

[Morch]

21 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Ergo iran is best not to talk to him and wait it out until saner heads are in the whitehouse. Or in israel.

 

Ergo how? It's not like the ongoing state of things is in stasis.

 

Sanctions are taking their toll on Iran's economy. Ultimately it could effect both its regional power projection activities and the regime's stability/hold on power.

 

Iran's ongoing, relatively minor, breaches of the JCOPA will eventually either accumulate to a level where they can't be ignored, or that the list of possible minor breaches will run out and they'll move on to more serious stuff - same result. If the JCPOA is officially scrapped, then it's a different ball game. Theoretically, all the previous international sanctions are supposed to snap back into action. Even if Russia and China won't fully play along, sanctions will be tighter than they currently are. So there's a limit as to how far Iran can play this card.

 

Relying on Trump losing the elections is possible, but a gamble. If he wins, he'll be in a much stronger position and under less pressure to compromise. Plus there a lot of time until the elections - time that is not on Iran's side.

 

A new president may or may not make it a priority to deal with Iran on Iran's terms. And depending on prevailing conditions at the time, he may drive a hard bargain. Given that tidying up after Trump would involve so many issues, would Iran be the top choice? Doubt it.

 

The Israeli elections will be decided tonight (or tomorrow). Not sure how the timeline relates to your post.

 

It's kinda telling that you do not see any issues with the current Iranian leadership.

[Tug]

7 hours ago, Morch said:

 

If there are to be talks/negotiations, there would be some compromising from both sides. And if Trump is indeed a bad negotiator, than outsmarting him in such talks shouldn't pose a problem - and would work to Iran's benefit.

Everyone out smarts Donald the guy is unfit 

[Jack Mountain]

2 hours ago, Tug said:

Everyone out smarts Donald the guy is unfit 

Still thinking he's playing a game and fooling everybody till he has his hands free in his second term and really has the power to drain the swamp (Deep State).

[CaptRon2]

3 hours ago, Tug said:

Everyone out smarts Donald the guy is unfit 

Apparently no everyone out smarts President Trump, the Democrats are not in the The White House, so I guess just another truth challenged post from Tug. 

You claim he is unfit? How about some specific reasons with credible references to support your statement? 

[Morch]

3 hours ago, Tug said:

Everyone out smarts Donald the guy is unfit 

 

If it's easy to outsmart him, then sitting down for negotiations may yield a better result than continuing on the current trajectory.

[metisdead]

An off topic post which was totally irrelevant to the this topic has been removed as well as a reply. 

[Srikcir]

19 hours ago, webfact said:

Saudi Arabia urged U.N. experts to help investigate the raid.

No, you can't have it both ways!

September 2019:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-yemen-security-un-coalition/saudi-led-coalition-rejects-u-n-report-on-yemen-idUSKCN1VQ2F3

• A Saudi-led coalition fighting Yemen’s Iran-aligned Houthi movement on Thursday dismissed as subjective and biased a United Nations report that called for a ban on arms transfers to Yemen’s warring sides.
• The panel of U.N. investigators who wrote the report recommended that all states impose a ban on arms transfers to the combatants to prevent them from being used to commit serious violations.
• “The report was based on a number of inaccurate assumptions by the U.N. experts ... which stripped it of objectivity and impartiality,” said a statement published by the Saudi state news agency, SPA.

[The Theory]

3 hours ago, Jack Mountain said:

Still thinking he's playing a game and fooling everybody till he has his hands free in his second term and really has the power to drain the swamp (Deep State).

But it seems there was only one guy who had “balls” not paying any ransom to Iran’s regime. You perhaps expected another Obama ?!!! A dumb fool who sent billions of cash to Iran for helping another evil project to get Democrats, clown Macron or Angela loser Merkel satisfied. 

 

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, The Theory said:

But it seems there was only one guy who had “balls” not paying any ransom to Iran’s regime. You perhaps expected another Obama ?!!! A dumb fool who sent billions of cash to Iran for helping another evil project to get satisfied Democrats, Macron or Angela loser ?

 

So much "balls" that after Iran shot down the US drone, Trump thanked the Iranians for shooting it down instead of shooting down a plane with Americans in it. Nice piece of a** kissing that was.

[Sujo]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

If it's easy to outsmart him, then sitting down for negotiations may yield a better result than continuing on the current trajectory.

But he cannot keep a promise so no use. Just a waste of time. Just saying nothing outsmarts him.

[The Theory]

10 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

So much "balls" that after Iran shot down the US drone, Trump thanked the Iranians for shooting it down instead of shooting down a plane with Americans in it. Nice piece of a** kissing that was.

Perhaps you would be satisfied if trump pressed the war switch Aren’t you ? Then he would be a great president to you!!!! ????????????

Open your eyes to the big game of Middle East. You have no clue about it.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, The Theory said:

Perhaps you would be satisfied if trump pressed the war switch Aren’t you ? Then he would be a great president to you!!!! ????????????

So in order to avoid war it was necessary for Trump to thank the Iranians for not shooting down a plane with Americans in it? That's what prevented the onset of war? Just not pressing "the war switch" wouldn't have been enough? Really? 

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, Sujo said:

But he cannot keep a promise so no use. Just a waste of time. Just saying nothing outsmarts him.

 

Well, seems you just outsmarted him, then.

 

Your post seems to assume time is on Iran's side, I beg to differ - and this was expanded on in previous posts. So far, haven't seen much by way of coherent argument/support to the opposite.

 

It doesn't matter all that much whether there's a concrete, trustworthy outcome to talks. Think NK.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

 

Your post seems to assume time is on Iran's side, I beg to differ - and this was expanded on in previous posts. So far, haven't seen much by way of coherent argument/support to the opposite.

 

 

ANd you seem to assume that time is on Trump's side. There's an election coming up in the USA and I daresay the Iranians have some awareness of this.

[The Theory]

6 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

So in order to avoid war it was necessary for Trump to thank the Iranians for not shooting down a plane with Americans in it? That's what prevented the onset of war? Just not pressing "the war switch" wouldn't have been enough? Really? 

You know 

“You just hate Trump”. The rest of your knowledge Is by looking at what you read or see in the news and then conclusion is there. 

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, The Theory said:

You know 

“You just hate Trump”. The rest of your knowledge Is by looking at what you read or see in the news and then conclusion is there. 

It's a sure sign that someone's got nothing when he or she makes it personal. You've got nothing.

[The Theory]

10 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

There's an election coming up in the USA and I daresay the Iranians have some awareness of this.

Yes,

History always repeats. Just like what President Reagan did. Dealing with an evil regime to win the election in his own country. Presidents come and go, but who really does a great work for own people and country, not only for wealthy ones (not what they pretended, but what actually they did), that’s the question. 

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, The Theory said:

Yes,

History always repeats. Just like what President Reagan did. Dealing with an evil regime to win the election in his own country. Presidents come and go, but who really does a great work for own people and country, not only for wealthy ones (not what they pretended, but what actually they did), that’s the question. 

The year is 2018. Iran isn't the USSR. Most Americans haven't forgotten the Iraq War. Doubt there's a lot of enthusiasm for more military adventurism there. And didn't Trump campaign on disengaging from the Middle East? Did Reagan campaign on not confronting the USSR?