He’s still president until January even if he loses the election in November so what’s the hurry, but more to the point, what’s the reason? Being reported:
Senior Iranian parliamentary sources revealed on Saturday that the Swiss envoy to Tehran has quoted US President Barack Obama as acknowledging Iran’s nuclear rights.
Swiss Ambassador to Tehran Livia Leu Agosti attended a meeting with senior Iranian foreign ministry officials a few days ago to submit a letter from the US president to Tehran leaders.
Vice-Chairman of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission Hossein Ebrahimi told FNA that during the meeting, Agosti had told the Iranian officials that President Barack Obama recognizes Iran’s right of access and use of the nuclear technology.
‘There are a couple of points with regard to this (US) message (to Iran),’ Ebrahimi said and added, ‘Firstly, during the session to submit the message, the Swiss ambassador to Tehran quoted the US president as saying that “we (the US) recognize your nuclear rights”.’
As regards the second issue, the lawmaker said that the Swiss diplomat had also quoted Obama as saying that ‘I didn’t want to impose sanctions on your central bank but I had no options but to approve it since a Congress majority had approved the decision.’
Also from Drudge: “Chavez, Castro, Putin endorse Obama…“.
The foreign policy debate tomorrow – SBS at noon – should be extraordinary.
The right to “wipe Israel off the face of the earth” needing no mention, of course.
Rabz
22 Oct 12 at 12:40 pm
Given that Switzerland is within the range of Iran’s missiles, I suppose that the minaret ban will soon be removed.
old bloke
22 Oct 12 at 1:45 pm
Alternatively, it is not true.
AJ
22 Oct 12 at 1:47 pm
Sounds like bullshit to me. Even the poodle chewer wouldn’t be that stupid.
Infidel Tiger
22 Oct 12 at 2:22 pm
Agree, IT. Why would he make the commitment before the election, and why would the Iranian hierarchy broadcast something they must surely know would aid Romney.
I wonder if it isn’t being put about as a trap for Romney tomorrow – get him to say something and then reveal that he has overstepped on a rumour. To the extent that Iranian nuclear ambitions would be likely on the radar (as Libya was), Bambi’s kids would need to concoct an out for him to vitiate any advantage of facts that Romney pursue.
Aqualung
22 Oct 12 at 2:42 pm
To acknowledge that they signed the NPT and have the right to peaceful nuclear activities. Gee how scarey. Aren’t we also a signatory?
kelly liddle
22 Oct 12 at 2:47 pm
Yes but we don’t jump up and every five minutes declaring Israel must be destroyed.
Gab
22 Oct 12 at 2:49 pm
Rights are for humans not nations.
TerjeP
22 Oct 12 at 2:54 pm
Well that is a different issue. The only major issue in the post is should it be recognised that Iran has signed the NPT and has the right to peaceful nuclear activities. The other issue which is a non issue without proof is whether or not Obama agrees with the sanctions. A full non tampered voice recording would be suffice.
kelly liddle
22 Oct 12 at 3:09 pm
Rights are illusory. There is only privilege and responsibility.
Driftforge
22 Oct 12 at 3:16 pm
Obama doesn’t get to do things like that by himself. All international treaties must be ratified by Congress as does breaking them.
Suspect this is nothing more than a classic Obama campaign ‘test the winds’ operation at best. Leak something, see if it plays, then either claim it and double down or drop it. An incredibly poorly chosen one, but that’s what desperation smells like.
But hey, Chavez, Castro and Putin have endorsed him…..
Zatara
22 Oct 12 at 3:18 pm
[...] This came in over the e-mail transom from a post on Australia’s leading libertarian and centre-right blog. Sent by a regular reader of this blog. Obama recognises Iran’s “nuclear rights” [...]
If True Should Add Some Fire to the 3rd Debate « Is it 2012 in Nevada County Yet?
22 Oct 12 at 3:33 pm
Release of the Khalidi tape, which the LA Times has kept under wraps to protect Obama for years, would be most fascinating now.
What does Obama really think of Israel’s right to exist?
He gives the odd not so subtle clues sometimes, such shafting Netanyahu repeatedly and playing games with recognition of Jerusalem as its capital, but I’m guessing that video of his address at the Khalidi function would blow the lid off the truth.
Ant
22 Oct 12 at 3:49 pm
The Khalidi tape along with Obama’s university transcripts have been sealed in a vault six miles underground beneath Area 51.
Gab
22 Oct 12 at 3:56 pm
“What does Obama really think of Israel’s right to exist? He gives the odd not so subtle clues sometimes”
Why do you need subtle clues? Try listening to what he says, or look at what he’s done:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2012/03/04/president-obama-2012-aipac-policy-conference#transcript
Jarrah
22 Oct 12 at 4:01 pm
Well I’m convinced now!
Gab
22 Oct 12 at 4:03 pm
At the link is Bret Baier’s detailed review of the timeline of events in Benghazi, including the time before the attack on 9/11.
It details repeated attacks on the Benghazi compound.
It is shocking to note the State Department did not keep on the Ex-Marine who was in charge of security in Benghazi.
