Iran Refuses to Meet US Without Preconditions

  • Bookmark and Share

Mehdi Kalhor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's media consultant and Iran's Vice President of media affairs announced on Saturday that Iran is setting two preconditions before it will engage in any talks with the United States. (h/t Wizbang).

The announcement was made in an interview with the Islamic Republic News Agency and has been reported independently by both the Fars News Agency and Al Jezeera. Strangely though there does not appear to be any mention in the US media according to a Google search. (all emphasis mine throughout)

Vice President for Media Affairs Mehdi Kalhor said on Saturday that Iran has set two preconditions for holding talks with the United States of America.

In an exclusive interview with the Islamic Republic News Agency, he said as long as U.S. forces have not left the Middle East region and continues its support for the Zionist regime, talks between Iran and U.S. is off the agenda.

Al Jazeera confirmed the report and added the following:

On Saturday, Kalhor said Tehran would accept 'repentance' on behalf of the US government toward the Iranian people.

"Negotiations would be rational if the US moves out of the Middle East and the US government gives up its widespread support for the Zionist regime," he said.

The discussion on meeting Iran without preconditions has been a hot button item for both campaigns. Seeing how the mainstream media has tried to spin and defend the Obama strategy of meeting Iran without preconditions I wonder if they will follow up with either campaign on this latest news?

Terry Trippany is the publisher of Webloggin and holds the post as The Watcher at Watcher of Weasels.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Nuclear Extortion

It's real simple, it's a race for the bomb. 

Can Iran be prevented from gaining nuclear weapons, one way or another? Or will Iran be allowed to build nuclear weapons?

I believe it will be the former. For the simple fact that Israel cannot allow it to happen. Because if it is the latter, then Israel faces certain annihilation as a country, in even a limited nuclear exchange. For a people that have already suffered one Holocaust, they will stop at nothing to prevent another.  

 

 

If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love youBut if you really make them think, they'll hate you.

Don Marquis 1878-1937

History repeating

History repeating itself...before our eyes. Obama or McCain will have to deal with this...like it or not.

Drill ANWAR

Sooner than that

This may pop off sooner than that Agent. If Barry win's and the Israeli's feel that he won't back a play once he takes the oath, then they may feel that they gotta go while W's in the White House. If that happens then Barry will have to deal with the aftermath, but as crazy as this sounds I heard one of the liberal talking heads saying Barry may be a hard boy when faced with Iran. What that mean's is to prove how tough he is, he will take no sh!t and kick a$$ and take names.

I personally doubt it, but consider these 2 points;

1) The Jewish Lobby is VERY strong here. The have a large amount of influence. 

2) He could do that, kick Iran's ass, and it gives he a lot of credit with a lot of the conservative base. Therefore, when he attempts to implement his socialist domestic policies there is a reservoir of good will towards him to exploit.

On the other hand, IF Mac wins, then they will wait until there is no other option. They know Mac will back em, so it gives em time to see how the situation develops.

Anywhich way though, you're right. Barry or Mac are gonna have to deal with this.  

 

 

 

If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love youBut if you really make them think, they'll hate you.

Don Marquis 1878-1937

Submit or Die, U.S. Pigs

HK, you may find this article at American Thinker relevant in light of the current discussion:

One often hears the argument that if Iran can live with an Israeli nuclear bomb, why can't Israel live with an Iranian bomb? The answer is that no Israeli leader threatens to eradicate Iran.

Since world public opinion will blame the Israelis for whatever they do preemptively to save themselves, they might as well do what's needed and what works. Israel must, with or without American help, strike first and strike successfully. It must take out not only Iran's nuclear weaponry, but its delivery systems and its command and control centers because it is always better for Jews to be alive and condemned, than dead and eulogized.

Many of us here at NB recognize I'm-a-teeny-weeny-job's threats as the standard islamofascist demand to convert to Islam (and by default give up Israel), submit to dhimmitude, or die.  Andrew Bostom at American Thinker has written extensively on this phenomenon and shown that it is historically intrinsic to islam:

Violent jihad warfare on infidels is the norm, not the exception, in Islamic history. Once successful, jihad leads to the imposition of humiliating, degrading, violent, and expensive oppression under dhimmitude, the institutionalized imposition of lowly status upon those who refuse to abandon their faith and adopt Islam. Among the worst victims of jihad and dhimmitude have been the Jews and Christians who lived in historic Palestine...

...

The essential pattern of the jihad war is captured in the great Muslim historian al—Tabari' s recording of the recommendation given by Umar b. al—Khattab to the commander of the troops he sent to al—Basrah (636 C.E.), during the conquest of Iraq. Umar reportedly said:

Summon the people to God; those who respond to your call, accept it from them, (This is to say, accept their conversion as genuine and refrain from fighting them) but those who refuse must pay the poll tax out of humiliation and lowliness. (Qur'an 9:29) If they refuse this, it is the sword without leniency. Fear God with regard to what you have been entrusted. [3]...

...By the time of the classical Muslim historian al—Tabari's death in 923, jihad wars had expanded the Muslim empire from Portugal to the Indian subcontinent. Subsequent Muslim conquests continued in Asia, as well as Eastern Europe. The Christian kingdoms of Armenia, Byzantium, Bulgaria, Serbia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Croatia, and Albania, in addition to parts of Poland and Hungary, were also conquered and Islamized.

