by Bay Fang
There was much talk surrounding the State Department's third-ranking diplomat, Bill Burns, attending nuclear talks with Iran Saturday in Geneva. But what, in the end, did all the speculation lead to? Not much, it seems.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack described the interaction thusly: "When his turn to speak arose, Ambassador Burns delivered a clear simple message: the United States is serious in its support for the package Mr. Solana conveyed in Tehran last month, the United States is serious in its support of P5+1 unity, and the United States with its P5+1 partners are serious that Iran must suspend uranium enrichment to have negotiations involving the United States... Ambassador Burns did not meet or speak with separately any member of the Iranian delegation."
In other words, despite the presence of the Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, nothing new was really said on either side. The six hour talks yesterday ended in stalemate, when Iran's top nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili said Iran would still not discuss freezing its uranium enrichment activities, which western countries fear are aimed at producing a nuclear bomb but Iran insists are for energy needs.
The US and its European partners are giving Tehran two weeks to come up with a concrete answer to the offer on the table - halt its nuclear activities or face tougher sanctions after talks ended in stalemate despite unprecedented U.S. participation.
Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said today on state radio that the talks constituted a "step ahead," and that his country's official assessment of the talks will soon be announced - though he did not give a precise date.
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
anyone hear what OB's reaction was to this?
He's flip flopped so many times I forget the last thing he said he would do ' uncoditional meetings' 'no unconditional meetings'. Can you imagine him in there overlooking the uranium issue and making pals with Iran, I wouldn't trust what Iran was doing on uranium with no one overseeing that issue.
Posted by: Teresa | July 20, 2008 3:39 PM
Here's a short list of McCain's most recent policy about-faces:
http://tinyuri.com/xole
Posted by: Cheryl | July 20, 2008 6:11 PM
Teresa, Obama has NOT flip flopped. Look through the quotes from a year ago to the quotes today. They are all eerily similar. Meanwhile, McCain and Bush have been slowly veering towards Obama's platform when it comes to foreign policy. The proof is in the pudding.
Posted by: Joe | July 21, 2008 1:03 AM
maybe I'm not explaining enough about what bothers me about OB. If anyone tries to pin him down on all these things he's flip flopped on (and it's pretty substantial), he refuses to acknowledge he's flip flopped. That is infuriating to have someone tell me I didn't just see a mess of flip flopping when I know I did.
I don't believe anyone who says that doesn't bother them in the least ha!
Posted by: Teresa | July 21, 2008 6:01 AM
Cheryl 6:11pm Can you name a time that the press asked McCain a question about a change he's had where he denied he changed his mind?
How does Obama explain his changes>I was misquoted....my view was inartfully....I never changed my stance on that...if you would just listen to what I'm saying.
Sorry I don't have enough room for it all. While it may not insult your intelligence, it does mine.
Posted by: Teresa | July 21, 2008 7:21 AM
Teresa: You don't have to rely on what Barack Obama has said, just go look at the quotes. They're consistent. Meanwhile McCain has clearly flipped on so many documented flips, it's ridiculous. Here are some documented ones.
http://www.alternet.org/election08/90956/?page=entire
PS, his initials are BO, not OB.
Posted by: Joe | July 21, 2008 9:17 AM
Joe-9:17am name a time McCain told someone in the press that all of us listening have been imagining a change in what he has supported!?
You have a candidate that does not give us all confidence in his ability to judge our intelligence.
Posted by: Teresa | July 21, 2008 11:49 AM