http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/28/world ... .html?_r=0Obama Speaks to President of Iran in First Talk Since 1979
WASHINGTON — The long fractured relationship between the United States and Iran took a significant turn on Friday when President Obama and President Hassan Rouhani became the first leaders of their countries to speak since the Tehran hostage crisis more than three decades ago.
In a hurriedly arranged telephone call, Mr. Obama reached Mr. Rouhani as he was being driven to the airport to return to Iran after a whirlwind news media and diplomatic blitz in New York. The two agreed to accelerate talks aimed at defusing the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program and afterward expressed optimism at the prospect of a rapprochement that would transform the Middle East.
“Resolving this issue, obviously, could also serve as a major step forward in a new relationship between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran, one based on mutual interests and mutual respect,” Mr. Obama, referring to Tehran’s nuclear program, told reporters at the White House after the 15-minute phone call. “It would also help facilitate a better relationship between Iran and the international community, as well as others in the region.”
On Twitter after the call, Mr. Rouhani wrote, “In regards to nuclear issue, with political will, there is a way to rapidly solve the matter.” He added that he told Mr. Obama, “We’re hopeful about what we will see from” the United States and other major powers “in coming weeks and months.”
The conversation was the first between Iranian and American leaders since 1979 when President Jimmy Carter spoke by telephone with Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi shortly before the shah left the country, according to Iran experts. The Islamic Revolution that toppled the shah’s government led to the seizure of the American Embassy and a 444-day hostage crisis that have left the two countries at odds with each other ever since.
A couple of years ago, this is something that I might have seen as hopeful in terms of trying to bring Iran back into the company of civilized nations, but at this point, in light of how badly the Syrian situation was bungled, I would much prefer that this administration not undertake any major foreign policy initiatives with the Iranians or any other hostile power. If we do, I'm seriously concerned they'll get taken to the cleaners with some fig leaf deal that will leave the Iranians merrily pursuing their nuclear weapons ambitions, and American security deeply imperiled.
After briefly looking like he was finally getting US Syrian policy on a proper course, he then made the bizarre decision to seek completely unneeded Congressional authorization. I have to wonder if he'd had his first term "A Team" both in the White House and in key cabinet positions, like Robert Gates (and yes, even Hillary Clinton), if there wouldn't have been somebody around with sufficient stature and sense to have been able to talk him out of that incredibly boneheaded move. (Talk about an unforced error... I wonder who came up with that foolhardy idea in the first place; Michelle? Biden?)
This was followed by an embarrassing and painful to watch two weeks of confusing and contradictory attempts to build support for the completely unnecessary authorization, (during which time popular support for action actually dropped and Congressional opposition solidified) that was then followed by grasping a straw tossed out by the Russians, (thus re-instating the Russian veto over US action that it looked like the Administration had at long last freed itself from) which then culminated in a bad joke of an agreement backed up by a toothless UN Security Council resolution. (An agreement that the Syrians will never honestly comply with, and which accomplishes absolutely nothing except to help solidify Assad's position, and earn us even more enmity with the Syrian people.)
All-in-all not a confidence inspiring performance....
What Barack Obama telegraphed to the world with that comedy of errors, is that he is at this point a man who will grasp at any straw, no matter how thin, that is offered to him in order to avoid using military force. (Except apparently for drone strikes, far away from TV cameras)
I'm certain that's the Iranian take-away from his actions, (because frankly, that's the conclusion the evidence supports) and it is not the position one should want the US government negotiating from. (Unless maybe you're Vladimir Putin or somebody else who wishes America ill.)
Whoever it was in the Administration that was providing the backbone for US foreign policy does not appear to be there anymore, and that being the case, I would just as soon they just coast out the remaining years and leave any major initiatives to the next Administration. Judging by the recent track record, any deal they cut is likely to be a bad one.
Exactly what is the difference between a "lame duck" and a "second term" presidency, other than the first sounding worse than the second? Were Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and GWBush all "lame ducks" the moment they got re-elected? 
Touché!