E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Digital Globe / AP file
A 2004 satellite image provided by DigitalGlobe and the Institute for Science and International Security shows the military complex at Parchin, Iran, about 19 miles southeast of Tehran.
A senior administration official told NBC on Saturday that there have been back-channel talks between the U.S. and Iran about meeting bilaterally on the Iranians’ nuclear program – but that no meeting has been agreed to.
Expanding on a statement issued by the White House after The New York Times reported that there was an agreement, the official says that the backchannel talks have been done in full consultation with the allies – the P5 + 1 and Israel.
The official pointed out that there have been bilateral talks in the past – but that Iran refused to even meet with the P5 +1 during the recent United Nations meetings. He said the Iranians know there will be no agreement unless they give up their nuclear program.
Asked about the impact on Monday's foreign policy debate between President Barack Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney, the official said the administration is not happy that the story came out before the debate, but said the American people might be happy to know the administration is willing to explore all possibilities to get Iran to give up its nuclear program.
The Times, citing a senior administration official, said Iranian officials had insisted that the talks wait until after the presidential election so that they would know which president would be negotiating with them. The Times said: "Reports of the agreement have circulated among a small group of diplomats involved with Iran."
But in a statement Saturday evening, National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said the U.S. and Iran had no such agreement:
It's not true that the United States and Iran have agreed to one-on-one talks or any meeting after the American elections. We continue to work with the P-5+1 on a diplomatic solution and have said from the outset that we would be prepared to meet bilaterally. The President has made clear that he will prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and we will do what we must to achieve that. It has always been our goal for sanctions to pressure Iran to come in line with its obligations. The onus is on the Iranians to do so, otherwise they will continue to face crippling sanctions and increased pressure.
World powers accuse Iran of covertly using its uranium enrichment program to produce nuclear weapons. The Iranians insists the research and development is for projects to generate electricity and produce medical isotopes.
EU agrees on wider Iran sanctions
A six-country alliance of Western powers, including the United States, has been attempting to negotiate with the Iranians, with occasional concessions by Iran and assertions that it’s willing to engage with the alliance. Despite the protracted dialogue, diplomats hope that a negotiated settlement can be reached, with international sanctions providing an incentive.
In October 2009, the U.S and the Iranians agreed in Geneva that Iran would send its enriched uranium to Russia for safekeeping, in exchange for an agreement for enough nuclear fuel for its Tehran medical research reactor. However, the deal fell apart when Iran's negotiators returned home. Iranian officials told NBC News that their supreme leader, the Ayatollah Khomeini, told them they had gone beyond their instructions. That experience has made the White House wary of any agreement that is not blessed by the supreme leader, the sole authority over nuclear decisions in Iran.
The sanctions began to bite this summer. Hyperinflation in Iran is pushing up prices daily and the dramatic slide in the value of the rial against the U.S. dollar led to unrest in Tehran earlier this month, when angry currency traders clashed with security forces.
The European Union on Monday ratcheted up its sanctions, prohibiting transactions between Iranian and European banks and banning imports of Iranian natural gas, among other measures.
Netanyahu: Draw 'clear red line' to stop Iran
Israel, believed to have the Middle East's only atomic arsenal, sees a nuclear-armed Iran as a threat to its existence and has expressed frustration over the failure of diplomacy and sanctions to rein in Tehran. Western nations fear that a possible strike against Iran's facilities by Israel would lead to wider conflict.
More world stories from NBC News:
- US nurse arrested in Macedonia awaits verdict in coin-smuggling trial
- Video: Dutch art heist a 'significant loss,' museum says
- Documents add to evidence of security fears before Benghazi attack
- Pakistani girls endeavor for education
- Newlywed Afghan beheaded for her refusal to become prostitute
- Armageddon scenario: US, Israel ready for huge joint drill in Iran's shadow
Follow World News from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
Bumbling Bush made it 8 years this buffoon can't make it 4 years. Now that is an epic failure at its best.
I would not give an inch and\or believe anything this Regime and Ahmadinejad have to say.
ThIs little dictator is trying to make news once more. These are words from the mouth of a habitual liar.
He reminds me of a heroine addict that needs a fix:
How can you tell when a junkie is LYING.
Answer.
Watch his lips move ! ! !
(ie everything that comes out of his mouth is a lie).
And . . . .
If that is not enough to make them completely stand down from their nuclear ambitions then
The Next Embargo to make the regime collapase and free the people of
Iran, should be a refined gasoline ban(since they cant refine it themselves)
Bush went down in flames at Katrina, he didn't get 8 years.
And he was SUCH a terrible President, he's Persona Non Grata to his party, and a guy "named Hussein" succeeded him.
