Yeah, I think he did that. It’s called nuance. The last guy who had his job didn’t do that particularly well.

I am very familiar with the Arab approach to negotiations, having visited Saudi Arabia at least a dozen times over the past 8 years for sales campaigns and meetings to resolve customer concerns. You are 100% correct, they will circle around an issue for quite a while before finally addressing it. They are extremely hospitable and will go out of their way to make you comfortable. When negotiating, they often make outrageous demands or threaten drastic action up front, but after going back and forth for a while and circling around they come back to a more reasonable position and then you can start the real discussions. That’s what I was talking about with my comment to mylegacy above where I mentioned that the other side isn’t using the same negotiator handbook as he is.

The negotiating approach used in the West does not necessarily work in the Arab (or Persian) world, and expecting the other side to follow the same rulebook you’re using is a mistake.

So mylegacy’s comment above about his 25 years experience negotiating (within the West, I assume) and thinking Obama’s statements were perfect doesn’t mean that in this particular negotiation, with this particular country, they were.

You would think that the most eloquent President in the history of the world could have crafted a reply that essentially boiled down to an artful and diplomatic “No”.

No, they start with Eisenhower and go from there.

Notice that his somewhat rambling response in no way said anything resembling or even close to “No” to the question of Iran possessing nukes.

If he had simply said “No,” it would be a pretty shitty interview now, wouldn’t it?

Looks like the other side in this particular negotiation isn’t using the same negotiator handbook:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: Barack Obama should apologise for 60 years of ‘crimes’

I’m sure those 60 years of ‘crimes’ can all be attributed to Bush in some way.

I think that President “I Won” Obama has clearly demonstrated that he cares little about pleasing Republicans, so I fully expect him to continue ignoring them.

And he did go with his instinct: On a tough question, he declined to answer.

If you tell Iran publicly that they absolutely cannot build a nuke, then short of bombing them every six months nothing you can do will stop them.

I doubt that your “can’t win, don’t try” approach is a winning one. At least not by an administration that wants to go beyond one term.

“Words matter”. Lack of words matter as well. Sometimes what you don’t say is just as important as wht you say. Obama’s failure to answer a direct and straightforward question like this says a lot to the people involved.

As noted here, our host seems to think that Bush’s supposed silence (ignoring for a moment the UN Security Council resolutions and sanctions that he, in reality, pushed for) only encouraged Iran to continue their nuclear program. Won’t Obama’s non-response to that question do the same?

BTW, as I understand it, he chose Al Arabiya as opposed to Al Jazeera because it is viewed as a more moderate network, even though Al Jazeera has a much bigger audience. Kinda like going to CNN instead of the kooks at Fox even though Fox supposedly has bigger audience.

Obama’s answer FAR from being “Present” on the issue is a brilliant response. When you are going into negotiations with people that don’t trust you an important first step is to establish common ground and show respect. As Obama has said, “Words matter.”

As an experienced negotiator with over 25 years experience I thought his comments were an ABSOLUTELY PERFECT opening statement.

Bravo Obama!

Q: Will the United States ever live with a nuclear Iran? And if not, how far are you going in the direction of preventing it?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, I said during the campaign that it is very important for us to make sure that we are using all the tools of U.S. power, including diplomacy, in our relationship with Iran.

Now, the Iranian people are a great people, and Persian civilization is a great civilization. Iran has acted in ways that’s not conducive to peace and prosperity in the region: their threats against Israel; their pursuit of a nuclear weapon which could potentially set off an arms race in the region that would make everybody less safe; their support of terrorist organizations in the past — none of these things have been helpful.

But I do think that it is important for us to be willing to talk to Iran, to express very clearly where our differences are, but where there are potential avenues for progress. And we will over the next several months be laying out our general framework and approach. And as I said during my inauguration speech, if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.

Notice that his somewhat rambling response in no way said anything resembling or even close to “No” to the question of Iran possessing nukes. At best, he waggled his finger reproachfully at Iran and accused them of being “not helpful”.

President Obama votes “Present” on the issue.

Oh, I don’t know about that. Glen Beck may just have an anuerism.

Nothing may come of this Administration’s outreach – BUT – I strongly suspect that Barack Hussein Obama is a breath of fresh air – a breath that the world had come to fear would never come. He is the man for the time. Let all of us; Christian, Jew, Muslin, Atheist and all others that wish our children better educated, safer and healthier to rally to this call for reason. Lets isolate the harbingers of hate on all sides and give peace a chance – we have nothing to lose – much to gain.

I believe Iran has its next election in June 2009. If that’s right, now is the time for ordinary Iranians to send a message of hope to the Mullahs – a message of peace, a message that say’s “Yes we can.”

A message they dare not ignore.