To their credit, Western negotiators at the P5+1 talks in Baghdad did not completely fold before the negotiations began. They presented a proposal that, while still granting legitimacy to the Iranian nuclear program, did not remove existing sanctions or the threat of an oil embargo in advance of Tehran’s agreement to stop refining weapons-grade uranium and to ship their stockpile out of the country. The Iranian reaction to this mild offer was predictable. They claimed it was not only unreasonable but that it violated what the Islamist regime says was agreed to at the previous meeting in Istanbul.
That means those who feared the Baghdad meeting would lead to an unsatisfactory agreement that could be represented as ending the crisis but by no means removing the Iranian nuclear threat can exhale. But that does not mean the danger of an Iranian diplomatic victory is averted. Quite the contrary, the Iranians view their indignant refusal as just the start of the bargaining process by which they will ultimately get what they want: the West’s endorsement of their right to a nuclear program and removal of sanctions. The question here is whether the negotiators, led by European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton and backed up by political leaders such as President Obama and French President Hollande, have the will to stick to this position rather than being enticed into a bazaar-style barter in which the Iranians are bound to win. If, as is reported, the West’s stance is just a preliminary bid, then we will soon know the answer.
The trouble is both sides in this negotiation have a common goal: keeping Israel from launching a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities and avoiding an oil embargo. Yet, while both the possibility of an Israeli attack and increased Western sanctions worry the Iranians, they appear to have great confidence in their ability to talk their way out of what seems on the surface to be a perilous position. If, as reports indicate, the West doesn’t merely leave their proposal on the table but holds out the possibility of future sessions without Iran’s compliance with even these first steps, then Tehran has good reason to believe they have Ashton, Obama and Hollande right where they want them.
It must be understood that even if Iran agreed to the current Western proposal that would by no means alleviate worries about the regime going nuclear. So long as the Iranians are refining uranium — even with the permission to do so only at lower rates of refinement — there is no reason to believe they will give up their quest for a bomb. Indeed, giving their facilities a Western seal of approval under any circumstances will facilitate the continuance of their military project by less public means. Putting this approval on the table now only means that the final agreement, if Iran ever consents to an accord, will be even more generous. And because, as the AP reported yesterday, Iran has already started transferring uranium refined at a weapons grade level of 20 percent to their reactors, there is no way of telling whether they can even be made to comply with the terms Ashton laid on the table.
Nevertheless, if the West is more desperate than Iran to keep the talks going, there is little doubt the terms will start to be sweetened. It takes quite a leap of faith to imagine President Obama won’t fall for Iran’s negotiating ploys.
As a matter of history, public affairs the well documented trail of interactions with every nation in the world, dealing with Iran is always a frustrating and ultimately futile effort. Whether it's a cultural affect or simply the marching orders of the regime, the Germans, the Russians, the Turks and everyone else comes away from dealing with Iran commenting that in every single step of every single negotiation the Iranians insist, almost insanely in renegotiating every tiny insignificant aspect of everything. They insist and will never back down until they feel they are victorious on every single tiny point even if it means they lose the wider deal. They would rather hold up the discussions over the north-south orientation of the table or the color of the drapes than make a deal. This is ultimately why the Germans walked away from helping them build a nuclear reaction in the 1980's and 90's. Iran made it impossible. This is more or less the same experience as the Russians now which is why after more than 20 years they're not very far along considering the time and effort spent. n nObama and anyone else will always be wasting their time dealing with Iran because Iran doesn't want a deal, they want to argue about some stupid trivial point. And each time they feel they've won another 'concession' they go back to their people and brag for weeks about how great they are. And the deeper problem is that they don't care if whomever is across the table walks away – they see that as a Great Victory.
The saving grace here is that Iran *doesn't* have the bomb–and while there are upsides for O the ideologue maker of historic speeches to cut a bad deal–for O the cynical Machiavellian connoisseur of the long odds, the inside straight, and the drawing room knife fight–there isn't much of a downside to letting Iran deal indefinitely with sanctions–lack of a bad deal puts off the day of Israeli reckoning, not hasten it, and deadlock is almost as good as a Chamberlain moment waving about little pieces of white paper.
My best guess is that the american electorate are not going to be fooled by President Obama’s gambit to gain re-election through “A Deal with The Devil. The only problem is, Obama is counting on American Jews to vote for him no matter what he does, while true enough, the other americans are not so easily duped.
If Obama efforts results in an Iran-Israel War, alot of that war is going to be paid for by Uncle Sam. In addition, Obama has not a clue for creating new jobs. On the contrary, he is going to have to curry favor with the corporations which are on a cost savings spree which has no end. Not only will there be scant new jobs, layoffs are a good possibility. Increased productivity is giving employers plenty of options. Workers are expected to work harder for less money, and expect little uproar. The multinational corporations have begun a process to move jobs overseas and give those remaining positions in america,to foreign nationals, who understand that they are competing against americans and that anything goes. The Foreign Nationals work hand in glove with the corporations to install slave driving foreigners into lead and supervisory roles and to suppress americans from attaining any sense of job satifaction. What is one to do. Well I will tell you what I did, I fought the law and the law lost.
Herre is a topic for you: There are parallels between The Afghani who helped the US catch Bin Laden, and Jonathan Pollard.