Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.
Home › Politics

Hillary Clinton | 04/09/2009 9:10 am

Clinton: It 'Makes Sense' to Engage Iran on Nukes

By The Staff at wowOwow.com
© Getty Images

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says it "makes sense" to start multinational negotiations with Iran on its nuclear capabilities. The remark came as American diplomat William Burns met with French, Chinese, British and Russian leaders, whom the U.S. hopes will participate in direct talks with Iran, which has been enriching uranium over the past few years. Iranian officials insist they’re simply exploring energy options, but international parties believe the Republic’s looking to build a bomb.

The Burns meeting represents just another step the Obama administration has taken to ease tensions with Iran, with which the Bush administration refused to engage. Said Clinton of the initiative:

Pursuing very careful engagement on a range of issues that affect our interests and the interests of the world with Iran makes sense. There’s nothing more important than trying to convince Iran to cease its efforts to obtain a nuclear weapon.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seems receptive to multilateral talks, but told his people that the U.S. and others must remain "honest," according to The New York Times.

Read more about: Barack Obama, China, England, France, Hillary Clinton, Iran, News, Nuclear, Russia

22 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

f p
Yes it does—the world doesn’t need any more of those damned things.
By f p on 04/09/2009 9:25 am
Mel Berg
Finally, it is about time that the U.S. opened talks with all countries. Talk is cheap and in the long run perhaps issues can be worked out in an agreeable fashion. It never hurts to talk first!
By Mel Berg on 04/09/2009 9:32 am
f p
Yep Mel it’s called diplomacy, something that was forgotten contrarily during the Shrub’s years.
By f p on 04/09/2009 9:33 am
Diana T

And, FP, it’s called Statecraft.  Something the previous administration lost all thought of.  Dennis Ross wrote one of the best books with this very title, and I learned so much from it.

We should have engaged Iran in talks years ago.  There was a window, albeit brief, where they were making overtures towards us and the Bush people ignored the opportunity. 

By Diana T on 04/09/2009 9:44 am
f p
And that wasn’t the only thing the Bushies ignored, Di—what an utter disaster that—and I hesitate to even use the word—"administration" was globally.
By f p on 04/09/2009 9:48 am
Diana T
I was interested in listening to Holbrooke one evening talking about how the previous administration was "outsourcing" diplomacy in the areas where we were so effective.  i.e.  Israel.  We absolutely neglected the progress that was being made for about 7 1/2 years until it dawned on them that there was an election coming up.  Time lost and great opportunities also.  BTW, FP,  I am reading a most interesting book on this whole subject by Martin Indyk called, "Innocent Abroad:  An Intimate Account of American Peace Diplomacy in the Middle East."  If you recall, he was our ambassador to Israel under the Clinton administration.  Between this book and Dennis Ross’ book on Statecraft,  one learns what good diplomacy is and how it works.  Too bad Bush didn’t read them, huh?
By Diana T on 04/09/2009 10:58 am
f p
I’m aware of the book, Di—I’ll ry to pick it up t the library—I’ve other things by him, articles and such and he seems to know what he’s talking about.  Ta for the heads up :-) 
By f p on 04/09/2009 11:55 am
Joe estep
Diplomacy is fine, it might even work if we set the rules and the other side plays by them. This has not been the case in the past when dealing with Iran. The only problem I see is is who will be doing the negotiations from our side. This administration does not have an understanding of the real world as evidenced by the dealing with North Korea missile launch, trashing past efforts by the US in Europe and wanting to negotiate with the imaginary moderates in the Taliban.  Keep thinking the world is all sweetness and light and they will take advantage of the US. All nations have a duty to act in their own self interest (those of their citizens) something this Administration has not done to date but Iran has show to fully understand and not be influenced by the rest of the world. I wish them luck, but more so the wisdom to know when they are being taken for a ride.
By Joe estep on 04/09/2009 10:42 am
Diana T
Sir,  effective diplomacy and statecraft are not "sweetness and light".  If you really want to read a good book, read Dennis Ross’ book called Statecraft:How to Restore America’s Standing in the World.  It is a fascinating subject of how these diplomats ply their trade.  And, there is nothing sweet about it.
By Diana T on 04/09/2009 11:02 am
deber B

Well, Hillary, of course it makes sense to America!   However, it won’t make sense to the Middle East.   Their whole posturing is all about "power."   They, in essence, like to be "the" country with the largest capability.   That’s who they are.   They enjoy knowing that they can scare each other by flipping a few switches.  

If the U. S. can be influential and successful I am sure I will not see it in my lifetime.   These aren’t people or countries who think like us.   In fact, they don’t even like us.   

By deber B on 04/09/2009 11:55 am
f p

After 8 yrs of no diplomacy and statecraft it’s about time we started again.  It’s not going to happen in a day and it will be long and arduous getting these people back to the table but I believe it’s worth doing.  As for the middle-east being about power—I’d say it’s more about creating a gaza state and getting Israel to simmer down and enter the talks. Syria seems to be interested and possibly Iran. 

By f p on 04/09/2009 11:59 am
Diana T
Syria is key to a settlement, and when you read Indyk’s book you will see why and how that works.  Really fascinating stuff.
By Diana T on 04/09/2009 12:27 pm
RaMina Mirmortazavi
um…wow…have you ever BEEN to the middle east? the people there DO like americans, they just hate that the previous administration used inflaming rhetoric and not diplomacy to deal with them.
By RaMina Mirmortazavi on 04/11/2009 9:59 am
Mel Berg
Hey RaMina, I do believe what you say, when were you in the middle east? The rightwingers on this site though will never agree with that. They believe the middle east is just out to get us anyway they can!
By Mel Berg on 04/11/2009 8:11 pm
caj p
I think all nukes need taking away from everyone…who needs them really?  Only those who want to keep the world at war and feel they hold the power benefit from them.  We need to engage Iran to help with the stabilization of peace in the Middle East, I say talk away with everyone and help this world become a safer place for all.
By caj p on 04/09/2009 4:04 pm
12next ›last »