WarSclerotic

Top ministers: Israel knows nothing of breakthrough in Iran-U.S. nuclear talks – Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper.

New York Times cites U.S. officials as saying that Tehran, Washington agree to direct talks following secret negotiations; Ya’alon: Secret talks take place, without results.

By Barak Ravid | Oct.21, 2012 | 10:34 AM | 7

Israel didn’t receive any information concerning a reported breakthrough in secret nuclear negotiations between the United States and Iran, senior government ministers said on Sunday, amid reports of Iran’s agreement to hold direct talks with the United States.

On Saturday, the New York Times cited U.S. officials as saying that Washington and Tehran had agreed for the first time to launch one-on-one negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, a result of secret talks between top American officials and aides to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

According to the report, the sides agreed to hold a meeting immediately after the identity of the next U.S. president is determined in the November 6 presidential elections. The White House was quick to deny the report, saying that no such meeting was set.

However, according to a report by NBC news earlier Sunday, senior officials in U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration confirmed that back-door talks had taken place, adding that a meeting has yet to be set.

Speaking to NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell, the U.S. officials added that Israel, as well as the other nations involved in Iran talks – Russia, China, Germany, Britain, and France – were all updated on the talks.

Later on Sunday, Iran denied the report, with Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi saying: “We don’t have any discussions or negotiations with America.”

“The [nuclear] talks are ongoing with the P5+1 group of nations. Other than that, we have no discussions with the United States,” he added.

Despite these reports, however, a string of top Israeli officials indicated that Israel had no knowledge of secret talks, with Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman telling Army Radio that he knew nothing of the matter and that Israel wasn’t updated.

Lieberman also attacked the idea of renewing negotiations with Iran or of lifting some of the sanctions imposed on Tehran, saying that the international community must instead increase economic measures against the Islamic Republic.

Vice Prime Minister and Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya’alon also denied the report, saying he wasn’t aware of any information concerning any direct talks between Washington and Tehran planned to take place following the election.

“It’s no secret that clandestine contacts between the Americans and the Iranians had taken place, and that there had been attempts to take advantage of the fact that the United States is part of the talks the six powers are holding with the Iranians in order to advance direct negotiations,” Ya’alon said, adding that “Iran has consistently refused to hold above-board talks with the United States.”

In addition, aides to Defense Minister Ehud Barak emphasized that the information published in the New York Times report was not known to defense establishment officials.

Israel’s Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren told the New York Times that Israel wasn’t told of talks with Iran, if such negotiations did in fact take place.

Despite these comments, the Prime Minister’s Office refused to comment on the report, and it was not yet clear if Netanyahu would refer to the New York Times piece in the traditional photo-op opening the weekly cabinet meeting in Jerusalem on Sunday.

Iran denies report of plans for nuclear talks with US – Israel News, Ynetnews.

Just like Washington, Tehran says no secret negotiations held with US; adds only avenue of nuclear compromise discussed vis-à-vis P5+1

Reuters

Iran denied on Sunday a report in a US newspaper that it had plans for direct talks with the United States over its disputed nuclear program.

The New York Times reported, citing Obama administration officials, that the United States and Iranhad agreed in principle to one-on-one negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program, though the White House quickly denied the report.

“We don’t have any discussions or negotiations with America,” Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said in a news conference on Sunday.

“The (nuclear) talks are ongoing with the P5+1 group of nations. Other than that, we have no discussions with the United States.”

The P5+1 are comprised of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council – China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, and Germany.

Several rounds of talksthis year between Iran and world powers, dubbed the P5+1, have failed to yield a breakthrough.

A spokesman for the US National Security Council also denied the NTY’s report.

“It’s not true that the United States and Iran have agreed to one-on-one talks or any meeting after the American elections,” Tommy Vietor said in a statement.

“We continue to work with the P-5 on a diplomatic solution and have said from the outset that we would be prepared to meet bilaterally.”

Israel Hayom | Ya’alon: Israel would welcome US-Iran talks, if they work.

White House: Iran Nuclear Talks Agreement ‘Not True’.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, current chair of the Non-Aligned Movement, speaks during a press conference at the Bayan Palace in Kuwait City on October 17, 2012. (YASSER AL-ZAYYAT/AFP/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The White House says it is prepared to talk one-on-one with Iran to find a diplomatic settlement to the impasse over Tehran’s reported pursuit of nuclear weapons, but there’s no agreement now to meet.

