Despite the official line that it won’t make any difference who wins the
U.S. presidency (after all, they say, America is totally under the thumb
of "Zionists"), Iranians are watching the U.S. elections closely and
rooting for a victory by the Illinois senator, who has said he's willing
to agree to unconditional talks with Iran.
"I should say, he is a phenomenon, based on what he has said so far,"
Sadegh Kharazzi, a former Iranian diplomat squarely in the reformist
camp now out of power, said. "Unless he is drawn into traditional
Democratic Party ways, his election as a president will be welcomed in
Iran."
Wrote the conservative daily Hamshahri on May 7:
Obama has adopted the friendliest strategies regarding Iran, because he
believes that America should change its policy in dealing with Tehran,
while other candidates have more hostile policies.
A "New" Relationship
Obama offers a
policy of dialogue and accommodation to Iran. He has opposed listing
Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization and
proposed a grand bargain with Syria's rulers. He is even prepared
to ignore two UN Security Council resolutions that require Iran to stop
its uranium-enrichment program as a precondition for talks at the
highest level. He has campaigned for a formal congressional move
to prevent Bush from taking any military action against Tehran.
In an important symbolic move designed to signal an end of the special
relationship between Israel and America, Obama has become the first
major presidential candidate in 25 years not to commit himself to
transferring the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
Last but not least, Obama has promised to withdraw from Iraq in his
first year in office -- meeting a key demand of all radical Islamist
forces, Sunni and Shiite.
The message is clear: Obama wants a new relationship with radical forces
in the Islamic world while distancing America from its traditional
regional allies. In other words, he proposes to reverse policies
that have taken shape over more than six decades under 12 successive
American presidents.
Obama, The Spinning Dervish
Old Spin:
In a Democratic presidential debate last summer, Obama was asked if he'd
meet the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea
without precondition and during his first year in office.
Since then he has frequently reiterated his belief that no preconditions
should be set.
"When you say preconditions, what you're really saying is, 'I'm not
going to talk to you until you agree to do exactly what I want you to
do,'" Obama said. "Well, that's not how negotiations take place."
New Spin:
Obama objected on CNN this week to "this obsession with Ahmadinejad" and
explained guardedly: "I would be willing to meet with Iranian leaders if
we had done sufficient preparations for that meeting.
"Whether Ahmadinejad is the right person to meet with right now, we
don't even know how much power he is going to have a year from now,"
Obama added. "He is not the most powerful person in Iran."
He said he would expect "to meet with those people who can actually make
decisions" in Iran on its nuclear program, its aid to terrorists and
destabilization in Iraq.
He did not explain how he would get around Iran's president to other
people of influence.
Obama Channels Chamberlain
Barry Rubin,
writing for the Global Research in Information Center website,
comments on this statement by Obama:
"Iran, they spend one one-hundredth of what we spend on the military.
I mean if Iran tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand
a chance. And, we should use that position of strength that we
have to be bold enough to go ahead and listen. That doesn't mean
we agree with them on everything. That doesn't, we might not
compromise with them on any issues. But, at least we should find
out, are there areas of potential common interest and we can reduce some
of the tension that have caused us so many problems around the world."
One cannot pretend away the implications of this paragraph. Let's
list them:
1. Obama doesn't understand that Iran follows strategies designed
to circumvent that problem of unequal power, including terrorism,
guerrilla war, deniable attacks, long wars of attrition, the use of
surrogates, and so on.
2. The only way Obama sees the U. S. of using its "position of
strength" is to listen to their grievances, as if we are not familiar
with them. In short, the only thing you can do when you are
stronger is to get weaker. Presumably the same applies when you
are the weaker party.
3. Why is Obama so totally unaware that dialogue has been tried?
A decade with the PLO, longer with Hezbollah by other Lebanese, four
straight years of European engagement with Tehran over the nuclear
issue, multiple U.S. delegations to talk with the Syrians, and so on.
Was nothing learned from this experience?
4. And what happens afterward, if Obama's dialogue doesn't work?
What cards would he have left? What readiness to try another
course? Perhaps by then the Iranians will have nuclear weapons and
other gains negating that "position of strength" so fecklessly frittered
away.
