Posted on 06/28/2009 1:57:56 PM PDT by Ooh-Ah
While the White House contended on Sunday that Iran's president wasn't in charge of his country's foreign policy and said his criticism of Washington was little more than "bloviations," US officials stressed Washington is still interested in dialogue with the Iranian leadership.
US President Barack Obama's top adviser, David Axelrod, said the US remains open to meeting, alongside its European allies, with Iran in Paris in an effort to curb Teheran's nuclear ambitions.
"Let's be clear that we didn't meddle in the election in Iran," Axelrod said. "The dispute in Iran is between the leadership in Iran and their own people, and plainly, Mr. Ahmadinejad thinks that by fingering the United States, that he can create a political diversion. So I'm not going to entertain his bloviations that are politically motivated."
He said Ahmadinejad's accusations are meant for domestic consumption and to quell unrest after his re-election that his opponents call a fraud.
Axelrod stressed that the Obama administration's willingness to hold diplomatic talks with the Iranian leadership was not to be regarded as a reward.
"We are not looking to reward Iran. We are looking to ... sit down and talk to the Iranians and offer them two paths. And one brings them back into the community of nations, and the other has some very stark consequences," Axelrod said.
But he was careful to signal that the White House doesn't think Ahmadinejad has the final say over Iran's interaction with the West.
"We are also mindful of the fact that the nuclear weapons in Iran and the nuclearization of that whole region is a threat to that country, all countries in the region, and the world. And we have to address that. We can't let that lie," Axelrod said.
Iran has accused the West of stoking unrest, singling out Britain and the United States for alleged meddling. Last week, Iran expelled two British diplomats, and Britain responded in kind. Iran has also said it's considering downgrading diplomatic ties with Britain; the US does not have diplomatic relations with the country.
Axelrod said Teheran faces a choice between engaging the West or facing further isolation in the wake of a presidential election that sent protesters to the streets and amid questions of its validity.
Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the United Nations, made similar comments on Sunday, saying that Ahmadinejad is falling back on his government's usual strategy of blaming the West and the US in particular for its internal problems.
"This is a profound moment of change. And what Ahmadinejad says to try to change the subject is, frankly, not going to work in the current context, because the people understand that the United States has not been meddling in their internal affairs," she said.
The legitimacy of the government, while questioned by the people of Iran, is not the critical issue for the US goal of preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability, Rice said.
"It's in the United States' national interest to make sure that we have employed all elements at our disposal, including diplomacy, to prevent Iran from achieving that nuclear capacity," she said.
Obama and Ahmadinejad upped their war of words over the weekend, trading harsh rhetoric over Iran's actions, and Washington indicated that it was recalibrating its approach of dialogue with the Islamic republic.
The Obama administration has rescinded invitations from early in the spring to Iranian diplomats to attend July 4 celebrations at American embassies around the world, which had constituted a break with years of protocol and a sign of efforts to ease the relations between the two countries in a prelude to direct talks.
And although the White House pointed out that no Iranians had accepted the invitations in any case, a senior State Department official described engagement as currently "on ice" as the US watches the developments in Iran unfold and reassess how it wants to interact with the new leadership.
Since Obama's election, Axelrod, who was chief strategist of the US president's election campaign, has repeatedly stressed the administration's commitment to engage with Middle East leaders.
"The president-elect has said repeatedly that he intends to engage early and aggressively with diplomacy all over the world and using the men and women, the professionals who are in place, who are great, and, where appropriate, special envoys," Axelrod told CNN in January.
While the White House contended on Sunday that Iran's president wasn't in charge of his country's foreign policy and said his criticism of Washington was little more than "bloviations," US officials stressed Washington is still interested in dialogue with the Iranian leadership.
IS OUR FOREIGN POLICY A DISASTER?
Ooooooooooooh.
Stark Consequences!
Coming from Bush, I could have guessed what this means.
Now?
They're disinvited from the weenie roast?
But we should be.
Our foreign policy now is to allow foreigners to dictate our foreign policy. Once Obama went on his Apology Tour he sealed our fate to being able to do nothing.
It is interesting that neither the witch nor zero can make these statements.
This is one of the stupidest statements to come out of the White House on Iran, and the competition is pretty fierce.
It’s true, Nutjob really is more or less a figurehead for the Mullahs, they are the ones calling the shots.
OMG it is like kindergarten politics. It is truly getting frightening. We not only have radical marxists running our country but they are dumbasdirt or play the part well...
And it's not.
It's regarded as to what it is...wishy-washy and weak leadership on a global scale.
I'm getting a little sick of the "Let's be clear..." and "Make no mistake..." clauses emerging from this administration.
Invariably, they are code for "Lie to follow..."
While what you say is true. The WH did at one point kiss Ahmadloonyjad’s butt.
Which means: Nutjob is saying what the Mullahs want him to say.
Which changes the situation...how?
let’s be clear... he is a lying radical marxist.
“While the White House contended on Sunday that Iran’s president wasn’t in charge of his country’s foreign policy and said his criticism of Washington was little more than “bloviations,” US officials stressed Washington is still interested in dialogue with the Iranian leadership.”
Oh my and the State Run Media thinks this admistration is absolutely Brilliant!
While the White House contended on Sunday that Iran's president wasn't in charge of his country's foreign policy and said his criticism of Washington was little more than "bloviations," US officials stressed Washington is still interested in dialogue with the Iranian leadership.
The White House isn't big on logic. (Ever try to decipher the logic of three-year olds?)
A Look at Iran
http://www.truthusa.com/IRAN.html
A Look at Ahmadinejad
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/ahmadinejad/index
A Look at the Global Jihad:
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/globaljihad/index
#
A Look at David Axelrod
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/davidaxelrod/index
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/axelrod/index
“Wait — did I say ‘Ahmedinejad is not in charge of Iranian foreign policy’? What I meant to say is, Obama isn’t in charge of U.S. foreign policy. Y’know, because Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia, and China are.”
Ah. Diplomatic masturbation. Brilliant.
Apparently neither is Obama. Infact, i suspect Ahmedinejad may have more control over US policy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.