TEHRAN, Iran – Iran's president on Sunday endorsed the resumption of talks with the international community about his country's nuclear program, the latest in Tehran's recently intensified push to get those negotiations going again.

The talks foundered a year ago and months later, a fourth round of U.N. sanctions was imposed on Iran over its refusal to halt uranium enrichment — a program the West is concerned masks Iranian ambitions for making nuclear weapons.

Iran denies the charge and says its nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes. It insists it wants to enrich uranium to make fuel for a planned reactor network and denies accusations that it will use the program to make fissile warhead material.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran is ready to resume the talks and added that the West had made the first step.

"They have come and said, 'We will negotiate,'" Ahmadinejad told a crowd of supporters in the northwestern city of Ardebil, about 370 miles (600 kilometers) northwest of Tehran. "We say, 'All right, we will negotiate with you.'"

He gave no timeframe for the talks.

EU's foreign affairs and security chief, Catherine Ashton, suggested last Thursday the talks be held in Vienna "over three days in mid-November," with the participation of the United States, Britain, China, France, Russia and Germany.

Ashton issued the statement soon after meeting U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in Brussels.

At the rally in Ardebil, Ahmadinejad warned the West the talks with Iran would not make progress unless the West clarifies its stance over Israel's alleged nuclear arsenal — an apparent attempt to deflect attention from Iran's nuclear program.

If this doesn't happen, the West will show it "supports the Zionist regime's atomic bomb and is not seeking to have a friendship (with Iran) through the talks," Ahmadinejad added.

Israel is widely believed to have a nuclear arsenal but has never confirmed or denied it. As Iran's archenemy, the Jewish state fears it will be targeted by Iran and Ahmadinejad has repeatedly made references to Israel's destruction.

"If you choose this path, your achievement in the talks will be the same as before," Ahmadinejad said, addressing the international community. "You will not gain an iota more."

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/10/17/ahmadinejad-endorses-new-nuclear-talks-west/

After the recent stunts this jack *** has pulled and said, the only talk we should be having with him is about a 500 kiloton one.

This does not appear to be 'lets talk'...

Pears to be more like 'you listen I talk'...

with warnings in multiple that any 'talk' by the US of limiting in any way Iran's nuclear ambitions will resulting in limiting the 'talks'.

Irans version of 'unconditional surrender'.

Iran will not be ready to actually talk until their rash nuclear decision results in a major accident. (A good possiblity givin the unstable geological foundation of that area of the earth and the rash and rapid way in which the 'research' is being conducted).

I think if Iran gets the bomb it will be one less war we have to send our kids to fight. It seems we will only attack countries who cannot defend themselves and if I was president of Iran I would know the only thing I could do to save my people from the destruction Iraq has endured would be to defend the country. It would probably be in our own best interests if he should develope one anyhow, realy can we afford another war? would world opinion even let us contrive yet another reasone to attack another country? Lets stop pretending we have any legitimate right to even suggest it. By the terms of the nuclear non proliferation treaty the nuclear powers are required to eliminate their weapons in exchange for other countries not to develope them.

The US isn't the only country that wan't to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, 99% of the world does including the MAJORITY of the Middle East.

Your right, it will be one less war we will have to face since Israel or another nuclear country will wipe Iran off the map completely to prevent them from getting a weapon.

I dont think Israel will prevent them from becoming a nuclear country. But I do believe it will be a nuclear exchange between the two if it goes that far.

iran has threatened us with"come on give us your best shot" really well we have all the nuclear power so what do we have to fear? seriously we can tell other countries "no no don't do it"and what will we do?

genocide is ok with you?

i have to actually congradulate myself cause really how can any american answer this w/o comedy?

The consequences of such an act.

One nuclear reactor in the old soviet union melted (did not even explode) and the world is STILL dealing with the traveling radiation cloud. Iran is liable to build first generation style weapons. Lots of bang for the buck... massive radiation in the form of dust and such down range and in the upper atmosphere. People will die in places that have never even heard of Iran, let alone know they had such a weapon.

Humans is such stupid creatures sometimes.

Its in humanity's hearts to kill each other. I would cheer on when the Muslims are getting wiped out.

Muck Muck Iditarod wants to talk because he knows the dems are soon to be out of power and the repubs are taking control.

It could be a repeat of when Iran had our hostiges and Jimmy Carter would do nothing to bring them home.
When Ronald Reagan became president, he told Iran to release them or we were coming over there to get them ourselves.
They released them immediately!!

I remember that as though it were a meal ago! Good times right there

President Reagan acknowledged last night in a nationally televised speech that he had traded U.S. arms for American hostages and said he accepted the "honest, convincing and highly critical" findings of the Tower special review board that investigated the Iran-contra affair.

"A few months ago I told the American people that I did not trade arms for hostages," Reagan said in a 13-minute speech from the Oval Office. "My heart and my best intentions still tell me that is true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not."

This statement contradicted Reagan's previous statements about the Iran arms deals and came a week after the Tower report faulted both the initiative and …

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1309515.html

if his voice was not commandeered buy many a international man of plan, his voice would not even be uttered for the sake of the arrow of the markmens bow that twas stuck between two eye's.

Genocide is what will happen to the ENTIRE Middle East if Iran gets a weapon.

Republican's will have control of the football again in 2012 and Iran will be back to wanting to talk and will stop running their mouths.

Hell, that's when Reagan ordered Seal Team 6 to be created, to go in and get them out.

You live in your world and I will live in mine

The Iran–Contra affair[1] (Persian: ماجرای مک‌فارلین, Spanish: caso Irán-contras) was a political scandal in the United States that came to light in November 1986. During the Reagan administration, President Ronald Reagan and other senior U.S. officials secretly facilitated the sale of arms to Iran, the subject of an arms embargo.[2] At least some U.S. officials also hoped that the arms sales would secure the release of hostages and allow U.S. intelligence agencies to fund the Nicaraguan contras.

The affair began as an operation to improve U.S.-Iranian relations. It was planned that Israel would ship weapons to a relatively moderate, politically influential group of Iranians, and then the U.S. would resupply Israel and receive the Israeli payment. The Iranian recipients promised to do everything in their power to achieve the release of six U.S. hostages, who were being held by the Lebanese Shia Islamist group Hezbollah, who in turn were unknowingly connected to the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution. The plan deteriorated into an arms-for-hostages scheme, in which members of the executive branch sold weapons to Iran in exchange for the release of the American hostages.[3][4] Large modifications to the plan were devised by Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North of the National Security Council in late 1985, in which a portion of the proceeds from the weapon sales was diverted to fund anti-Sandinista and anti-communist rebels, or Contras, in Nicaragua.[5][6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms-for-hostages