Gonna be fun to see the scatter when Mitt loses: you won't find ONE person to admit they supported him.
Kinda where Sarah Palin is today. Nobody will claim her, period.
The Obama regime will do ANYTHING to try to get the conversation of their lies and deception over the 4 deaths in Libya. Without some sort of major game changer, Romney wins in a landslide
You evidently MISSED Mitt cutting his own throat TWICE on this subject: he's going to AVOID it like the Plague.
All O has to reply with is: "Oh yeah, you've demonstrated some knowledge in this area." HUGE LAFF!
Talk is thousand times better than total destruction, and full cotamination of sea water, and potable water, and with a solid cloud odf killing readiation floating in the atmosphere for many months, and rain over our USA. Also the death of thousand of Americans, Jews. The Iranians that did not created the war, their humanity will be completely vaporized into sand dust size! But Obama is trying his best to save thousands of lifes. This is a tragedy as I had radiation sickness, you do not want to know the history! The Magnificent Lord have Mercy on all of us, but keep and eye on the bully that did not want to war in the Vietnam War, nicely enjoying for a long time the hospitality and great French food while our heros were killed by the hundred thousands! And his kids were privileged also during the Vietnam War, enjoying the protection of their religion! Think twice befor you vote my dear friends!
You need more FEAR in your post. I wasn't able to change my vote after reading it.
The October surprise still has 11 days to "pop out of the cake". One-on-one talks is not enough to sway the election. It would take an alleged agreement on the elimination of production of weapons grade uranium in exchange for sanctions relief.
I would agree with you if you were talking about increasing security at a vulnerable consulate. Obama would sit on that one. However, if there is some way to spin an agreement, probably giving away the store to Iran, then Obama would jet those inspectors over there in time for Morning Joe on MSNBC.
@Jan1955: I actually believe that Iran would have to stall the visits.
My actual prediction is a move to eliminate student debt in exchange for national service of some sort. This would energize the base that elected him the first time. What's an extra trillion dollars to the debt.
On the other side, there is plenty of potentially "damning" evidence regarding the Benghazi incident. If that surfaces before the election, Obama is toast.
Mitt "October Surprised" himself at the last debate: there IS no recovery from such wrong and stupid behavior.
Ask Sarah Palin.
We all saw it, we all laughed.
I told you so! I posted last week to expect Obama to pull this, but the lefties, the ones with the Obatomies, just called me a bunch of names. Obama is selling out our security for what he thinks will be a shot in the arm for his election. And thats all that matters.
Meanwhile, Mitt still looks dumb after getting his Libya comments SO wrong.
Oh yeah, he got done in by a Lady Moderator.
is there really any way to negotiate with an enemy that sees it as their religous duty destroy us?To them we are the ultimate evil,the great satan.what would motivate them to make a lasting deal with the devil?Ask yourselves this..what would it take you you to make a deal with the devil?
Sorry, but the Republicans just see us (47% of the populace) that way.
But, notice, the deal is only temporary. Only, untill after the election.
Attack now and drive the Iranians back to supporting their Mullahs. The sanctions are working.
Wouldn't it be fascinating if this election was like a reprise of the 2000 election and we saw Romney win the popular vote but lose in the electoral college?
White house has admitted that the probability of bombing deep into the ground at the Fordo facility may cause "some" damage, but will most likely not totally destroy it all.
However, another option I see is first surgically bomb the facility to create crevice in the ground, then surgically drop a "small" atomic bomb or some other type of element that will make the facility "unusable" for the near future.
All the other nuclear sites we know about are still within the US capability of being destroyed.
If the US is going to strike, we need to make sure that the current program is at minimum, destroyed. The rest of our focus should be deploying whatever task forces and military might that will be needed to keep the strait of Hormuz open for oil shipments.
The Iranian economy is already on the verge of collapse and military action against the country will bring it to its knees. I can't be much different than it relies on some type of tax collection system from goods sold. Nobody will want to invest or spend within the country and the government will collapse without income.
This is the ONLY way to resolve this conflict with the need to put boots on the ground. The citizens of Iran should be fed up and will hopefully make a stand and restart the green revolution on the weak remnants of the government.
The ayatollah will issue a fatwa against the west (nothing new), but the people support will be minimal due to the months and years of suppression. The green party will rise and civil war will follow.
Iran will experience the "rebirth" they have been waiting for. The coming of the prophet Mohammad will appear to have been realized.
Or some tangled version of the above.
Cheers!
Next..........
