"This looks like the next failure for secretary of state jhon kerry just as the palestinian-israeli issue."
I agree with the second part (though it's the rare Secretary of State who doesn't make at least a feeble effort to settle that dispute, or at least to appear to be trying). But I think Kerry will pull off the Iran deal, and most people here in the US eventually will understand that was a good deal for us. Even many who rail against it now will admit that, at least to themselves.
I already see signs of this, even before the deal gets struck. A few years back, a proposal was made that Iran would send nuclear fuel to Russia, and then on to France, and then back to Iran. That struck me as just about the stupidest idea I'd ever heard, and Iran said "no." The chances of any of that uranium ever returning to Iran were minuscule.
Yet now it's reported that Iran is prepared to ship several/many tons of partially enriched uranium out of Iran. At first that struck me as just Act II of the same stupid idea. But then I thought: Iran has agreed to reduce its fuel stocks to 300 KG, a small fraction of what it has now. If it's serious, why NOT ship the rest out of Iran. If the US, France and others play the games I'd anticipated with the earlier proposal, so what? Iran will still be left with the 300 KG it DOESN'T ship out of Iran, and that's all it's entitled to anyway.
Critics of this deal should ask themselves: Would Iran ship this fuel out of Iran ABSENT this deal?
I agree with the second part (though it's the rare Secretary of State who doesn't make at least a feeble effort to settle that dispute, or at least to appear to be trying). But I think Kerry will pull off the Iran deal, and most people here in the US eventually will understand that was a good deal for us. Even many who rail against it now will admit that, at least to themselves.
I already see signs of this, even before the deal gets struck. A few years back, a proposal was made that Iran would send nuclear fuel to Russia, and then on to France, and then back to Iran. That struck me as just about the stupidest idea I'd ever heard, and Iran said "no." The chances of any of that uranium ever returning to Iran were minuscule.
Yet now it's reported that Iran is prepared to ship several/many tons of partially enriched uranium out of Iran. At first that struck me as just Act II of the same stupid idea. But then I thought: Iran has agreed to reduce its fuel stocks to 300 KG, a small fraction of what it has now. If it's serious, why NOT ship the rest out of Iran. If the US, France and others play the games I'd anticipated with the earlier proposal, so what? Iran will still be left with the 300 KG it DOESN'T ship out of Iran, and that's all it's entitled to anyway.
Critics of this deal should ask themselves: Would Iran ship this fuel out of Iran ABSENT this deal?
This whole "no-notice inspections" issue is being misstated, unintentionally or otherwise. Iran never said, or even hinted, that it would allow such inspections. What Iran has consistently said is that it would adopt and observe the Additional Protocol (which many countries do, while some don't -- e.g. Brazil, Iran). The AP indeed calls for more robust inspections, of more places, but it's not the "any time, anywhere" inspection scheme that some commenters suggest. No country allows that, and probably never will.
D.H. writes:
"Rather, where Iran differs from all other countries is its having successfully manipulated the US presidential election, due to Jimmy Carter's loss."
No question that the Iran hostage crisis weakened Carter. But Reagan won in a huge landslide. I doubt the Iran hostage crisis contributed much to that. As for Iran releasing our hostages on the day Reagan was inaugurated, it did strike me as a cheap trick by Iran, but it certainly didn't affect US politics. The election had occurred over two months earlier, after all. A slap in the face to Carter, to be sure, but by then it didn't matter much.
"Rather, where Iran differs from all other countries is its having successfully manipulated the US presidential election, due to Jimmy Carter's loss."
No question that the Iran hostage crisis weakened Carter. But Reagan won in a huge landslide. I doubt the Iran hostage crisis contributed much to that. As for Iran releasing our hostages on the day Reagan was inaugurated, it did strike me as a cheap trick by Iran, but it certainly didn't affect US politics. The election had occurred over two months earlier, after all. A slap in the face to Carter, to be sure, but by then it didn't matter much.
I spent my teenage years in Iran after the revolution. The ultimate goal of Islamic Republic of Iran is to export Shia version of Islam to the world (and they don't hide this). Their ideology is no different than ISIS (The Sunni version).
If we legitimize Iran by letting them go nuclear in 10 years from now if they play nice, we might as well let ISIS go nuclear so that they can counterbalance Iran in the not so distant future.The best we can hope for is for Islamic State keeping Islamic Republic busy.
