- Daily Photo: Obama Jokes Around at G-20
- Blackwater gets replaced in Iraq
- Daily Photo: U.S. Marines Look Out for Taliban in Afghanistan
- Hillary Clinton the Tomboy and Her "Ah-Ha" Moment
- Obama Administration Sudan Envoy Headed to Region
- Daily Photo: Potential Flashpoint in Iraq
- Clinton Says New Afghanistan-Pakistan Plan Depends on Diplomacy
- Exclusive: Three Israeli Airstrikes Against Sudan
- Additional 4,000 Troops to Be Ordered to Afghanistan
- Daily Photo: Navy Submarine Trains in the Arctic
- Alarm Over North Korea Missile Prep
- Anti-Terror Stimulus? US Offers Rewards for Top Terrorists
- Daily Photo: Pakistani Women in Refugee Camp
- Condoleezza Rice Appears on "The Tonight Show"
- Diplomat and Aid Group Sound the Alarm on Darfur Camp Situation
- auto industry rescue
- Ballotwatch
- Biden, Joe
- Bush, George W.
- Clinton, Bill
- Clinton, Hillary
- Dodd, Chris
- Edwards, John
- Giuliani, Rudy
- Gravel, Mike
- Huckabee, Mike
- Hunter, Duncan
- Inauguration
- Iraq
- Kucinich, Dennis
- McCain, John
- Obama, Barack
- Palin, Sarah
- Paul, Ron
- Romney, Mitt
- Tancredo, Tom
- Thompson, Fred
- Veepstakes
- Vote 2008: Democrats
- Vote 2008: Republicans
- Washington
- White House
« Previous | Main | Next »
Obama's Evolving Position on Talking to Iran
Email
ShareJune 04, 2008 11:29 AM
ABC News' Jonathan Karl Reports: Sen. Barack Obama's position on talking to Iran has been evolving since last year's CNN/Youtube debate, when he said he would be willing to meet "without precondition" with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea during the first year of his administration.
During a speech before a pro-Israel group on Wednesday, however, Obama, D-Ill., who clinched the delegates necessary to claim the Democratic nomination on Tuesday, presented an entirely different position:
"Contrary to the claims to some, I have no interest in sitting down with our adversaries just for the sake of talking. But as president of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leaders at a time and place of my choosing if and only if it can advance the interest of the United States. That is my position. I want to be absolutely clear."
Compare that with what Obama said during the CNN/Youtube debate:
QUESTION: Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?
OBAMA: "I would. And the reason is this: the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them--which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous. Ronald Reagan constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when he called them an evil empire. He understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward. And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them."
But now Obama has put a major condition on his willingness to meet with Iran: he will meet only if such a meeting advances the interests of the U.S.
That is not much different from the Bush Administration's position on negotiations with Iran.
Secretary Rice has said repeatedly that she would meet with Iran if it agreed to suspend its enrichment program. As she says often, "The question is not why won't the U.S meet with Iran. The question is why won't Iran meet with the U.S."
UPDATE: Obama campaign officials insists Obama has not change his position.
"It's not a precondition to say he'll only do it to advance our interests," said Obama foreign policy advisor Dennis McDonough.
McDonough says Obama has never promised to meet with Iran's leaders. He's simply said that he is willing to meet with Iran's leaders.
"And the key word there is willing. The idea that some have suggested is that he has promised a meeting. That is not the case and never was the case. He argued then as he argued today that he is willing to meet as it advances our interests," McDonough told ABC News.
June 4, 2008 in Bush, George W., Hunter, Duncan, Kucinich, Dennis, Tancredo, Tom, Thompson, Fred, Veepstakes | Permalink | User Comments (108)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Ummm, hasn't he ALWAYS pre-conditioned talking to Iran on America's best interests? Why else we he talk to them...to advance NON-American interests? That doesn't make sense ABC.
Your story is a non-story.
Posted by: Que | Jun 4, 2008 11:40:56 AM
Obama has a different position to please any audience. The man just can't come up with a consistent policy.
A puppet who needs his strings pulled. Who can believe a word that comes out of his mouth?
Posted by: S | Jun 4, 2008 11:42:07 AM
I must say that you guys keep pulling this post up every few weeks and the fact is yes he said that and now he is defining it, i dont see where he has changed any position
only now he has to define what his comments meant.
yet abc continues to act like this is some massive breaking story or something
lol
Posted by: bhrandon | Jun 4, 2008 11:43:09 AM
If McCain can have an EVOLVING position on the war in Iraq going from staying in Iraq for 100 years to "winning" by end of 2013 than I suppose that Obama can have an "evolving" position on talking to Iran.
