dagblog - Comments for "Robust diplomacy or sabotage? You decide"

I gotta go after this article

A Guy Called LULU — Sat, 19 May 2012 19:49:50 +0000

In reply to So here's the U.S. attempt to

I gotta go after this article a bit. What the hell, there is still a cold rain falling here so I might as well spend a few minutes saving the world. No thanks necessary, I live in it too.

American negotiators, heading into a crucial round of talks with Iran...are allowing themselves a rare emotion... : hope.

I wish the piece gave a clearer picture of what the negotiators are hoping for. A reasonable deal, total capitulation, or just a delay until after elections before the choice is made to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.
While it goes without saying, because it has been said so many times already, such an attack would require hitting many other targets as well as the enrichment facilities and then if Iran retaliates chaos may ensue. The number of deaths that will result will range from quite a few to possibly crazy high numbers. Long term effects are likely to be horrendous regardless the immediate toll. This is not hyperbola to make a point. Also, not one single negotiator, or any high level planner, or any politician on the U.S. side, has one tiny bit of fear that they or their families will be casualties of whatever military action takes place, and that has an affect on their hubristic mind-set as they draw their hard lines in the Iranian sand. But, that is somewhat of a digression from the jumbled, disparate, and contradictory points within the article.

With signs that Iran is under more pressure than it has been in years to make a deal, senior Obama administration officials said the United States and five other major powers were prepared to offer a package of inducements to obtain a verifiable agreement to suspend its efforts to enrich uranium closer to weapons grade.

So, if the United States and the five other major parties get a verifiable agreement from Iran to meet a demand that those countries have no treaty right to demand then those counties will quit some of the actions they have no right to be carrying out in the first place.

These gestures, the officials said, could include easing restrictions on things like airplane parts and technical assistance to Iran’s energy industry, but not the sweeping sanctions on oil exports, which officials said would go into effect on schedule in July.

What? The oil embargo would go forward until even more demands were met.

The oil sanctions, which the Iranians are seeking desperately to avoid, are one of several factors that American officials believe may make Tehran more amenable to exploring a diplomatic solution.

What solution to what problem? It seems that at this point there is already a deal killer in place. Iran would have made a very large concession while crippling sanctions are going forward.

In addition, the recent decline in oil prices has magnified the pain of the existing sanctions on Iran; a new government coalition in Israel has strengthened the hand of its hawkish leader, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu; and Americans believe that recent blustery statements from Iranian officials are laying the groundwork for concessions by Tehran.

Blustery statements are laying the groundwork for Iran to cave? Maybe and maybe blustery statements by the U.S. and Israel that they are ready to bomb Iran if the crippling sanctions don't work are indications that they are ready to give up their demands. Could be, I guess.

But American officials said that at a minimum, the Baghdad meeting should be a genuine test of Iran’s willingness to do more than talk. “They’re nervous enough to talk,” said a senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the negotiations. “Whether they’re nervous enough to act, we don’t know yet.” Another senior official said, “We have a tail wind going into this.”

The Iranians are "nervous enough to talk". A "Senior official" can reveal this to the New York Times but he has to stay anonymous because the talks are so "delicate"? Does that make any sense? Would success of the talks be jeopardized by a senior official saying that sanctions and threats are making the Iranians nervous? If the Iranians have been given cause to be nervous and it has worked, don't they already know it? Another senior official says we have them by the ass because we are blowing wind. Nice way to lay the groundwork for a successful mediation of differences.

For President Obama, the stakes are huge. A successful meeting could prolong the diplomatic dance with Tehran, delaying any possible military confrontation over the nuclear program until after the presidential election. It could also keep a lid on oil prices, which fell again this week in part because of the decrease in tensions. Lower gasoline prices would aid the economic recovery in the United States, and Mr. Obama’s electoral prospects.

The writer states that the reason that the stakes are huge for Obama is that he can string out the talks until his 'possible' military strike will not hurt his election chances. And, do those bidding on oil futures believe that an intelligent analysis of the situation means war is less likely because of the way the situation is being handled, oil embargo, and that keeping Iranian oil off the market will make the world price of the rest of the oil lower? And how does the author square this with his tacit acknowledgment that war with Iran would reduce oil supplies and raise the price of gasoline? Maybe it all makes sense, but I don't see the sense of it.

In a sign of the increased diplomatic efforts, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Friday that its director general, Yukiya Amano, would travel to Tehran on Sunday to try to negotiate access to a military site where Iran is suspected of having conducted tests on nuclear-weapons triggers. It would be the first visit by the agency’s head to Iran since 2009, and it could add to the momentum in Baghdad.

This paragraph seems intended to imply that the IAE has not been inspecting Iran's facilities since 2009. At least to a casual reader that would think the article all makes sense so far.

Moreover, Mr. Ross said, Iran’s recent statements signal that its leaders are preparing their domestic audience for concessions. Iranian officials have declared that the West has effectively endorsed Iran’s right to enrich uranium, a step they portrayed as a major strategic coup. American officials insist the United States has not done that and has been deliberately ambiguous about whether it would ever grant Iran the right to enrichment.