If we legitimize Iran by letting them go nuclear in 10 years from now if they play nice, we might as well let ISIS go nuclear so that they can counterbalance Iran in the not so distant future.The best we can hope for is for Islamic State keeping Islamic Republic busy.
This looks like the next failure for secretary of state jhon kerry just as the palestinian-israeli issue.
There is no question in my mind that there will be no deal and it will be made to appear that it will be Iran's fault. How can we impose such impossible demands on Iran that no country would agree to. There is just too much power by controlling interests in this country who will seek to derail any possible deal with Iran.
Iran should be treated no worse than any other party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty who does not have nuclear weapons. Iran has earned and deserves to be treated better than the ethnic sectarian supremacist rogue states like Israel, India and Pakistan which have nuclear weapons and are not parties to the NPT. The P 5 + 1 should be expanded to include Japan and they should relentlessly focus on the true threatening outlaws- Israel, India and Pakistan- with diplomacy up to and including boycotts, divestment and sanctions. A nuclear weapons free Middle East and India/Pakistan is in the best interests of the world. The P 5 need to lead the way by cutting back on their nuclear arsenals.
7
Abandon hope all ye who enter here.
1
SANCTIONS Iran, by appearing to jettison the agreement about intrusive inspections of sites related to their nuclear program is telling the world that it is toying with maintaining international sanctions and having more piled on top of them. I think that McCain and Graham have overlooked the fact that North Korea has done as it pleases with its nuclear program. And our ally Israel maintains secrecy and deniability about its nuclear program. Rather, where Iran differs from all other countries is its having successfully manipulated the US presidential election, due to Jimmy Carter's loss. The timing of Iran's release of US Hostages coincided with the swearing in of Ronald Reagan. The impact of his administration on the US is for another conversation. However, the psychology of negotiation and bargaining is different from ours in the US. Our culture is based on the concept of fairness, while the Iranian culture is based upon the concept of honor. Fairness can be concretized into measurable terms; honor never can. So we will probably never know how Khamenei calculates an honorable agreement with the US. His claim that as the supreme leader of Iran due to his religious status in what is clearly a theocracy is clear. What he deems to be honorable and consistent with his religious scruples will prevail. At least publicly. Placing so much focus on trying to auger his final position will only make him feel the need to defend his country's honor more strongly.
1
We're being asked to strike a largely secret accord on development of atomic weapons with a government that calls our country The Great Satan, and has been very anti-American for 36 years.
That attitude toward us makes trust in their word quite difficult--with sympathy for the millions of Iranian citizens under that government who don't share that image of the U.S.
That attitude toward us makes trust in their word quite difficult--with sympathy for the millions of Iranian citizens under that government who don't share that image of the U.S.
2
"As with everything in these negotiations, working out a formula for those inspections is hardly as simple as television excerpts about searching “anyplace, anywhere” might suggest."
This should perhaps be read within the historical context of the "unfettered" regime of inspections which were imposed on and demanded of Iraq, and how that regime was so abused that Iraq, as a matter of national pride, found itself unable to let inspectors enter the Iraqi Presidential Palace unannounced.
Needless to say, that refusal was one of the pretexts the George W. Bush administration used to justify its invasion of Iraq.
That history will not be lost on Iran. This is why perhaps as a matter of national pride, Iran is unlikely to allow unlimited inspections any time without notice, or on short notice. Insisting on such inspections may indeed be a deal breaker.
With all the sophisticated technology that is available to us, the chances are that our intelligence community already knows what Iran has and what it does not have in the nuclear field.
There are those within and outside our government who are eager for these negotiations to fail.
Yet it would be a shame, after all these months of negotiations to allow an unreasonable demand of "unfettered" inspections similar to those failed ones that were imposed on Iraq lead us to come out empty handed at the end of these crucial negotiations.
We should find a way so that these negotiation bear fruit.
This should perhaps be read within the historical context of the "unfettered" regime of inspections which were imposed on and demanded of Iraq, and how that regime was so abused that Iraq, as a matter of national pride, found itself unable to let inspectors enter the Iraqi Presidential Palace unannounced.
Needless to say, that refusal was one of the pretexts the George W. Bush administration used to justify its invasion of Iraq.
That history will not be lost on Iran. This is why perhaps as a matter of national pride, Iran is unlikely to allow unlimited inspections any time without notice, or on short notice. Insisting on such inspections may indeed be a deal breaker.