Posted by: Dan | Jun 4, 2008 11:50:38 AM
Do you expect anything different from obama? Everything he has stated as genuine will now change to suit his audiences - he will say what you want to hear and you will hear what he tells you to hear.
There will be no change and certainly let's just hope that McCain wins the election.
obama is just a strutting empty suit - but he does have his smirky sneer down to its arrogant perfection.
Posted by: Lou | Jun 4, 2008 11:50:51 AM
Anyone without blinders can read the two statements above and see the difference. In 2004 they called it flip-flopping with our liberal candidate of the day...what will they use this year?
Posted by: Dee | Jun 4, 2008 11:51:07 AM
Well, George Lucas has now endorsed Obama as a "hero" so maybe Obama can use the force on the Iranian leadership...
Obama clarifies his position with - "tough and principled diplomacy" - what does that mean? Obama uses this phrase alone in describing what he would do, with no details. Can someone please explain to me what Obama will do?
Posted by: Wade | Jun 4, 2008 11:52:30 AM
This is a clarification of his position to sound bite judgementalism.
Well done Obama
Posted by: clear | Jun 4, 2008 11:56:07 AM
Wade,
listen to the speech without bias. he was very clear on what he will do.
Posted by: listen | Jun 4, 2008 11:58:11 AM
It doesn't sound like Obama's position has changed at all. The two statements you posted completely reconcile, and are completely consistent with each other. NEITHER ONE mentions anything about pre-conditions. The latter statement just adds a notion that when he does talk to them, he's not going to do it just for the sake of 'talking'.
Posted by: Eric | Jun 4, 2008 11:59:15 AM
Evolving position? Isn't that a euphemism for 'has been making it up as he goes along because he doesn't know'?
Posted by: len | Jun 4, 2008 11:59:18 AM
A reminder of what was said by a close fellow of Obama, Rev. Wright said "Obama is a typical politician who would say what he has to win" That's the same case here, he doesn't care about Israel as much as he care about winning comes November. Obama flip flops again and again and again. We can't afford to have an inexperienced leader run the White House.
Posted by: persio | Jun 4, 2008 12:00:59 PM
Obama seems to continue to flip flop on everything.
One time he was for sanctions and if that did not work use military.
Then he was for talking to them.
Now he has new stipulations.
Does Obama know what he wants or not, or he is just rambling off a reply that seems to fit to the people he is talking to?
Flip - flop, flip - Flop, flip Flop.
Posted by: seah | Jun 4, 2008 12:01:01 PM
Obama's hope must be that nobody questions the ludicrous details of his positions on complex issues.
Originally, he said he'd have the troops out by the end of April, '08. Now, he's in for the long haul.
Originally, he said he'd meet with ANY of the heads of state of our enemy without preconditions. Now, he adds conditions.
A puppet on a string. A bag of hot air!
Posted by: S | Jun 4, 2008 12:05:27 PM
I can't believe that the people of the United States of America are so blind as to elect someone who is willing to negotiate with the enemy.
Posted by: Freedom | Jun 4, 2008 12:06:24 PM
To "listen":
Thanks for that clarification...I am sure you can now explain what "tough and principled" diplomacy means, since you failed to do so in your post.
He does talk about using this technique, whatever it may be, to unify the entire middle east to our side, but what I am interested in is the "how."
How is he going to "persuade other nations such as Saudi Arabia to recognize common interests with Israel in dealing with Iran," for example...
Posted by: Wade | Jun 4, 2008 12:10:33 PM
meeting in the first year with the leaders of the Axi of Evil "without precondition" need not be further defined. it's self-evident, to all but the most ardent BO supporters. All this highlights a certain laziness of thought and then the arrogance to double down on an ill thought remark making it a doctrine.
Posted by: roger toofman | Jun 4, 2008 12:11:55 PM
so he is a typical politician, since he is changing the message of hope and new politics to the same old same old. to me sounds like he is what he so much critized while on the road to the nomination a typical politician disguised in a fake mantra of hope and change.
Posted by: persio | Jun 4, 2008 12:13:23 PM
Meeting with a leader who has vowed to wipe Israel off the face of the earth -- leader to leader -- speaks volumes about this very confused candidate. Volumes!
Posted by: A | Jun 4, 2008 12:14:23 PM
OBAMA'S PROMISE: A new kind of politics -- not politics as usual.
THE REALITY: SOSDD
Posted by: A | Jun 4, 2008 12:15:18 PM
Post a comment