National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said Saturday that President Barack Obama has made clear that he will prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and will do whatever’s necessary to prevent that from happening. Vietor said Iran must come in line with its obligations, or else faced increased pressure.

“The onus is on the Iranians to do so, otherwise they will continue to face crippling sanctions and increased pressure,” Vietor said in a statement. He noted that efforts to get Iran back to the table with the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany – the so-called “P5+1” – continue.

Iran has been a recurring issue in the presidential election campaign and Vietor’s statement was released shortly after The New York Times reported Saturday that the U.S. and Iran have agreed in principle for the first time to negotiations. The paper said Iran has insisted the talks wait until after the Nov. 6 election.

Vietor, however, denied that any such agreement had been reached.

“It’s not true that the United States and Iran have agreed to one-on-one talks or any meeting after the American elections,” he said. We continue to work with the P5+1 on a diplomatic solution and have said from the outset that we that we would be prepared to meet bilaterally.”

Obama and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney will meet Monday night in a debate focusing on foreign policy and Iran’s nuclear ambitions will likely be a topic. Obama has said he’ll prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. He hopes sanctions alongside negotiations can get Iran to halt uranium enrichment. But the strategy, which began during President George W. Bush’s administration, hasn’t worked yet. Obama holds out the threat of military action as a last resort. Romney has accused Obama of being weak on Iran and says the U.S. needs to present a greater military threat.

Despite unprecedented global penalties, Iran’s nuclear program is advancing as it continues to defy international pressure, including four rounds of sanctions from the U.N. Security Council, to prove that its atomic intentions are peaceful.

Those sanctions, coupled with tough measures imposed by the United States and European nations are taking their toll, particularly on Iran’s economy. Iranian authorities have in recent weeks been forced to quell protests over the plummeting value of the country’s currency, the rial. The rial lost nearly 40 percent of its value against the U.S. dollar in a week in early October, but has since slightly rebounded.

U.S. officials say they are hopeful that pressure from the sanctions may be pushing Iran’s leaders toward concessions, including direct talks with the United States. But several said on Saturday that they did not believe such discussions would happen any time soon.

If one-on-one talks are to occur, they would likely follow the model that the U.S. has used in six-nation nuclear disarmament talks with North Korea, the officials said.

In those discussions, U.S. negotiators have met separately with their North Korean counterparts but only as part of the larger effort, which also involves China, Japan, South Korea and Russia. Direct U.S.-North Korean talks are preceded and followed by intense consultations with the other members of the group.

However, the direct talks with North Korea have yet to bear fruit and U.S. officials warned that talks with Iran may not yield anything either. If U.S.-Iran talks do occur, they would likely be part of the P5+1 process, which groups the Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States and is overseen by the European Union. The group has met numerous times with Iranian officials but has yet to achieve any significant progress.

In late September, the group instructed EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton to reach out to Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, to organize another meeting. No date had been set for the possible resumption of talks.

Iran says its program is for peaceful energy and research purposes but Western nations fear the Islamic republic is determined to develop nuclear weapons and fundamentally reshape the balance of power in the Middle East. That would pose a grave threat to Israel.

Israel has threatened to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities if Tehran doesn’t stop uranium enrichment a process that can be a pathway to nuclear arms. Israel could decide to strike Iran’s nuclear sites on its own, and Israeli leaders say time to act is running out. They have also hinted they would like U.S. support for any such attack.

An Israeli strike on Iran with or without Washington’s involvement would likely draw retribution from Tehran including possible attacks on U.S. and Israeli interests overseas or disruptions to the transit of tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, which could send oil prices skyrocketing.

Obama has counseled patience as public as American public support for another Mideast conflict is low with the Iraq war over and the conflict in Afghanistan winding down.

___

Associated Press writers Matthew Lee and Andrew Miga contributed to this report.

U.S. Officials Say Iran Has Agreed to Nuclear Talks – NYTimes.com.

By HELENE COOPER and MARK LANDLER

¶ WASHINGTON — 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.

¶ Iranian officials have insisted that the talks wait until after the presidential election, a senior administration official said, telling their American counterparts that they want to know with whom they would be negotiating.

¶ News of the agreement — a result of intense, secret exchanges between American and Iranian officials that date almost to the beginning of President Obama’s term — comes at a critical moment in the presidential contest, just two weeks before Election Day and the weekend before the final debate, which is to focus on national security and foreign policy.