And will you be the one, willing to press the button, and willing to enter a brand new cold war with the world over nuclear bombs? Did our nation learn nothing from Nagasaki, or from the nuclear meltdowns in Japan? Was World War 2 meaningless as soon as we forgot about the forces it took to contain it? Are we willing to live through another few decades of arms race, while our poor starve on skid row and the rich refuse to pay fair wages? What is it about America that makes zealots believe we are the only country in the world with the intelligence to restrain Iran? What about Israel? She's already on the hot-plate! Shall we defend her, while she is perfectly capable of defending herself? How about tightening trade laws with China for using, and providing, Iran an outlet for Iranian oil? How about sanctions on every country that deals with Iran until there is nothing left for Iran to do but allow our inspectors in, allowing them to remove the nuclear materials under further threat of tighter sanctions until Iran capitulates?
Or does Romney and his blind fellowship just have an itchy trigger finger? Do we have a new class of zealots, just like an emerging street gang, who wants to flex their muscle to prove their willingness to destroy cities, for the sake of creating the fear it takes to further hold the world hostage with threats of nuclear devastation, while we plunder the finite resources on this planet and dirty the skies and waters?
What say you, Righties?
I think we'll see a reprise of the 2000 election. Romney will win the popular vote but lose in the electoral college.
Neville Chamberlain aka OBAMA :
Chamberlain landed at Heston Aerodrome on 30 September 1938, and spoke to the crowds there:
Later that day he stood outside 10 Downing Street and again read from the document and concluded:
Barry's just going to levitate over there and give them a stern talking to.
I wanna know who told Susan Rice to go on the 3 Sunday morning shows and blame the embassy attack on a video!
EVERYBODY assumed it was due to the video; it was DOMINATING the News Cycle.
Short memory, or opportunist. Which is it?
As soon as I saw the byline, I said bye. How can anyone believe anything this person says or writes?
Yet, you see yourself as important enough to stop and tell us that.
Glad to know how the News is affecting YOU, Mr. Gonzo.
"Asked about the impact on Monday's foreign policy debate between President Barack Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney, the official said the administration is not happy that the story came out before the debate..."
Yeah, right. The administration would have preferred getting skewered in the final debate on Monday for doing nothing at all, including diplomatically. The administration would have preferred that Obama not be able to say that things are progressing on the diplomatic front with Iran. Darn it! Now he has to talk about Iran wanting to make peace with all nations. What a drag that this got out 48 hours before the final debate! He and Axelrod must be livid.
I think the Darn it! was more about the prospect of an empty-handed MittBot.
How many Republicans know that the sanctions against Iran from the world community have driven the price of bread in Iran from pennies to more than 24000 rupies? Republicans would have us believe sanctions don't work. Didn't the cold war work, due to sanctions? Or are Republicans only interested in placing the spaghetti on the fork, and have no cares about the historical record? I guess it is easier to trust Romney....after all, he is related to god..
Do you really think the price of bread worries Iran's leadership? What did they do the last time the people took to the streets to protest the government? Beatings, shootings, and an overwhelming put down of ANY protesting.
And by the way, what did Obama do when those protests were going on and they were BEGGING us to help them......NOTHING!!!
There are at least TWENTY WAIVERS to countries all over the world to the oh so "tough" sanctions in place.
And the cold war wasn't won because of sanctions genius, it was won because we were STRONGER than Russia, RICHER than Russia, and they were nearly BANKRUPT trying to keep up with our military and our strength. There were NO SANCTIONS in place.
Geez, you lefties think talking and sanctions are the answer so much that you actually LIE about it.
I'll take STRENGTH and a WILLINGNESS to do something over licking Iran's shoes, kissing Iran's butt, begging them to stop, and handing out "sanctions" that nations don't even have to adhere to.
Jack Mehoff, what is 24,000 rupies, 50 cents????
Sanctions didn't end the cold war. Ronald Reagan, caused the Soviet Union to go broke trying to keep up with our defense spending with his vision of a "Star Wars" deterrent that the Soviet Union knew they couldn't keep up with...
Jack: The sanctions are NOT working. All you have to do is read the international news. Iran is selling it's oil to private companies who aren't bound by the sanctions. That's why Ahmadinejad said on Charlie Rose, that Iran was doing fine.
Sanctions don't help Romney win.
Making everybody SCARED will, though.
Why is the Obummer even talking about a "deal" with the lunatics in power in Iran? What a weakling appeaser the US has in the White House. God bless America! Maybe Isael will do what our leader doesn't have the guts to do. Let us pray.
RU Serious? Somebody actually prays for war? That must mean you never fought in one because you'd know better than to make such an ignorant statement.
Ask a GI or VET what they pray for and I can assure you it isn't more war!! Most rational people pray for peace...then there's you. If it was your boots on the ground it would be a different song you'd be singing.
Spin it no matter what. The Republicans have destroyed ALL credibility their party EVER had, and it's a FACT: Nobody will say they are Republican any more.
