Compare opinions of experts, leaders and organizations.
        

Should the US president talk face to face with Iran's president?

Topics: Middle East Politics   Iran  

Background

During the presidential debates, John McCain and Barack Obama argued vigorously over whether the US president should talk face to face with Iran's president. The conservative's position is that until preconditions are met, such as acknowledging the state of Israel, any such meeting would be pointless, and do nothing but to legitimatize a corrupt regime in the eyes of the world. The liberal position is that negotiation may bear fruit, and will actually help the US gain international credibility.
 


Expert Opinions

What's Your TakeOnIt?

Agree
AnswerExpert
Quote
President of Iran
...I announced that I am ready, in the United Nations, to engage in a debate with Mr. Bush, the president of the United States, about critical international issues. So that shows that we want to talk, having a debate before the world public -- before all the audience, so that truth is revealed, so that misunderstandings and misperceptions are removed, so that we can find a clear path for brotherly and friendly relations...     
25 Sep 2007   Source
Politics and Business Magazine
Mr Obama had it right. Speaking to the enemy is an ordinary part of diplomacy and does not on its own amount to appeasement. In Munich in 1938, Neville Chamberlain's sin was not that he talked to Adolf Hitler, but that instead of standing up to him he sold Czechoslovakia down the river. Had the British prime minister then been Winston Churchill, the outcome of the meeting, and the history of the world, might have been different.     
22 May 2008   Source
United States President 2009-
...if we show ourselves willing to talk and to offer carrots and sticks in order to deal with these pressing problems [then] if Iran then rejects any overtures of that sort, it puts us in a stronger position to mobilize the international community to ratchet up the pressure on Iran. Our unwillingness to talk or the perception that we are trying to bully our way through negotiations, that's eliminated as an excuse for them not dealing with these issues in an appropriate way.     
23 Jul 2008   Source
Disagree
AnswerExpert
Quote
United States President 2001-2008
Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.     
15 May 2008   Source
U.S. Senator, Republican
...what [would] such a summit with President Ahmadinejad would actually gain, except an earful of anti-Semitic rants, and a worldwide audience for a man who denies one Holocaust and talks before frenzied crowds... [this] would harm Iranian moderates and dissidents, as the radicals and hardliners strengthen their position and suddenly acquire the appearance of respectability. [Instead] we must create the real-world pressures that will peacefully but decisively change the path they are on.     
27 Jun 2008   Source