¶ It has the potential to help Mr. Obama make the case that he is nearing a diplomatic breakthrough in the decade-long effort by the world’s major powers to curb Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, but it could pose a risk if Iran is seen as using the prospect of the direct talks to buy time.

¶ It is also far from clear that Mr. Obama’s opponent, Mitt Romney, would go through with the negotiation should he win election. Mr. Romney has repeatedly criticized the president as showing weakness on Iran and failing to stand firmly with Israel against the Iranian nuclear threat.

¶ The White House denied that a final agreement had been reached. “It’s not true that the United States and Iran have agreed to one-on-one talks or any meeting after the American elections,” Tommy Vietor, a White House spokesman, said Saturday evening. He added, however, that the administration was open to such talks, and has “said from the outset that we would be prepared to meet bilaterally.”

¶ Reports of the agreement have circulated among a small group of diplomats involved with Iran.

¶ There is still a chance the initiative could fall through, even if Mr. Obama is re-elected. Iran has a history of using the promise of diplomacy to ease international pressure on it. In this case, American officials said they were uncertain whether Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had signed off on the effort. The American understandings have been reached with senior Iranian officials who report to him, an administration official said.

¶ Even if the two sides sit down, American officials worry that Iran could prolong the negotiations to try to forestall military action and enable it to complete critical elements of its nuclear program, particularly at underground sites. Some American officials would like to limit the talks to Iran’s nuclear program, one official said, while Iran has indicated that it wants to broaden the agenda to include Syria, Bahrain and other issues that have bedeviled relations between Iran and the United States since the American hostage crisis in 1979.

¶ “We’ve always seen the nuclear issue as independent,” the administration official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the matter. “We’re not going to allow them to draw a linkage.”

¶ The question of how best to deal with Iran has political ramifications for Mr. Romney as well. While he has accused Mr. Obama of weakness, he has given few specifics about what he would do differently.

¶ 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.

¶ Beyond that, how Mr. Romney responds could signal how he would act if he becomes commander in chief. 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 under secretary of state in the George W. Bush administration.

¶ Iran’s nuclear program “is the most difficult national security issue facing the United States,” Mr. Burns said, adding: “While we should preserve the use of force as a last resort, negotiating first with Iran makes sense. What are we going to do instead? Drive straight into a brick wall called war in 2013, and not try to talk to them?”

¶ The administration, officials said, has begun an internal review at the State Department, the White House and the Pentagon to determine what the United States’ negotiating stance should be, and what it would put in any offer. One option under consideration is “more for more” — more restrictions on Iran’s enrichment activities in return for more easing of sanctions.

¶ Israeli officials initially expressed an awareness of, and openness to, a diplomatic initiative. But when asked for a response on Saturday, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Michael B. Oren, said the administration had not informed Israel, and that the Israeli government feared Iran would use new talks to “advance their nuclear weapons program.”

¶ “We do not think Iran should be rewarded with direct talks,” Mr. Oren said, “rather that sanctions and all other possible pressures on Iran must be increased.”

¶ Direct talks would also have implications for an existing series of negotiations involving a coalition of major powers, including the United States. These countries have imposed sanctions to pressure Iran over its nuclear program, which Tehran insists is for peaceful purposes but which Israel and many in the West believe is aimed at producing a weapon.

¶ Dennis B. Ross, who oversaw Iran policy for the White House until early 2012, says one reason direct talks would make sense after the election is that the current major-power negotiations are bogged down in incremental efforts, which may not achieve a solution in time to prevent a military strike.

¶ Mr. Ross said the United States could make Iran an “endgame proposal,” under which Tehran would be allowed to maintain a civil nuclear power industry. Such a deal would resolve, in one stroke, issues like Iran’s enrichment of uranium and the monitoring of its nuclear facilities.

¶ Within the administration, there is debate over just how much uranium the United States would allow Iran to enrich inside the country. Among those involved in the deliberations, an official said, are Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, two of her deputies — William J. Burns and Wendy Sherman — and key White House officials, including the national security adviser, Tom Donilon, and two of his lieutenants, Denis R. McDonough and Gary Samore.

¶ Iran’s capacity to enrich uranium bears on another key difference between Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney: whether to tolerate Iran’s enrichment program short of producing a nuclear weapon, as long as inspectors can keep a close eye on it, versus prohibiting Iran from enriching uranium at all. Obama administration officials say they could imagine some circumstances under which low-level enrichment might be permitted; Mr. Romney has said that would be too risky.

