By WILLIAM MAYER
October 20, 2012 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org - As PipeLineNews.org predicted on the 15th [see, Is Team Obama Secretly Negotiating With Iran In Ploy To Influence Election? the Obama administration seems to have sprung some manner of Iranian October surprise on the eve of the third and final presidential debate on Monday evening, the subject of which will be foreign policy.
The Obama WH is on fire because of it being caught lying about Benghazi
The administration's shameless mouthpiece, the New York Times is running a piece, U.S. Officials Say Iran Has Agreed to Nuclear Talks.
That this "story," is intended to influence the election is obvious; determining where exactly Team Obama is going on this is less than clear, the permutations are endless.
Some speculation later, first the claims:
Lead ppg: "The United States and Iran have agreed in principle for the first time to one-on-one negotiations over Iran's nuclear program, according to Obama administration officials, setting the stage for what could be a last-ditch diplomatic effort to avert a military strike on Iran."
Now the Times' very obviously stated spin, attempting to make the case that this matter places the Romney camp in deep peril, "Moreover, the prospect of one-on-one negotiations could put Mr. Romney in an awkward spot, since he has opposed allowing Iran to enrich uranium to any level - a concession that experts say will probably figure in any deal on the nuclear program...The danger of opposing such a diplomatic initiative is that it could make him look as if he is willing to risk another American war in the Middle East without exhausting alternatives..."It would be unconscionable to go to war if we haven't had such discussions," said R. Nicholas Burns, who led negotiations with Iran as undersecretary of state in the George W. Bush administration..."
Nicholas Burns argued for continued negotiations most recently and publicly in an August 10 Boston Globe Op-Ed. Diplomacy is Best Tool for Iran.
Nick Burns was also a member of President Clinton's dysfunctional national security team serving [1990-95] on his National Security Council. His entire CV is one of a leftie intellectual, a product of Wellesley [Hillary's alma-mater] and the Sorbonne. [source, Wiki, Nicholas Burns]. He now teaches at Harvard and is being trotted out as the pretend Bush era hawk who favors once again humiliating the U.S. in pointless negotiations with Iran over a topic - nuclear fuel enrichment - which was the very cause of the most recent talks blowing up.
As a matter of fact on the last session of the failed phony diplomacy it Iran claimed an inalienable right to enrichment. In our Oct 15 piece this author wrote, "Predictably the process ended in failure, breaking down after Iran publicly humiliated the U.S. team, chastising the P5+1 proposal as unrealistic and insisting that the country would always consider its program of enrichment to be an "inalienable right," hence the major point of contention would never be negotiable.]"
All that is gained through further diplomacy with Iran is it getting closer to developing a nuke unmolested.
Now for some of the speculation, which is after all, exactly what this is about.
1. This is perhaps the most blatant and possibly amateurish last minute gambit in the history of presidential politics. That it is calculated to influence the election is beyond obvious.
2. It is intended to sow confusion into Team Romney, complicating his debate prep and his national security posture.
3. The facts might well be very similar to what the NYT has reported, it may also be entirely fabricated. We doubt that the Times is being played in any case, they are undoubtedly aware of what is being expected from them as they roll this out. Please keep in mind, the legacy media has made itself an extension of the WH press office, a point which is inarguable.
4. It could also be a rope-a-dope, a classic case of Lucy pulling the football away from the hapless Charlie Brown as he attempts to boot it.
5. The story is constructed in such a way as to make it seem that this matter is a done deal and that Romney rejects it as the peril of being labeled a warmonger, ala GW Bush. Please note from the Times' piece that the "talks" will begin only after the election. We can thoroughly understand why Iran would want to keep the incompetent Obama in office, this is therefore a win-win propostion.
6. The Obama WH might have no idea what the result of this action is going to be, but they are desperate facing at the most critical time the widening belief that they lied over Benghazi, as a result they have been spoon feeding their media darlings in an attempt to limit the damage. This might be part of the same, though a degree or two removed.
That is about all that we are willing to say right now. In the main though we did, through the benefit of consultation with Reza Kahlili [see aforementioned linked to story] predict this development and wish to register that fact here. We were among two or three alternative news media sources who developed this story.
We will of course pursue it more thoroughly over the next few days as it develops.
©2012 PipeLineNews.org LLC, William Mayer. All rights reserved.