Lt Col Wood was pulled out in August, AFTER he lead a team investigating the attepted assassination of the UK ambassador.
Talk about a clusterf**k.
Token
22 Oct 12 at 4:16 pm
“Yes but we don’t jump up and every five minutes declaring Israel must be destroyed.”
We have the word of a Mossad linked translation service assuring us that’s what he said, truly, would we lie (again) to you?
pb
22 Oct 12 at 4:21 pm
They were crystal clear at the DNC convention.
Token
22 Oct 12 at 4:22 pm
This is straight out of Python. Destroying whole nations is bad, but we must recognise their ‘right’ to do so. It’s the same with Obama lamenting why he can’t be referred to by his middle name whilst Romney can, without actually thinking about why this is the case.
Nic
22 Oct 12 at 4:25 pm
Why is it he receives no condemnation for blabbering on about his god but Abbott, a Catholic, is vilified for his faith? Anyways…
Gab
22 Oct 12 at 4:52 pm
Bit slow there, eh kelly.
Anyone enriching uranium above 20 % doesn’t need it for power generation but for some other purpose.
What could that be? Ok, I give up, it’s a brainteaser alright, the Israeli’s will never catch on.
Alfonso
22 Oct 12 at 4:57 pm
I’m sure the Israelis don’t think so.
Forester
22 Oct 12 at 5:20 pm
Kelly would not know what “enrichment” means, Alfonso.
Every country has them – loud collaborators, seeing an opportunity to curry friends that decent society has wisely not provided, while they hope they will attract enough attention to be spared should evil triumph.
Useful idiots, as one of the evil described them.
James of the Glens
22 Oct 12 at 6:51 pm
Rex
You fucking moron. There’s no problem in recognizing iran’s right to nuclear. Every nation currently has that right.
The problem with Iran is its continual refusal to sign the non-proliferation treaty and allow inspections of its operations which the regime continues to spin that it’s for peaceful purposes.
JC
22 Oct 12 at 6:59 pm
So an Iranian expert is Rex, beaudy.
I crave in-country Iranian info, having misspoke a little meself…..
5% is the general power enrichment requirement…..20% is what, Rexoid? Don’t be shy.
Alfonso
22 Oct 12 at 7:03 pm
Iran of course is not being treated by the same standards as say Israel for a very good reason…. Pure power politics.
The West doesn’t fear an Israeli nuke hitting the Eiffel tower or Congress. It does fear iran’s intentions and proliferation concerns.
JC
22 Oct 12 at 7:04 pm
Because , knowing the Kenyan there is a we’ll founded fear that he would go easy on the treaty and inspection angle in the same way the Clinton administration went easy with NK and ended up being suckered in.
JC
22 Oct 12 at 7:08 pm
Come on Rexy don’t be shy…..why the 20% Iranian enrichment operation for “electricity generation”…..:-) ?
Alfonso
22 Oct 12 at 7:20 pm
Bwaaa…..and not related at all….
You are officially laughed off Cat.
Why do the iranians do weapons grade enrichment while proclaiming energy generation only?
Please, tell me again.
You forget why, don’t you, Islamodickhead?
Alfonso
22 Oct 12 at 7:55 pm
JC Are you becoming senile? Are you getting Iran confused with one of the other I countries like Israel or India.
kelly liddle
22 Oct 12 at 9:21 pm
“20% is what”
They pretend they don’t want nuclear weapons, but that’s ludicrous. Of course they want nukes. They look at the different ways Iraq and North Korea fared, and they realise that when the US is your enemy, only having weapons of mass distraction will keep them at bay.
Jarrah
22 Oct 12 at 9:44 pm
Strange how North Korea uses their nuclear program to shake down their neighbours.
Theory blown.
Token
22 Oct 12 at 9:53 pm
“Strange how North Korea uses their nuclear program to shake down their neighbours.”
Why strange?
“Theory blown.”
What? It confirms the theory – North Korea knows they won’t be invaded, so they push for whatever concessions they can get. Why won’t they be invaded? Nukes. Hence Iran’s frantic enrichment program.
Jarrah
22 Oct 12 at 10:05 pm
Rights and responsibilities go together. If Obama truly believes that Iran is merely exercising its “right” to peaceful nuclear energy generation, then he should insist that Iran lives up to its responsibilities as a signatory to the Non-proliferation treaty. Preventing inspection teams from visiting all their nuclear facilities puts up a big red flag. Given the huge gulf between Iran’s rhetoric and actual practice, the Chosen One only demonstrates his naivete in International relations. Putin will eat him for breakfast.
Cold-Hands
22 Oct 12 at 10:16 pm
Because there wouldn’t be a story to be commented on to begin with if that’s all he said or meant.
See my above comment about ‘testing the winds’.
Zatara
22 Oct 12 at 10:58 pm
The most recent assesment by the IAEA so far as I can tell.
Number 54 seems to be the biggest issue. It is not an issue of there being no inspections but that the inspections are not complete to the standard the IAEA would like. If I am a useful idiot for only accepting the word of the IAEA no more and no less then so be it.
kelly liddle
23 Oct 12 at 2:59 am