On the eve of the third and final presidential debate, which deals with foreign policy, the New York Times ran a lead story, citing unnamed Obama administration officials, that the United States and Iran have agreed in principle for the first time to one-on-one negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program. Iran reportedly has insisted that its direct talks with Washington should not begin until after the U.S. presidential election on November 6 and wants to broaden the scope of the discussions beyond just the nuclear enrichment issues.
Denials from both sides quickly followed.
"It's not true that the United States and Iran have agreed to one-on-one talks or any meeting after the American elections," U.S. National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said in a statement quoted by Reuters.
Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi denied that any bilateral talks were in the offing. "We don't have any discussions or negotiations with America," Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi told a news conference according to Reuters. "The (nuclear) talks are ongoing with the P5+1 group of nations. Other than that, we have no discussions with the United States."
In fact, an Iranian Revolutionary Guard commander was quoted as bragging that the recent Hezbollah-launched drone into Israeli territory proved that "Zionists (Israelis) and Americans must know that no place is safe for them anymore."
Could the New York Times story be simply a trial balloon by Obama administration officials to change the subject from Libya? Although certainly a crass political maneuver, that theory would turn out to be the best scenario. Of far more concern to the security of the United States and Israel is that there really is a deal - the October surprise that we have all been waiting for - that would trade soften sanctions for some temporary limits on Iran's further enrichment of uranium.
A former CIA operative inside Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, who goes under the pseudonym Reza Kahlili, wrote in WND that his highly placed source inside the Iranian regime told him that a deal has in fact been struck. Moreover, once Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei receives a letter from President Obama in the next few days guaranteeing the details of the agreement, there will be a public announcement made before the election. All this was reportedly worked out in a secret meeting held in Qatar earlier this month. None other than Obama's confidante Valerie Jarrett led the U.S. delegation, according to Kahlili's Iranian source.
No European countries were reportedly involved in this meeting. Israel, which has the most to lose if the Iranian regime goes for a nuclear weapon despite an agreement with Obama to behave, was left completely in the dark.
Kahlili's article is far more specific than what the Times reported:
The agreement calls for Iran to announce a temporary halt to partial uranium enrichment after which the U.S. will remove many of its sanctions, including those on the Iranian central bank, no later than by the Iranian New Year in March.
Kahlili's sources included not only the highly placed Iranian "who remains anonymous for security reasons." He also claimed verification by French intelligence that "Yukiya Amano, the current director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, has been given the go-ahead by the U.S. to be ready to travel to Iran and announce the agreement."
The Iranian regime knows that it will have a much easier time dealing with the Obama administration than a new Romney administration. Thus, it would not be surprising at all if Iran's Supreme Leader were willing to give Obama the opportunity to boast to voters on the eve of the election that his diplomacy-and-sanctions policy has worked after all.
Kahlili reported that, according to his Iranian source, "the U.S. delegation urged an announcement, even if only on a temporary nuclear deal, before the U.S. elections to help Obama get re-elected." The U.S. delegation also reportedly warned the Iranian negotiator that a Romney presidency "would surely move more toward Israel if Iran does not stand by Obama" and that "if Iran does not stand by Obama, Israel will attack Iran."
WND asked for comment on its report from the State Department and the White House. It got no response from the State Department and a "no comment" from the White House.
If Kahlili's report turns out to be true, the implications are staggering. To win re-election, Barack Obama is willing to pull a Neville Chamberlain and announce a nice sounding deal with a totally untrustworthy, ruthless regime just in time for the election. Valerie Jarrett will have taken over high stakes diplomacy for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who just took a bullet for the Obama team in accepting responsibility for the Benghazi security disaster. Israel has once again been thrown under the bus. And our European allies, who stuck their necks out with very tough sanctions against Iran, have been excluded from the negotiations.
The Iranian regime has used negotiations as a stalling tactic for years. Only this time, it is for keeps. Obama has chased his unconditional negotiations dream for four years, allowing Iran to get closer and closer to achieving its goal of nuclear arms. If Reza Kahlili's story is true, the Iranian regime will succeed sooner rather than later.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.