5. What possible issues can the United States find to compromise
with Iran? Let's say: give them Lebanon (oh, we already did that);
ignore their sponsorship of terrorism; give them Iraq; give them Israel;
withdraw U.S. forces from the region, accept their having nuclear arms.
What?
6. Why should the United States be able to reduce tensions through
negotiations when Iran wants tensions? There is an important hint
here: if the United States makes concessions, it might buy off tensions.
Since Iran and the others know about Obama's all-carrots-no-sticks
worldview, they will make him pay a lot to get the illusion of peace and
quiet.
7. There is no hint, not the slightest, of his understanding the
option of using power to intimidate or defeat Iran, or as a way to
muster allies. If Obama had the most minimal comprehension of
these issues, he would fake it with some blah-blah about how America
would combine toughness with flexibility, deterrence with compromise,
steadfastness in order to gain more from the other side in negotiations.
A critical element in peace-keeping, peace-making, and negotiations is
to act tough and be strong in order to have leverage. Even in
responding to criticisms, Obama has only talked about whether
negotiations are conditional or unconditional and at what level they
should be conducted. He is oblivious to the fact that the chief
executive does things other than negotiations.
If this is Obama's strategy while Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons what
would he do in dealing with a Tehran owning them?
Make no mistake, Obama is channeling Neville Chamberlain -- precisely
because what he says shows his parallel thinking. Many people may
get a chill listening to Obama but it certainly isn't a Churchill.
Apologists, sympathizers, and wishful-thinkers keep endowing this
would-be emperor with beautiful suits of clothes. He doesn't have
any.
Similar Goals
One of Iran’s top foreign policy
goals is a precipitous U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.
One of Obama’s top foreign policy goals is a precipitous U.S. withdrawal
from Iraq.
Why should Iran or other rogue states alter their behavior if Obama
gives them what they want, without preconditions?
Baksheesh -- Arabic For Bribe
Obama
said on Sunday, January 11th, that he will take a new approach
toward Iran that will emphasize respect for the Iranian people and spell
out what the United States expects of its leaders.
"We are going
to have to take a new approach. And I've outlined my belief that
engagement is the place to start," he said.
"We are in
preparations for that. We anticipate that we're going to have to
move swiftly in that area," Obama said.
Obama has said he was
prepared to offer Iran economic incentives to stop its
nuclear program but he also has said tougher sanctions could be imposed
if it refused.
Obama's "new
approach" is nothing more than a plan to pay baksheesh
to Ahmadenejhad, who will grin, take the money and continue to build his
nukes.
Does any rational person really believe that Ahmadenejhad
will end his quest -- for any reason?
Obama Resigned To
Nuclear Iran
The
Jerusalem Post is reporting that former US ambassador to the UN John
Bolton expressed concern Sunday that Washington was coming to terms with
a nuclear Iran.
"I very much worry the Obama administration is
willing to accept a nuclear Iran, that's why there's this extraordinary
pressure on Israel not to attack in Iran," Bolton told Army Radio.
The former envoy claimed that this pressure was the focus of last
week's meetings in Washington between Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyhau,
and US officials, including Barack Obama.
Bolton said that the
Obama administration had embraced the view, prevalent in Europe, that
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was the key to the resolution of all
other conflicts throughout the Middle East, including the Iranian
conflict.
He added that the rift in US-Israel relations stemmed
from a fundamental difference in the understanding of the Middle East,
and Israel's role in the Middle East, and is not really about east
Jerusalem at all.
Bolton said that the treatment Netanyahu
received during his visit "should tell the people of Israel how
difficult it's going to be dealing with Washington for the next couple
of years."
Obama Adviser Valerie
Jarrett: "Iran Will Back Down"
There. Don't You Feel Better Now? (01:45)
If this woman really believes that, "Iran Will Back Down," she is clearly
delusional or lying her tuchus off.
And her reference to the disarmament treaty with
the Russians is bizarre. The
new deal, which Obama hopes to wrap up
with the Kremlin by December, creates a far more level playing field
for the Russians, whose strategic conventional weapons capability is
greatly outclassed by that of the Americans, and whose deteriorating
nuclear weapons stockpile is aging and in decline. The whole
agreement makes no sense, and is little more than a vanity exercise
for Barack Obama who has ludicrously pledged to carve out a
nuclear-free world.
