Much of the right wing has been in full freak out mode this week with news of a White House meeting with representatives from Egypt’s ruling political party the Muslim Brotherhood. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) tweeted news of the meeting, adding, “Their motto includes ‘jihad is our way.’ We cannot overlook this.” The Heritage Foundation and those such as Islamophobic leader Pam Geller piled on. Geller called it an example of “Obama’s tacit support for a worldwide organization whose stated goal is a universal caliphate.”

But Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, the right’s go-to foreign policy thinkers, suggested on Fox News last night that conservatives should stand down:

KRISTOL: This is a tough policy, situation they are dealing with. I don’t — I think ultimately the failure to deal with Syria and Iran is what the administration is going to be judged on more than this complicated minuet with of different groups of Egypt. [...]

KRAUTHAMMER: You have to speak of the Brotherhood because it’s now in control of parliament and it’s likely to win the presidential election. It will end up sharing the power or monopolizing it with the military, depending whether the military can hang on the part of the power it has now. So to be realistic, you have to talk to them.

Watch the clip:

White House spokesman Jay Carney said called the meetings “the appropriate and right thing to do” because of the Muslim Brotherhood’s post-revolution leadership position. Carney added that Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) had also recently met with Muslim Brotherhood representatives.

Shibley Telhami, the Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland, noted the context of the meetings:

“And to everyone’s surprise, the threat to the Muslim Brotherhood ended up being less from the liberals and more from the more conservative Salafis, including their presidential candidate, who is doing far better than anyone would have expected a few weeks ago. And so, in that sense, the Muslim Brotherhood looks a little bit more moderate, I think.”

Indeed, as the New York Times noted this week, that conservative candidate, Hazem Salah Abu Ismail, “is an old-school Islamist.” “His success,” the Times adds, “may help explain why the United States offered signs of tacit approval over the weekend when the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt’s largest Islamic group, broke its pledge not to field its own candidate.”

The New York Times reported earlier this week that former Iranian president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani had recently reiterated his longstanding suggestion that Iran restore diplomatic relations with the United States. “The meaning of negotiation is not that we submit to them,” Rafsanjani wrote in the International Studies Journal. “We negotiate, and if they accept our positions or we accept theirs, then it is done.” Juan Cole yesterday published an extended version of Rafsanjani’s article, translated from Farsi, in which the former president outlines his logic (emphasis added):

There are difficult passages and if you do not help us pass through them, they will be difficult to pass through after you… Ties with America were one of these issues. I wrote that, after all, our current practice — of not speaking to or having ties with America — could not persist forever. America is the super power of the world. What is the difference between Europe and the US, China and the US, or Russia and the US from our point of view? Why should we not negotiate with the US if we negotiate with them? Talks do not mean that we should surrender to them. We will negotiate and if they accept our positions or we accept their positions, then it would be all over.

The Washington Times reports today that state-affiliated Iranian news outlets are criticizing Rafsanjani:

In a response to the interview, Hossein Shariatmadari, editor of the pro-government newspaper Kayhan, said Khomeini opposed dialogue with the U.S. “because Iran’s primary conflict has been and remains with America.”

Iran’s semi-official Fars News Agency, which is close to the elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, said that Mr. Rafsanjani’s call for a dialogue with Washington contradicts senior officials who have said that talks with the U.S. would produce no results.

Shariatmadari said that U.S. must “change its arrogant nature, or as His Holiness said, ‘dismounts the ass of Satan,’” before Iran negotiates. “His Excellency Rafsanjani has apparently forgotten that the United States solely desires negotiations for the sake of negotiations and not in for solving the problems of the parties.” Shariatmadari added.

Hojjat al-Eslam Ali Saidi, representative of the Supreme Leader to the Revolutionary Guards, also pushed back. “As long as the United States has an arrogant nature, there is under no circumstance the possibility of negotiation and reaching an agreement with the United States,” he said.

Rafsanjani is currently chairman of the Expediency Council, which advises the Supreme Leader.

The Washington Post’s David Ignatius reports today that Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan delivered a message to Khamenei last week from President Obama saying that the U.S. would accept Iran’s civilian nuclear program if the Supreme Leader “can back up his recent public claim that his nation ‘will never pursue nuclear weapons.’” Ignatius added, “Obama advised Erdogan that the Iranians should realize that time is running out for a peaceful settlement and that Tehran should take advantage of the current window for negotiations.”