Are these statements prearing the Iranian audience the blustery statements that would seem to emphasize to the Iranian population that the leaders had caved if they do, in fact, make any concessions? Maybe, but I can't see it that way. And, it is assumed in that paragraph that it is legitimate for the United States to decide whether it would ever grant the right to enrichment, apparently at any level, to Iran.

Still, as Mr. Ross said, “if you’re looking for a way to present a compromise, you want to present it as a victory.”

Well, I certainly hope Mr. Ross is willing to make some victorious compromises, but he has a history that I believe makes him a very poor choice to be a part of the negotiating in the first place. That may be my distorted view because I really hope war is averted but it doesn't seem a very high priority, and maybe not even the hope, of Mr. Ross.

The major powers’ initial goal is to halt the activity that most alarms Israel: the spinning of thousands of centrifuges to enrich uranium to 20 percent purity, which is within striking distance of the level needed to fuel a nuclear weapon. That would buy time for negotiations over the ultimate fate of a program that Iran claims is for peaceful energy purposes, but that the United States and Israel fear is in pursuit of at least a nuclear weapons capability.

Since this comment reflects my opinion I should make it clear that I expect that Iran does want to get within breakout range of producing a nuclear weapon. If I was an Iranian leader I would want that position, at least.

In addition to halting enrichment, officials said, Iran must agree to ship out its stockpiles of 20 percent uranium and to cease operations at an enrichment facility buried in a mountainside near the holy city of Qum, which Israel says could soon be impregnable to an airstrike.

That demand is almost certainly a deal breaker. Plus, how are the underground facilities becoming closer to being impregnable. Are the Iranians digging deeper and carrying out major fortified construction without hauling out the dirt and hauling in huge quantities of concrete and steel? Maybe, I have missed seeing the satellite pictures that would surely be broadcast or the statements by anonymous officials that that is going on.

If Iran agrees to those interim steps, officials said, the talks could shift from high-profile meetings once a month to more regular meetings, at working levels, where officials could delve into technical details, like how to ship out the uranium or monitor Iran’s suspension of operations at the plant near Qum, known as Fordo. European Union and Iranian officials have already met in Geneva to prepare the agenda for the meeting in Baghdad.

“You could really use the summer to have weekly, if not daily, meetings to get to the point where the U.S. could say, ‘We think there is a deal out there to avoid war,’ ” said R. Nicholas Burns,''..

If Iran gives us more than we have a right to demand and more than we can expect them to give under the circumstances, then we could start having regular talks on how they should give in to much more. Maybe, just maybe, Iran could give in enough to avoid war but:

On Tuesday, the American ambassador to Israel, Daniel B. Shapiro, sought to reassure an Israeli audience that the United States not only was willing to use military force to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, but had made preparations to do so. And Mr. Netanyahu’s public position on the negotiations has remain unchanged, while his ability to order military action may actually be enhanced by his new, broader coalition, analysts said.

Well, as long as there is hope. But:

Analysts said it was hard to gauge what kinds of concessions from the Western nations, Russia and China would draw a positive response from Iran, beyond lifting the oil embargo.

That is already off the table according to the articles third paragraph.

European officials have suggested that the European Union could
suspend a ban on insuring oil tankers that has had a far swifter effect on Iran’s sales elsewhere in the world than originally intended.

That is an interesting statement. Notice the use of the word 'intended' rather that the word 'expected'. Was it 'intended' that the effect would be far enough removed in time that no connection would be made between a reduction in supply and an increase in price? Wouldn't want the voting public to see the connection to that, would we.

The major powers, officials said, are also likely to offer a variation on an earlier proposal to enrich uranium removed from Iran and ship it back into the country for use in medical research.

This ignores the sensible wish of Iranians to be able to provide their own fuel for power generating and not be subject to an embargo like they are for refined fuel, for instance.

Also, in one of the links within the article it says that Iran has maintained production of its wells by storing oil in idle tankers and has used about forty percent of that capacity. An expert says that if they are force to shut down any wells that those wells will be permanently damaged and a lot of potential production will be lost forever. And, though accidents with large tankers that lose their oil are catastrophic, they are rare. At some point a desperate country would surely be willing to use one without insurance. Our country's policy is to make Iran desperate. What then, if Iran ships oil in one of its own forty-plus tankers, would the U.S. or Israel do, take a chance on attacking it and causing an oil spill?

Hey Ack: Thank you for your

Bruce Levine — Sat, 19 May 2012 12:51:59 +0000

In reply to Robust diplomacy or sabotage? You decide

Hey Ack:

Thank you for your valiant efforts to keep informing on this issue. I'm not going to debate with you about who the good guys are and who the bad guys are--been there done that :)--but I do think that you've spent an extraordinary amount of time drawing substantive conclusions from what is said by this or that party or third party in the press and on the eve of resuming negotiations. Respectfully, as someone who negotiates for a living, I really think that causes one to lose the forest through the trees. What matters is what happens at the table; all this other stuff--saying stuff to the Israelis one day, "backing off" in the press the next is, simply put, how refs are worked. Let's hope for the best.