Bowing To Tehran
Ben Stein
says
there are words for national leaders who attempt to appease their
enemies while at the same time shaming and humiliating their friends.
One of the kindest of the words is "naive."
This comes to mind
because of Obama's recent overtures to the terrorist state of Iran,
while shaming Israel.
In recent months and days, Obama has, once
again, reached out a supplicating hand to The Islamic Republic of Iran,
only to be met by mockery, sarcasm, and rebuff. He has also agreed
to only the most modest of sanctions against the Tehran regime to induce
it to abandon its nuclear weapons program -- a program which Tehran's
Ahmadinejad has said he will not abandon no matter what the rest of the
world does.
These love notes go out to a nation that has
brutally repressed its own people, is training our vicious Taliban
enemies in Afghanistan, has long been aiding factions killing Americans
in Iraq…the same nation that killed 244 American Marines and other
fighting men in the Beirut bombing of 1983 and seized the U.S. Embassy
and kept our Foreign Service personnel hostage there for over 400 days.
These roses are going out to a nation which has shown absolutely
zero interest in making peace with the United States.
At the
same time, Obama has done all he could to humiliate Benjamin Netanyahu,
Premier of Israel, because Israel wants to build 1600 apartments for its
citizens in Jerusalem. This is in Jerusalem, Israel's capital.
Not a settlement. The capital of a sovereign state.
The
humiliation included personal insults and slights to Mr. Netanyahu, who
had flown to Washington to plead with Obama to understand why Israel is
doing what it's doing. Just by the way, I do not see Ahmadinejad
flying to D.C. to speak to Obama at all. In a nutshell, Barack
Obama is more concerned about Jews building homes in Jerusalem than
about Iran building a nuclear weapon. This is almost unbelievable.
I guess the idea is that if the U.S. treats Israel badly, the
Moslems and Arabs will like the U.S. better. Why don't we tell
that to the Russians, who were Israel's sworn foe and against whom the
Moslems fought desperately in Afghanistan -- with our help. Is
Israel the reason Sunnis and Shiites kill each other in Iraq by drilling
holes into each other with electric drills? Does Obama really
believe that making Israel give up building on a few acres in Jerusalem
will change the mood of a terrorist state pledged to annihilate all of
Israel -- and to do whatever it can to bring down "the Great Satan…"
The United States of America?
Western nations have tried bowing
down to aggressive dictatorships before. It was called appeasement
in the 1930s and it led to World War II. There is absolutely no
sign it will work any better this time. Dictators do not respect
weakness. Israel knows it. Obama doesn't, but let's hope he
will learn.
The Empty Suit Strategy
Bluegrass Pundit blog
says that in order to appease the Russians, Obama has
pulled the missile shield for Eastern Europe, signed a START II
nuclear armament reduction agreement and
pledged to not use nuclear weapons, even in defense against a
chemical or biological attack. In return, Obama wants help from
Russia to contain Iran's nuclear weapons ambition. Obama wants
Russia to cooperate with the US and Western Europe by imposing stiff
sanctions against Iran. How is that working out? Paul
Mirengoff at
Power
Line Blog explains how President Obama's strategy is failing.
Obama's "reset" of relations with Russia
does not appear to have translated into Russian support for strong
sanctions against Iran. According to the Washington Post, Russian President Medvedev has
told Obama that there are limits to his country's support for
sanctions.
What are those limits? According to the
Post, sanctions must not create economic hardship for Iran, foment
financial chaos, or lead to regime change. In other words,
sanctions must not produce any result that might conceivably cause
the Iranian regime to give up its quest for nuclear weapons.
But even Russian approval for watered-down sanctions would not mean
the imposition of such sanctions. China, which like Russia is
a member of the Security Council, must also give its approval.
And China reportedly is even less enthusiastic about sanctions than
Russia.
Even if Russia and
China would cooperate fully, which they won't, no amount of sanctions
will deter rogue nations like Iran from pursuing their nuclear weapons
ambition. We have nothing to offer them that is more valuable to
them than a nuclear arsenal. Once they have nuclear weapons and
long range delivery systems, they can extract almost anything they want
from their neighbors and the West by using threats, fear and nuclear
brinkmanship. The only thing that could possibly deter Iran from
continuing down the road to developing nuclear weapons would be the
certain knowledge of a devastating military attack if they don't desist.