¶ But Mr. Romney’s position has shifted back and forth. In September, he told ABC News that his “red line” on Iran was the same as Mr. Obama’s — that Iran may not have a nuclear weapon. But his campaign later edited its Web site to include the line, “Mitt Romney believes that it is unacceptable for Iran to possess nuclear weapons capability.”

¶ For years, Iran has rejected one-on-one talks with the United States, reflecting what experts say are internal power struggles. A key tug of war is between President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ali Larijani, Iran’s former nuclear negotiator and now the chairman of the Parliament.

¶ Iran, which views its nuclear program as a vital national interest, has also shied away from direct negotiations because the ruling mullahs did not want to appear as if they were sitting down with a country they have long demonized as the Great Satan.

¶ But economic pressure may be forcing their hand. In June, when the major powers met in Moscow, American officials say that Iran was desperate to stave off a crippling European oil embargo. After that failed, these officials now say, Iranian officials delivered a message that Tehran would be willing to hold direct talks.

¶ In New York in September, Mr. Ahmadinejad hinted at the reasoning. “Experience has shown that important and key decisions are not made in the U.S. leading up to the national elections,” he said.

¶ A senior American official said that the prospect of direct talks is why there has not been another meeting of the major-powers group on Iran.

¶ In the meantime, pain from the sanctions has deepened. Iran’s currency, the rial, plummeted 40 percent in early October.

¶

Roger’s Rules » What Happened to the October Surprise?.

Roger Kimball

Every now and then this past Spring and Summer, someone would bring up the specter of an “October surprise.” There we’d be in the last weeks of the election cycle and bang! out would come some startling revelation about Mitt Romney. Maybe he sacrificed that dog he carried on the roof of his car in some hitherto unknown religious ceremony. Maybe, as was revealed about George Bush early in November 2000, he was caught driving suspiciously slowly after a few too many beers. Who knows?

But as the weeks and months have worn on talk of an October surprise seems to have subsided.

Until today.

By one of those cosmic conjunctions the sage Carl Jung would doubtless make a lot of, I had not one but two encounters with the idea of an October surprise. The first was while chatting with a politically mature friend this morning. I pointed out that Obama’s campaign seemed to be visibly disintegrating by the day. He acknowledged the remarkable sea change in the fortunes of  the campaigns and even allowed that my long-standing prediction that Romney would win (and win big!) might after all turn out to be correct. “But,” he added, “if things look really bad for Obama going into the final week or so, they will think of something to spring.”

Spring what, exactly?

That of course remains to be seen, but it was was just an hour or two later that my friend sent me a link from The Daily Caller, based on a Tweet from the Drudge Report, speculating that Gloria Allred “will soon ‘make a move’ to affect the presidential election.” It was Ms. Allred, recall, who dug up news of Herman Cain’s amatory indiscretion, a revelation that pushed him out of the presidential race last Spring, just as it was Ms. Allred who discovered and publicized the news that Meg Whitman, then running for governor of California, had an illegal immigrant housekeeper in her past. Bye, bye, Meg!

Who knows what sordid stories Gloria Allred has been attempting to conjure? She remained coy. “I have no comment at this time,” she said. “I don’t discuss meetings with potential clients.” Well, well. How… discreet of her. Maybe she’s been re-reading Conan Doyle’s A Study in Scarlet hoping to find a Romney connection to the grisly Mormons recounted in that early Sherlock Holmes caper.

Who knows what dirt Gloria Allred is running her hands through. I suspect that neither Mitt Romney nor Paul Ryan provides a profitable hunting ground for scandal, but who knows? Maybe Paul Ryan was mean to a high school chum? Maybe Mitt Romney forgot to take out the trash? Whatever Gloria Allred comes up with, I’d wager it won’t be any more scandalous than Bardell v Pickwick. 

Which is not to say that Team Obama — with or without the collaboration of a surrogate like la Allred — won’t spring an October surprise of some sort. My friend thought, and I am inclined to agree, that if a surprise is sprung, it will not revolve around any foibles Messrs. Romney or Ryan may exhibit. Nor will it, at this late stage, be likely to have anything to do with the economy. No, the most likely scenario is a foreign adventure of some sort — and something more dramatic than another drone attack. Maybe the administration will suddenly discover some plausible culprits for the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens and his three colleagues in Libya. Maybe Obama will decide to bomb or invade Syria. Or maybe Iran will be the recipient of what the administration a year or so back was calling “kinetic activity.” Who knows?