Arab Muslim invaders engaged, additionally, in continuous jihad raids that ravaged and enslaved Sub—Saharan African animist populations, extending to the southern Sudan. When the Muslim armies were stopped at the gates of Vienna in 1683, over a millennium of jihad had transpired. These tremendous military successes spawned a triumphalist jihad literature. Muslim historians recorded in detail the number of infidels slaughtered, or enslaved and deported, the cities and villages which were pillaged, and the lands, treasure, and movable goods seized. Christian (Coptic, Armenian, Jacobite, Greek, Slav, etc.), as well as Hebrew sources, and even the scant Hindu and Buddhist writings which survived the ravages of the Muslim conquests, independently validate this narrative, and ,complement the Muslim perspective by providing testimonies of the suffering of the non—Muslim victims of jihad wars. [8]

In The Laws of Islamic Governance al—Mawardi (d. 1058), a renowned jurist of Baghdad, examined the regulations pertaining to the lands and infidel (i.e., non—Muslim) populations subjugated by jihad. This is the origin of the system of dhimmitude. The native infidel population had to recognize Islamic ownership of their land, submit to Islamic law, and accept payment of the poll tax (jizya).

He notes that "The enemy makes a payment in return for peace and reconciliation. " Al— Mawardi then distinguishes two cases: (I) Payment is made immediately and is treated like booty, "it does, however, not prevent a jihad being carried out against them in the future. ". (II). Payment is made yearly and will "constitute an ongoing tribute by which their security is established".

Reconciliation and security last as long as the payment is made. If the payment ceases, then the jihad resumes. A treaty of reconciliation may be renewable, but must not exceed 10 years. [9]...

Source:  The Legacy of Jihad in Historical Palestine(Part I)

And, just so we understand the nature of what we are currently dealing with, rather than far off history:

Here is bin Laden himself explaining the "true" nature of the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims, such as Americans, AKA, "infidels":

"As to the relationship between Muslims and infidels, this is summarized by the Most High's Word: ‘We renounce you. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us - till you believe in Allah alone' [Koran 60:4]. So there is an enmity, evidenced by fierce hostility from the heart. And this fierce hostility - that is, battle - ceases only if the infidel submits to the authority of Islam, or if his blood is forbidden from being shed [i.e., a dhimmi], or if Muslims are at that point in time weak and incapable [in which case, bin Laden later clarifies, they should dissemble (taqiyya) before the infidels by, say, insisting the conflict is about "foreign policy," nothing more]. But if the hate at any time extinguishes from the heart, this is great apostasy! ... Such, then, is the basis and foundation of the relationship between the infidel and the Muslim. Battle, animosity, and hatred - directed from the Muslim to the infidel - is the foundation of our religion."

...

In his attack against "moderate" Muslims, bin Laden rhetorically asks and answers the pivotal question:

"Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually? Yes. There are only three choices in Islam: either willing submission; or payment of the jizya [tribute], through physical though not spiritual submission to the authority of Islam; or the sword - for it is not right to let him [an infidel] live."

...

Nor is this worldview "peculiar" to bin Laden. Here's his Second, Ayman Zawahiri:

"Jihad in the path of Allah is greater than any individual or organization. It is a struggle between Truth and Falsehood, until Allah Almighty inherits the earth and those who live in it. Mullah Muhammad Omar and Sheikh Osama bin Laden-may Allah protect them from all evil-are merely two soldiers of Islam in the journey of Jihad, while the struggle between Truth and Falsehood transcends time."

Source:  Osama Bin Laden as Robin Hood?  (An interesting article strongly criticising ex-CIA agent Michael Scheur's view of Islam and Jihad)

This is not just some little piss-ant dictator trying to look big in the eyes of his buds.  He was installed by the mullahs.  They have the same world view as he does.  Bin Laden may be a different sect, but he and his are on the same page as far as Israel and the U.S. are concerned.  This is a religious war decalared by them, purposely unrecognized by many world leaders/politicians of the western style democracies.  The Islamist forces made it to Tours in 732 A.D., and were finally driven out of Spain many years later.  Again, in September 1683, the Muslims attempted to push further into Europe at Vienna, but were defeated.  Now, financed by new oil wealth, they are on the march again, but this time are busily using the distorted liberality of the western democracies against them to take over from within, if possible.  This is not over by a long shot.

Either we fight this creeping islamic aplogism or the day will come when our grandchildren will be forced to convert or suffer the same fate millions of dhimmis have suffered since this religion of conquest erupted.

BTW, HK, thanks for the info on the greens.  It was news to me.

"The future is not set.  There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."

michaelyon-online.com

 

 

"The future is not set.  There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."

michaelyon-online.com

»→ Take that Obama

Even the Iranian leader thinks you're a fool.  Wouldn't sit down with your goat-smellin' a$$ without preconditions.

But it's OK that you've just been had by Mr. 70's in his Members Only Jacket.  Your disciples count it all as your deep wealth of wisdom.

So Mr. Obama, when you go grovelling, cap in hand, to meet with Dinnerjacket, make sure your apologies are genuine.  No problem for such as you.

LYDSEXICS UNTIE!

George W. Bush could do away with Iran's ability to get nukes...

...for the foreseeable future today. Why he hasn't already done so is beyond me.

Tell me again why we are spending billions for all that high-tech military hardware?

-Dave

Barrack Hussein Obama must be defeated.

Barry goes to Iran

This works in Obama's favor. Now, a President Barry Hussein Obama will have an excuse to capitualate to the Iranians and blame them for it!

Maybe he had a secret meeting with the Iranians as well as the GOI?

PALIN/McCain 2008