Based on Obama's current strategic and foreign policy stance, there is
little chance of this occurring. The Iranians have no fear of an
"empty suit" like Obama.
Who Is Playing Whom?
Paul Mirengoff
says
Obama's "reset" of relations with Russia does not appear to have
translated into Russian support for strong sanctions against Iran.
According to the Washington Post, Russian President Medvedev has told
Obama that there are limits to his country's support for sanctions.
What are those limits? According to the Post, sanctions must
not create economic hardship for Iran, foment financial chaos, or lead
to regime change. In other words, sanctions must not produce any
result that might conceivably cause the Iranian regime to give up its
quest for nuclear weapons.
But even Russian approval for
watered-down sanctions would not mean the imposition of such sanctions.
China, which like Russia is a member of the Security Council, must also
give its approval. And China reportedly is even less enthusiastic
about sanctions than Russia.
One gets the impression that Russia
and China are playing Obama. But this assumes that Obama cares
about obtaining harsh sanctions against Iran, as opposed to gaining
half-hearted measures he can point to as a diplomatic accomplishment.
I don't assume this. Instead, I suspect that Russia, China, and
Obama are playing Israel and the rest of us who fear a nuclear Iran.
John Hinderaker adds: A skeptic might almost say that Obama's
"reset" consists of bringing our foreign policy goals more in line with
Russia's.
Iran To Go Nuclear Within The Month
The Jerusalem Post
says an Iranian energy official warns no country will contemplate
strike on Teheran.
Iran will join the global nuclear club within
one month, according to the deputy research chief of the Islamic
republic’s Atomic Energy of Iran (AEOI).
Behzad Soltani, who also
serves as the secretary-general of the AEOI’s Scientific Cooperation
Council, was quoted as saying that "no country would ever think about
attacking Iran," once the nuclear threshold has been crossed.
"We
do not intend to use the peaceful nuclear energy merely for generating
electricity and energy, rather our next step would be expanding use of
this technology," Soltani reportedly said. Radiation, he said, can
ensure that "foodstuff, proteins and vegetables are preserved for a
longer time and with a higher quality."
Soltani added that
construction work on a large-scale nuclear power plant, and a smaller
research reactor in the Iranian city of Arak is nearing completion and
is now at 70 percent.
The technology, he said, would enable Iran
to improve its political, economic and technological standing.
"Iran's mighty nuclear independence [will] intermingle with economic
growth, expansion of technology and political power in the international
arena," Soltani suggested.
In the shadow of the Obama's latest
dog and pony show, the nuclear conference in Washington, Iran expressed
uncertainty earlier Tuesday over the possibility that China would back
new sanctions against it.
The West fears Iran's nuclear program
masks ambitions to obtain a nuclear weapon, a claim Teheran denies.
The Obama Leadership Vacuum
Thomas Lifson says Barack Obama's level of
detachment from his duties has come to the point where even his cabinet
secretaries quietly are letting it be known that he has defaulted on his
leadership responsibilities. Congress was delighted to step into
the breach and write health care reform, but when it comes to the
executive branch, leadership must come from the top.
The most
pressing issue for national security (Obama's top responsibility) is
Iran's drive to acquire nuclear weapons (and use them to "wipe Israel
from the map"), quite possibly triggering Armageddon, as nuclear-armed
Israel will not go quietly. Nuclear war in the Middle East would
change the course of civilization, something even Israel-haters would
find highly disagreeable.
Yet according to the New York Times,
the Secretary of Defense
"has warned in a secret three-page
memorandum to top White House officials that the United States does
not have an effective long-range policy for dealing with Iran's
steady progress toward nuclear capability, according to government
officials familiar with the document."
This is a shocking admission. Yet it is not
the only instance of a cabinet secretary stepping into the breach where
Obama has left a leadership void.
Obama On The Spot After Tepid UN Sanctions
On Iran
Leo Rennert says the U.N. Security Council, by
a 12 to 2 vote, approved a new set of sanctions on Iran that fall short
of U.S. and Israeli expectations. After all, it wasn't only so
long ago that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pledged to mobilize the
international community behind "crippling" sanctions that might prevent
Iran from becoming a nuclear power. The new UN sanctions fall
short of "crippling" by a country mile. For example, they shy away
from an embargo on Iran gasoline imports that might have made Iran's
leaders think twice. Even so, the administration couldn't even get
Turkey and Brazil to abstain -- two countries Obama has courted
assiduously. Instead, they openly broke with Washington and voted
"no."