If Romney’s momentum stalls — which I doubt, but if it does — nothing will happen. But if after Monday’s debate there is further disintegration of our Potemkin President and Ohio and Pennsylvania (to say nothing of New Hampshire, Colorado, Nevada, and Pennsylvania) edge further into the Romney camp, then watch out. The game is up for Obama.

It’s up, that is, short of a deus ex machina in the shape of some manufactured surprise, be it in late October or early November (when many October surprises seem to happen). When I ask myself what an effective surprise might be, I confess I am stumped. I would have said that things had gone too far, that Obama’s record, foreign as well as domestic, was such an unrelieved litany of failure that competent, dynamic, and ostentatiously decent men like Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan would just sail into the White House.

That, in fact, is what I’ve thought would happen for months. I am all the more confident about it now. I freely confess, however, that my experience of Alinskyite treachery is minimal. I continue to believe that Mitt Romney will win, but I think my friend is right that Team Obama will go to virtually any lengths to seize the election. I am trying to think low. I just hope that I am thinking low enough to account for the Chicago, you-bring-a-knife-to-the-fight-I-bring-a-gun tactics that Obama has bragged about pursuing.  He means to win, I have no doubt about that. As of this writing, however, I believe that the United States has not yet descended to full banana-republic. Elections are not that easy to corrupt, at least on the scale necessary to throw a presidential election.

Don’t get me wrong: I’d put nothing past the Obama administration. The question is, what can they put past us? Not enough to win, I think. Let’s see if I’m right.

Faster, Please! » The October Surprise.

The New York Times reports (and the White House denies) that “The United States and Iran have agreed 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.”

Two of the three assertions in that lead paragraph are demonstrably false.  One-on-one negotiations have been going on for years (most recently, according to my friend “Reza Kahlili,” in Doha, where, he was told, Valerie Jarrett and other American officials recently traveled for the latest talks).  The only news here is that the talks would no longer be secret.  And the notion that only diplomacy can avert “a military strike on Iran” is fanciful.  There are at least two other ways:  sanctions may compel the regime to stop its nuclear weapons program, or the Iranian people may find a way to overthrow the regime, thereby (perhaps, at least) rendering military action unnecessary.

I rather suspect that you don’t have to do anything to avoid an American military strike on Iran.  I can’t imagine an Obama administration authorizing a military attack.  An administration that can barely bring itself to fly air cover in Libya, and can’t bring itself to take any serious action in Syria, strikes me as very unlikely to unleash our armed forces against the mullahs.

As for the claim that Iran has agreed to talks, even that seems problematic, as the Times admits further down in its story:  “American officials said they were uncertain whether Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had signed off on the effort.”  If there is no approval from the supreme leader, there is no agreement at all.

The Times’ journalists — Helene Cooper and Mark Lander — then treat us to an attempt to calculate the political significance of their story, but that is as foggy as the report itself.  Maybe it would help Obama claim some sort of breakthrough.  On the other hand, maybe it would leave him open to the charge that Iran is using him to stall for time.  Who knows?  They quote America’s favorite negotiator, Dennis Ross, who is of course all for the talks, and even has a negotiating strategy all ready.  And they quote Nicholas Burns, who is also supportive.

This last is a bit curious, since Burns, who was Condoleezza Rice’s top negotiator with the Iranians, actually believed he had negotiated a “grand bargain” with the Iranians in 2006.  The Iranians would suspend nuclear enrichment and we would lift sanctions.  Except that the Iranians failed to show up for the signing ceremony at the United Nations, and Rice and Burns sat in New York waiting for the Iranian airplane to take off from Tehran.  Apparently Mr.Burns didn’t learn the obvious lesson.

At least one element of the Times story is true:  the agreement, if there actually is one, is undoubtedly “a result of intense, secret exchanges between American and Iranian officials that date almost to the beginning of President Obama’s term.”  Indeed, there were talks between Iranian officials and a representative of the Obama campaign, even before the inauguration.  Secret talks between the two countries have been going on for decades, and I do not know of any American president from Jimmy Carter to the present who did not secretly pursue a deal with Tehran.  (I participated in such talks in the mid-1980s during the Reagan administration.)