The US can not give Iran the world stage, they have been craving by having one on one talks. I understand Barry, aka Prez Obama needs/wants a game changer to get his poll numbers back up. But, this should show the nation that Obama is willing to do anything to win reelection. Whats next, will Barry bomb Libya and then sit at his desk in the Oval Office and proclaim on November 5th the night before the election that guilty have been discovered and punished for their actions against US citizens? Nothing like a late Oct surprise.......
Mitt's losing, ya know. Got any positive things to say about HIM?
He desperately needs YOUR help, and you're only making him look bad by not mentioning him.
Comrade Sotero, I heard Kenya is looking for a leader.....
Something Obama definitly doesnt want to be known before the election is the fact that he is negotiating with Afganistan to keep American troops over there long past 2014.
Lol, that's the most idiotic Obama criticism of all; Obama is a war-monger so let's put the neocons back in charge! You just can't fix stupid...
Yeah Leroy.... This is the same thing your leftwing loonies said when I posted what Obama was up to last week. And so, here we are.
And I heard he cooks a puppy to eat, EVERY day!
Puh-lease!
Your Hero Mitt's been saying that "Attacking your opponent is a sign of weakness*."
So go read up on HOW he won his state...
*As if Politics were never about that?
We bicker internally about this program or that program while this administration plays with fire and we don't even see it. You think the last two wars cost this country in $$ and, more important, the lives of our young. The direction is flawed and naive. The country needs to wake up and vote on the broader picture instead of isolated pet peeve issues.
http://johnbatchelorshow.com/blog/2012/10/grand-bargain
Well, that's what Mitt's decided to run on, so...
Iran- U.S. we're ready for a deal.
U.S.- Sure we have 6, B-52 bombers on the way loaded with bunker busting bombs, don't worry it's all good.
1st, Yet another dummy who just can't wait to start another fun, little shooting war. Evidently your crowd never learns. Remember how Iraq was going to be a walk in the park? "We'll be greeted as liberators" or "The war will only cost 40 Billion" or "We'll be repaid with the proceeds from the Iraqi oil production" and who can forget the all time classic "Mission Accomplished".
That's always the Rights solution, start shooting and then figure out later what the ramifications or our actions are. 8 years of Bush and his Neo Con foreign policy let this country in a shambles and I sure want to exhaust every last peaceful alternative before the shooting starts.
Intrepid1: What exactly do you believe Pres. Obama has done to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. They are proceeding without any problems. Oh but wait but Iran says they just need to be able to take care of themselves. Right! As soon as they get nuclear capacity, they'll blow Israel off the face of the map and then the US comes next. Iran is not our friend.
And then, THEY would get "blown off the face..."
DUH.
This is ALL Fear-Mongering, on BOTH sides.
And what a surprise, the article is written by none other than Andrea Mitchell! And what a surprise the leaked information was given to Obama propagandist, NBC News.
If anyone, other than an Obama supporter, actually believes this raise your hand! This was "leaked" by the White House! Are you kidding me! So desperate is this man to win re-election that he would leak national security information, again, right before the debate. Just like he leaked national security information about methods used to get Bin Laden! This guy is a complete disgrace!
Just as a note: WND.com broke the story a few days ago. But the news media didnt pick it up.
So then what the hell are you doing on here dummy??? If NBC and Andrea Mitchell are so awful, why not spend your time over at the Faux Nuze/aka The Hooters Network??? Your boy Roger Ailes will tell you everything you want to hear. You people are unreal, all you do is bitch about how awful NBC is and yet you and the rest of your crowd are faithfully on here everyday. Evidently you're a glutton for punishment since you just keep coming back for more.
Here's a clue for you pal, Andrea Mitchell is a REAL reporter, not the "news actors" over at Fux. Those schmucks are not fit to carry her microphone for her. And I'd suggest devoting your energies the that 24/7 mouthpiece and propaganda outlet for the GOP.
Intrepid.... Nice names.....This is our country too.
The name calling started FROM THE RIGHT the DAY Paul Ryan was called on his LIES about mountain climbing.
I Know, I've been watching, I'm retired.
During the debates Obama is going to claim that he has put in place the strongest sanctions in history against Iran. He will say nothing short of war can be done and then ask Romney if he is suggesting we go to war. The Romney answer: "Mr. President, are you suggesting that the threat of military action is not on the table?" Obama will have to respond that "all options are on the table as I have said many times before." Then Romney replies: "Well, Mr. President, if all options are on the table then a military strike is on the table and that means war?" Checkmate!
Well, that would be a nice fantasy. Excuse me, IS.
What Mitt's trying to do is SCARE people into voting for him, it's very transparent. He's not real good at this.