So where do we go from here?
After nearly a year
and a half of Obama's diplomacy, the U.S. has exhausted the
possibilities it could expect from the UN in trying to halt Iran's drive
to join the nuclear club. Russia and China -- wielding veto power
-- won't allow stronger action against Iran. And while Obama gave
it his all in pursuing only the UN track over these long months, Iran
gained precious time to enrich uranium to higher levels. Even the
UN's nuclear watchdog now acknowledges that Iran already has sufficient
nuclear fuel for two bombs.
There has been talk that the
administration -- after exhausting the UN channel -- will now move to
assemble a "coalition of the willing" with perhaps Canada and the
European Union to come up with tougher, meaningful sanctions. The
EU, according to some reports, also has been waiting to move in that
direction once the UN proved itself unable to rise to the task.
This would seem Obama's only remaining option, while the clock ticks
inexorably toward Iran joining North Korea as a rogue state with
nuclear-weapon arsenals and a capacity to share such weapons with
non-state, terrorist groups.
The hour is late, perhaps too late.
Iran will not be shaken by the Security Council's timid performance.
Obama has consumed precious time -- and failed to get anything
meaningful form the UN. So what does he do now?
Iran’s Bomb
Matt Gurney
says that
if the newest round of sanctions levied against Iran by the
international community doesn’t stop Iran’s march towards a nuclear
weapon, what will? That answer to that question, whatever it may
be, will fundamentally shift the balance of power in the Middle East.
There is no good solution to dilemma of the Iranian bomb, and as time
goes on and the bomb comes nearer to reality, the options will only get
worse. Nonetheless, a decision must be made. Is the Obama
administration up to the task?
In a recent New York Times
analysis, veteran journalist David Sanger suggests not. The
administration has plans, to be sure -- diplomatic pressure, military
deterrence, backroom negotiations, continued economic measures,
intelligence operations, etc. -- but as Sanger depressingly notes, the
administration’s own officials grant that even combined, all these steps
will work out to be "not enough." If resolutely applied, they may slow
Iran’s progress towards a nuclear weapon, but that’s all. If
things continue down their current path, an Iranian nuclear bomb is
guaranteed.
After all, the history of the regime has shown that
international pressure does little to impress the Tehran theocracy.
After the UN Security Council handed the latest round of sanctions down
two weeks ago, Iran indeed spun the situation to its advantage, using
the unified front being presented by the world’s great powers to rally
support for the regime inside Iran. "We have always used this
unity option with a solid heart against any attack," prominent Iranian
cleric Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani told reporters. "I believe we have
to preserve this unity, even if it has been slightly tarnished."
In other words, the regime is portraying itself as the hero, standing up
to foreign pressure. It’s an old game, but a useful one.
Even as the regime makes good use of this latest series of sanctions,
adopted for their mutual agreeability to all the veto-wielding members
of the Security Council rather than their ability to punish Iran, Obama
is working to weaken sanctions proposed by Congress, including his own
party. The new sanctions, targeting Iran’s energy sector, are
reportedly deemed by the administration to be too strong, running the
risk of provoking a backlash from European allies, as well as the
Russians and Chinese. (Concerns over a European backlash seem
unlikely, given that the European Union is also discussing a new round
of sanctions, likewise aimed at Iran’s petroleum revenues, upon which
the regime is totally dependent for survival.)
Why Obama would
seek to weaken sanctions that even the dovish Europeans are considering
is difficult to fathom, particularly since these would not be
international sanctions, but limited to American companies and
individuals. Perhaps it’s yet another attempt to demonstrate
America’s goodwill to a regime that continues to oppress its own
citizens, export terror and seeks to destabilize the Western world’s
only reliable outpost in the region. Whatever the aim, it will not
succeed. Not sanctioning Iran didn’t work, but Obama’s advisors
agree that sanctioning it won’t work, either … what else can be done?