With all the sophisticated technology that is available to us, the chances are that our intelligence community already knows what Iran has and what it does not have in the nuclear field.
There are those within and outside our government who are eager for these negotiations to fail.
Yet it would be a shame, after all these months of negotiations to allow an unreasonable demand of "unfettered" inspections similar to those failed ones that were imposed on Iraq lead us to come out empty handed at the end of these crucial negotiations.
We should find a way so that these negotiation bear fruit.
10
WITHOUT any exception, everytime Iran and P5+1 Negotiations approach a Positive Conclusion, the authors of this article "re-cycle" the same old story "Quoting Un-named Officials and Experts".
THE problem we have is that we have "Lied So Much And So Often" about Iran being several months away from the Bomb that no one can take these "Allegations" seriously, not to mention all the fabrications on "Iraq's Vast WMD Program"!
THESE Allegations surfaced when Mr. El-Baradaei was the Director General of the IAEA and were discounted by him as they "Lacked Authenticity And Proper Documentation".
THESE Allegations became a part of the US strategy when Yukiya Amano was elected as the Director General of the IAEA lobbied heavily by the US and it is absolutely shameful that Mr. Amano has "Materially Tarnished" the reputation of a Vital UN Agency by "Politicising Iran's File".
ALL Mr. Amano has to do is to submit his Files to Iran for Evaluation/Examination as last several times it happened, Iran could point to Amateurish Presentation that demonstrated the "Lack Of Authenticity And Validity Of Such Forgeries".
AND finally "WE OWE" the Families and the Widows & Orphans of Iran's Murdered Scientists a Full Investigation on how Mr. Amano's Administration managed to disclose their identity that led to their Violet Deaths and bring to Justice those responsible so to restore IAEA's Credibility and Prestige.
THE problem we have is that we have "Lied So Much And So Often" about Iran being several months away from the Bomb that no one can take these "Allegations" seriously, not to mention all the fabrications on "Iraq's Vast WMD Program"!
THESE Allegations surfaced when Mr. El-Baradaei was the Director General of the IAEA and were discounted by him as they "Lacked Authenticity And Proper Documentation".
THESE Allegations became a part of the US strategy when Yukiya Amano was elected as the Director General of the IAEA lobbied heavily by the US and it is absolutely shameful that Mr. Amano has "Materially Tarnished" the reputation of a Vital UN Agency by "Politicising Iran's File".
ALL Mr. Amano has to do is to submit his Files to Iran for Evaluation/Examination as last several times it happened, Iran could point to Amateurish Presentation that demonstrated the "Lack Of Authenticity And Validity Of Such Forgeries".
AND finally "WE OWE" the Families and the Widows & Orphans of Iran's Murdered Scientists a Full Investigation on how Mr. Amano's Administration managed to disclose their identity that led to their Violet Deaths and bring to Justice those responsible so to restore IAEA's Credibility and Prestige.
5
We should not ask more of Iran than we do of nuclear armed Pakistan, India, or Israel. All nuclear armed countries should be working towards worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons. Humans are doing massive killing and destruction with conventional weapons. We are wreaking havoc on mother earth without resorting to the use of nuclear weapons. How much faster this planet could be destroyed with nukes.
7
The West chose, in the 1930s, out of expediency, to ignore the Nazis' professed desires for domination and genocide. The Iranians have expressed those same desires, and taken actions to carry them out, albeit in a covert fashion to date. To fail to require adequate inspections is to encourage these desires. And what could fit into their desires more readily than nuclear weapons?
2
If any of these nations were serious about creating a good deal that would benefit Iran and keep the rest of the world safe, they should have been giving more attention to the IAEA so that when it's needed it can be described as a little more robust than "small and overburdened."
3
As much as I dislike McCain and Graham, I have to agree with their assessment in the last paragraph.
This whole undertaking is a study in futility. Double down on the sanctions and walk away from the table. No one likes to play the fool.
This whole undertaking is a study in futility. Double down on the sanctions and walk away from the table. No one likes to play the fool.
3
"There is no question in my mind that there will be no deal and it will be made to appear that it will be Iran's fault."
I'm more optimistic than you: I think there will be a deal (and most Americans eventually will be glad). I agree with you, though, that Iran will be blamed -- in the US and Europe, at least -- if no deal gets done. In Iran, of course, the US will be blamed. In Europe -- who knows? Publicly, of course, Iran will be blamed; privately, I suspect, the US will more often be blamed.