So what is happening?  The most likely explanation is that Obama is still desperately seeking his grand bargain, the one that would validate his (and the Nobel Committee’s) claim to be a talented peace maker.  That deal is not available, because the Iranians don’t want it.  But he wants something to show for his efforts, so he settled for a big nothingburger:  an agreement to talk some more.

Even if the story turns out to be true, I don’t think it will help him.  “We’re going to talk to the Iranians!” isn’t a very sexy headline.

The one (mildly) interesting feature is why the story was leaked.  Did the leaker(s) think it would help the campaign?  Or was the leaker trying to stop yet another embarrassing wasted effort?

Give it a few days, maybe we’ll actually learn something interesting.  Maybe it’ll even come up in Monday’s debate…

Articles: Waiting for Obama. And Waiting. And Waiting….

By Abraham Katsman

Source: Back-channel talks but no US-Iran deal on one-to-one nuclear meeting – World News.

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.

By Andrea Mitchell, NBC News

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.

U.S. says willing to meet with Iran on nukes but no talks set | Reuters.

(Reuters) – The New York Times reported on Saturday that the United States and Iran have agreed in principle to hold one-on-one negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program but the White House quickly denied that any talks had been set.

The Times, quoting unnamed Obama administration officials, said earlier on Saturday the two sides had agreed to bilateral negotiations after secret exchanges between U.S. and Iranian officials. The newspaper later said the agreement was “in principle.”

The White House quickly denied the report, which came two days before President Barack Obama is due to face Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney in a debate focused on foreign policy.

“It’s not true that the United States and Iran have agreed to one-on-one talks or any meeting after the American elections,” National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said in a statement.

“We continue to work with the P5+1 on a diplomatic solution and have said from the outset that we would be prepared to meet bilaterally.”

The P5+1 group is composed of the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council – the United States, Britain, China, France and Russia – plus Germany.

Iran had insisted the talks with Washington not begin until after the November 6 U.S. election determines whether Obama will serve a second term or whether Romney will succeed him, the Times said.

The New York Times report looked likely to fan campaign debate over foreign policy, where Romney has been hitting Obama with charges that he has been an ineffective leader who has left the country vulnerable.

The Obama administration counters that it has pressed hard on all major security challenges while at the same time winding down unpopular and expensive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But tensions with Iran continue to simmer, leading many analysts to say it is the largest security issue facing the United States and a potential flashpoint for broader conflict in the Middle East.

TWO TRACKS, FEW RESULTS

The United States has been working with the P5+1 to pressure Iran on its nuclear program but with few results. The United States and other Western powers have charged that Iran’s nuclear program is aimed at developing nuclear weapons, but Tehran insists the program is for peaceful purposes.

Israel has said it would use military force to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power but has in the past had differences with Washington over when Tehran would actually cross the “red line” to nuclear capability.

The Times story quoted an unnamed senior administration official as saying the United States had reached the agreement for bilateral talks with senior Iranian officials who report to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

But the White House said the Obama administration was intent on its current “two-track” course, which involves both diplomatic engagement and a tightening network of international sanctions to pressure Iran.

“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,” Vietor’s statement said.

“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.”

“NON-STARTERS” THUS FAR

The P5+1 has held a series of inconclusive meetings with Iranian officials in the past year. In July, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Tehran’s proposals to date had been “non-starters.”

While Western officials say there is still time to negotiate, they also have been ratcheting up sanctions, which are contributing to mounting economic problems in Iran.

The United States has expressed a willingness for talks narrowly focused on specific issues, preferably on the sidelines of multilateral negotiations. But Iran has been pressing for broader direct negotiations that include other regional issues including Syria and Bahrain – something the United States opposes.

“We’ve always seen the nuclear issue as independent,” the administration official told the Times, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the matter. “We’re not going to allow them to draw a linkage.”

The Times included the White House denial in a subsequent version of its story and said reports of the agreement had circulated among a small group of diplomats involved with Iran.

Even if the two sides sit down, American officials worry Iran could prolong the negotiations to try to forestall military action and enable it to complete key elements of its nuclear program, particularly at underground sites, the Times said.

Any talks would open a diplomatic window for the United States and Israel that could provide strategic cover should they see the need for military action down the road.

“It would be unconscionable to go to war if we haven’t had such discussions,” R. Nicholas Burns, who led negotiations with Tehran as undersecretary of state in the George W. Bush administration, told the Times.

(Additional reporting by Todd Eastham; Editing By Paul Simao and Bill Trott)