Indeed, Sanger’s piece lays out the grim proof that sanctions do not
work. Sanctions, and the threat of them, did not stop India and
Pakistan from developing and testing their nuclear weapons. North
Korea utterly destroyed its own national economy in the pursuit of
nuclear weapons even in the face of devastating international sanctions
(far worse than have been levied against Iran), and the end result was a
starving populace in a nuclear-armed state. Years of sanctions did
little to bring Saddam to heel, only outright conquest of his country
was able to dislodge him and his loyalists from Iraq’s numerous palaces.
Iran has already accepted that it will face sanctions if it continues to
pursue a bomb, and has planned accordingly. The regime has been
crystal clear in their priorities -- they value a nuclear arsenal more
than Obama’s friendship or free trade with the international community.
Short of vaporizing Tel Aviv, they can’t get much clearer. Why
can’t the White House accept what is plain?
Perhaps because the
administration is privately aware that they have no idea how to respond
to the inevitable, and therefore seek to postpone it as long as
possible. One White House official told Sanger that asking what
America will do to stop Iran’s construction of a bomb is "not the kind
of question you win many points asking." Other suggest that the
White House has not yet, even at this late date, truly determined how
far it will let Iran go, and what steps it’s willing to take to hold
them back from that point of no return. That the White House might
not have yet made this fundamental determination is nothing less than
horrifying. Every other option, every possible contingency
scenario, hinges upon knowing how far one is willing to go. Until
you know what, you are helpless. Iran knows this, and continues to
build its bombs accordingly.
But not every country is as content
to wait for Iran to embrace the ways of peace. Last week, the
London Times reported that, afraid of what an Iranian bomb would mean
for the Arab world, that Saudi Arabia had quietly consented to Israel
flying through its airspace as part of any attack on Iran. Saudi
Arabia quickly denied the report, of course, but it does point to a
bleak truth -- neither Israel nor the Arab states want to see Iran
develop a bomb. And if the United States won’t take serious action
to stop them, someone else -- alone or in cooperation with their
neighbors -- might decide to do it themselves.
Would Obama Use Force?
Steven Simon and Ray Takeyh ask, if Iran came
close to getting a nuclear weapon, would Obama use force?
Imagine
a moment when Obama has only two alternatives: prepare to live with a
nuclear-armed Iran or embark on the perilous path of military action to
stop it.
Imagine that diplomacy has run its course, after
prolonged and inconclusive negotiations; that surging international oil
prices have undercut the power of economic sanctions against Tehran; and
that reliable intelligence says the Islamic republic's weapons program
is very close to reaching its goal.
Facing such conditions,
would Obama use force against Iran?
Former CIA chief Michael
Hayden believes such a move would be necessary, recently telling CNN
that a U.S. military strike against Iranian facilities "seems
inexorable" because diplomacy is failing. "We engage. They
continue to move forward," Hayden warned. "We vote for sanctions.
They continue to move forward. We try to deter, to dissuade.
They continue to move forward."
Obama has also emphasized
Tehran's own actions as the determining factor in a U.S. response.
"We offered the Iranian government a clear choice," he said on July 1,
when he signed the Iran Sanctions Act. "It could fulfill its
international obligations and realize greater security, deeper economic
and political integration with the world . . . or it could continue to
flout its responsibilities and face even more pressure and isolation."
And a few days later, Obama stressed in an interview with
Israeli television that although his administration will "continue to
keep the door open for a diplomatic resolution . . . I assure you that I
have not taken options off the table."
As a practical matter,
however, Obama's decision on the use of force would hinge on factors
well beyond Iran's timetable for obtaining a bomb. In fact, the
political, military and policy constraints Obama would face could compel
his administration to forgo the military option no matter how close Iran
gets to joining the nuclear club.
The AP is
reporting that Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says he's ready
to meet "face-to-face" with Obama in a public debate over their
countries' disputes.
The Iranian leader says he plans to visit
New York for the next U.N. General assembly in September, as he has
several times since coming to power in 2005.
In a speech Monday,
Ahmadinejad says that during his trip to the U.S. he's ready to meet
Obama "face to face and before media to put the world's issues on the
table."
Ahmadinejad has repeatedly proposed televised debates
with American presidents over the past years, an offer dismissed by
Washington. The U.S. accuses Tehran of seeking to build a nuclear
weapon, a claim Iran denies.
