My reason for including Russia is based on the same rationale asserted about its concern about Syria's chemical weapons.  Folks don't like people playing with fire on their borders. But again it's just a hunch.

Look, I have no doubt that there are many, many people in the Islamic world who have concern for the Palestinian people.  I have a far more difficult time with our European brothers and sisters who apply a different standard to all things Israel, when many of those folks are from European nations that othered Jews for centuries to the point where, well you know what happened--and I'm not talking about the great swath of the German people, who I believe have come to terms with their past in ways far out-pacing other groups on the Continent.

But, yes, the notion that it's all about Israel is and has always been a charade to mask the shortcomings of the various despots in the region.  The problem with saying that, beyond having to argue about whether Israel treats Palestinians outside of the Green Line better than any of its neighbors treat Palestinian "refugees" (as that term is uniquely defined as compared to the definition of any other definition of refugee ever before known to human kind) is that ultimately it doesn't matter.  Israel cannot sustain itself forever as an occupying power of the Palestinian People, period.  And that hurts me more than any comment in a blog can express.

P.S. Just to be clear, I am not mocking the notion of Palestinian ties to disputed land inside and outside of the Green Line, but I'm not sure if most folks have considered that the definition of Palestinian refugee is unique and has no precedent as a matter of international law.  From the link above:

For every other category of refugees in the world, the 1951 UN Convention on the status of refugees clearly applies to the refugee only and not subsequent generations. This is the definition used by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees today. Only in the Palestinian case does a separate organization, the UN Relief and Works Agency, count not only those who actually left their homes but those in succeeding generations, presumably forever, and regardless of whether those progeny were born and are settled elsewhere with full citizenship.

So a young American boy of, say, ten years of age born in Chicago to American parents, but whose grandparents were Palestinians who fled Israel in 1948, is counted by UNRWA as a “Palestinian refugee.”

Of course, it's not the kid in Chicago that I find so troublesome.  Rather, it's all of the folks used as pawns who are mired in refugee camps--even in the West Bank and Gaza--generation after generation.    

I think your question is completely reasonable, and I think that it's something that Iran needs to be assured about.   But I would call that a "rich persons problem" because once we're there, we're basically past the main sticking point of Iran doing its own enrichment. 

As I think about this, during the Bush Administration, Turkey and Brazil floated a proposal that they would be responsible for providing enriched uranium to Iran, and the "West" rejected that option at the time.  Don't really recall the reasons why.   At this point, however, it should be recognized that it's not just hard-liners who are demanding that Iran eliminate their internal enrichment program.  It's also every permanent member of the Security Council, which  of course includes China and Russia.  So that's why I'm kind of curious about Traub's position on Iran's posture as I understand it in terms of being able to do its own enrichment. 

There are many reasons, I think, that this deal won't work.  My ethnocentric barometer says the deal is going down once Iran takes the position that there is no deal until Israel agrees to join the IAEA--because Israel absolutely will not do that (whether or not that's the right position).