In the interim, it appears that we both agree that coverage by the New York Times has been commendable--though hardly perfect--on this issue.

Keep writing Ack. I hear your passion, and I mean it when I say that even when we disagree--and as you know we disagree often--I have always appreciated and respected your attempts to bridge gaps and move mountains. I wish we all could be more like you in that manner. Best to you and yours,

Bruce

So here's the U.S. attempt to

acanuck — Sat, 19 May 2012 08:41:19 +0000

In reply to Robust diplomacy or sabotage? You decide

So here's the U.S. attempt to play down the talk of war:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/world/middleeast/officials-see-promisi...

But the article goes on to treat what are in effect the Israeli demands as if they were on the table for discussion -- including the shutdown of the Fordo enrichment operation and the shipment of any uranium enriched beyond 3.5% out of the country.

They aren't. If only for issues of national pride, Iran will not and can not agree to this, so the optimism that's being officially expressed is bogus.

Iran will no doubt offer even more intrusive inspections, but at at a certain point the major powers will have to draw a line and declare that the Israeli position is irrational. At that point, Netanyahu can act on his apocalytic fears if he thinks he can pull it off.

Just leave us out of it.

Huh? It's top of the blogs

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 18 May 2012 13:58:13 +0000

In reply to All these guys make out big

Huh? It's top of the blogs this week.

After the anniversary of taking down bin Laden, etc.

All these guys make out big

Verified Atheist — Fri, 18 May 2012 13:51:56 +0000

In reply to Solidifying the Jewish vote

All these guys make out big time with all their bluster - hard on defense this, anti-terror that.

It does make you wonder why Obama himself isn't publicizing this more…

Solidifying the Jewish vote

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 18 May 2012 13:30:10 +0000

In reply to It seems to me that an action

Solidifying the Jewish vote (& fundraising) before the coming elections, as well as diluting the "Obama's not supporting Israel" angle for Romney & the GOP.

Sending the message through the Israeli Bar Association? Not too subtle, eh?

Unpleasant for Iran (and of course no one cares about Iranian-Americans), but they're used to it, and will survive.

All these guys make out big time with all their bluster - hard on defense this, anti-terror that. Going to war would show them to be clueless and incompetent as always - re-roll Gulf War II. Yeah, we know how to run drones (as long as no one counts the missed targets). But occupying and pacifying and rebuilding a territory? Haven't managed that well since say 1950, maybe post-Korea if I think back....

Iran's a very different, much more educated and western country than Afghanistan (or likely Iraq). We'd be clueless occupying her, since our imagination seems to have only 1 gear, and that's colonialist contempt. And Petraeus is busy these days, so we don't have an officially praised moron to run the show.

Surely you understand that

Verified Atheist — Fri, 18 May 2012 12:52:11 +0000

In reply to It seems to me that an action

Surely you understand that gay marriage is a much bigger threat than Iran?

It seems to me that an action

LULU — Fri, 18 May 2012 12:21:10 +0000

In reply to Robust diplomacy or sabotage? You decide

It seems to me that an action of this nature merits a lot more coverage and analysis than it has received. His speech obviously had the potential to affect a very important negotiation in which various sides in several counties either want to go to war, some on this side of the issue actually think a war will be necessary, or want to avoid war. I read somewhere that the speech was not intended by Shapiro to be made public, though I do not have a link. Shapiro either coordinated his speech with the President and/or the State Department or he didn’t. It was either intended to be kept confidential or it was intended/expected that it would be leaked. Who or what group is pushing what intention and whether certain groups within certain countries are privy to access more information about our country’s intention than are we, the citizens, then that is something our news organizations should be trying to determine and report to us.

If Shapiro was off the reservation he should be fired. If that is the case then the fact that he wasn’t even publicly rebuked has serious implications about who has the power to get away with going rogue and why they would do so. The comment by Biden about an issue of immensely less immediate import was analyzed in to the nth degree. This incident, not so much.

The New York Times also has

acanuck — Thu, 17 May 2012 19:51:10 +0000

In reply to Robust diplomacy or sabotage? You decide

The New York Times also has the story, plus some reaction from Tehran:

In Iran, officials reacted coolly to the ambassador’s remarks. “These are words to calm down the extremists and radicals in Israel,” said Hamid Reza Taraghi, a political analyst who is close to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He said if Iranians reacted to the remarks they would “without a doubt” have a negative affect on the upcoming talks.

Mr. Taraghi, who has inside knowledge of the negotiations, stressed that threats have never changed Iran’s position, and added “nor will such remarks be of any influence now.”

“When Americans understand there will be no Iranian nuclear weapon and our technology is not against their interest, there will be no need for threats.”