Up until now, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, who initiated unprecedented diplomacy with the U.S., has spoken very positively about the negotiations with Western powers. That has apparently changed, with French media reporting the reformist president saying he is “not optimistic.”
“The government is not optimistic about the Westerners and the current negotiations,” Rouhani was quoted as saying.
“But it does not mean that we should not have hope for removing the problems,” he said referring to international sanctions hurting Iran’s ailing economy.
The fact that the Israel lobby has continued to aggressively push for additional sanctions, and that Congress is just about ready to pull that trigger, might have something to do with Rouhani’s sagging confidence. Republican politicians and right-wing commentators are writing Op-Eds dismissing negotiations as a waste of time and urging the United States to continue with sanctions and even to just cut the bull and bomb Iran. These are not encouraging signals.
During the last round of negotiations, Iran was reported to have made considerable concessions in its proposed deal. These included “a freeze on production of 20% enriched uranium” and “a pledge to convert its stockpile to fuel rods,” in addition to “full monitoring of the underground enrichment plant at Fordow,” and “ratification of the Additional Protocol,” measures which have long been demanded by hardliners in Washington.
In response, the U.S.’s top Iranian negotiator Wendy Sherman went on Israeli television and explained that the expected U.S. response to this Iranian proposal was to “offer very limited, temporary, reversible sanctions relief, but keep in place the fundamental architecture of the oil and banking sanctions” to use as leverage for further Iranian capitulation down the road.
Again, it’s easy to see why Rouhani is turning pessimistic.
Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett argue today in The Diplomat that an American refusal to recognize Iran’s nuclear rights under the NPT and to lift sanctions in return for Iranian concessions will result in the collapse of negotiations and a net-loss in terms of Washington’s geopolitical interests.
If Obama does not conclude a deal recognizing Iran’s nuclear rights, it will confirm suspicions already held by many Iranian elites—including Ayatollah Khamenei—and in Beijing and Moscow about America’s real agenda vis-à-vis the Islamic Republic. It will become undeniably clear that U.S. opposition to indigenous Iranian enrichment is not motivated by proliferation concerns, but by determination to preserve American hegemony—and Israeli military dominance—in the Middle East. If this is so, why should China, Russia, or rising Asian powers continue trying to help Washington—e.g., by accommodating U.S. demands to limit their own commercial interactions with Iran—obtain an outcome it does not actually want?
Emphasis added. That bolded excerpt is the most important feature of the whole Iran debate. As I’ve written, the U.S. has militarily encircled Iran, threatened military attack, and imposed harsh economic warfare all as punishment for a nuclear weapons program that America’s most informed intelligence agencies say doesn’t exist. Obviously then, the U.S.’s problem with Iran has little to do with nuclear proliferation, but rather with U.S. and Israeli dominance in the Middle East.
Unless that changes, Rouhani’s defeatism may be predictive.
Iran is holding huge rallies burning flags and shouting "death to America" and this guy says the signs don't bode well from the US. LOL
Tehran has always maintained that the nuclear issue is a red herring. Even if it is resolved , they say, the U.S. would pile on the pressure on some other issue — human rights, "terrorism", etc.
Fortunately some American commentators are waking up to the fact that human rights in Saudi Arabia,Washington's ally, is something out of the 10th. century. On top of that the entire Islamic fundamentalist movement, including the Taliban as well as groups in Europe, Chechnya, Iraq and Pakistan are funded by the Saudi "princes".
The US, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the EU have adopted the Chilean solution in regard to Iran. Starve the populace until it cries for relief. Until there are adverse consequences for them, as opposed to the Iranians, as a result of this policy, don't expect any breakthroughs.
Israel just got another half billion dollars in USAA welfare to not say anything bad about Iran while the conference is on. That way whatever happens will all be Iran's fault. And Israel will be a half billion dollars better able to handle the existential threat.
I guess the 'real' question now, Glaser, is: how can/does the US "credibly" take the "use of force" 'option' "off the table"….especially considering Libya and (ongoing) Syria?
Libya "disarmed", and forsook , its so-called "nuclear program" completely…and what happened?
The Iranians aren't 'stupid'…I can assure you…
But coming back to the immediate 'questions' at hand:
1. Why would Iran want a "nuclear weapon(s)" in the first place? Would it be "rational" to obtain a so-called "nuclear weapon(s)" in, and of, itself? If not, why not? If so, why?
2. If possessing a"nuclear weapon(s)" is "irrational", then why does Israel allegedly have them? Why does the US openly possess 10s of thousands of them?
3. Is the US 'irrational"? Would it be wise to protect oneself from an "irrational" actor(s)? If not, why not? If so, why? How would a nation go about doing so?
4. Has so-called "democracy" and alleged "freedom" eliminated "nuclear weapons" in the US? If not, why not? If so, why?
5. Getting back to one of the 'core issues': how can the US "credibly" take the "use of force" 'option' "off the table"….especially considering Libya and (ongoing) Syria?
The issue has never been whether Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, but Iran MUST recognize Israel and come back into the arms of the U.S, economically and politically speaking. U.S must completely manager Iran's huge Oil and Gas reserve in order to be the super power, compared to China and the rest..
So, the nuclear issue and the sever sanctions are an excuse to bring Iran to its knees, so they come back to papa and be U.S's "Girl"
Well, I hope you're happy. You've managed to impress me, the unimpressionable one. My friends will make fun of me for this. You did well.
During the last round of negotiations, Iran was reported to have made considerable concessions in its proposed deal. These included “a freeze on production of 20% enriched uranium” and “a pledge to convert its stockpile to fuel rods
During the last round of negotiations, Iran was reported to have made considerable concessions in its proposed deal. These included a??a freeze on production of 20% enriched uraniuma?? and a??a pledge to convert its stockpile to fuel rods