dagblog - Comments for "Iran's Last Chance"

Haleh Esfandiari @ NY Review

artappraiser — Wed, 26 Jun 2013 16:10:28 +0000

Haleh Esfandiari @ NY Review of Books blog has a pretty thorough analysis of what to expect from Rouhani in Iran’s Man in the Middle and she is not one of those typical American foreign policy dilettante prognosticators; her bio clip:

Haleh Esfandiari is the Director of the Middle East Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C., and the author of My Prison, My Home: One Woman’s Story of Captivity in Iran. She was held in solitary confinement in Evin Prison in Iran for 105 days in 2007. (April 2011)

Asia Times

artappraiser — Wed, 26 Jun 2013 15:53:37 +0000

In reply to Iran's Last Chance

Asia Times Online:

Rouhani's outlook riles Israeli hardliners
Some Western countries have welcomed the election of Hassan Rouhani as Iranian president as a chance to break the nuclear impasse, but hardliners in Israel who exploited the confrontational style of his predecessor to crystallize global opinion against Iran have been thrown off-guard. Discounting the chance of a new chapter, it's clear who many members of the US Congress are listening to.
- Shahir Shahid Saless (Jun 26, '13)

Did president-elect dupe Europe?
European powers accused Iranian president-elect Hassan Rouhani of duping them over a 2003 agreement he negotiated that allowed Tehran to press ahead with the enrichment of uranium. Yet the record shows no trickery involved, and that in defending Iran's interests Rouhani can and will drive a hard but honest bargain and will be true to his word.
- Peter Jenkins (Jun 26, '13)

The other outcome, of course,

Doctor Cleveland — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 01:14:01 +0000

In reply to Iran's Last Chance

The other outcome, of course, is that we end up with a regional version of the old Mutally-Assured-Destruction scenario.

Iran has a bomb, but can't use it to attack Israel without inviting nuclear retaliation. Israel has a bomb, but can't attack Iran without inviting nuclear retaliation.

I don't like it. I didn't like the U.S.-Soviet version, and the regional version strikes me as potentially more volatile. (I dislike the India-Pakistan situation for the same reason.) But an all-out war to prevent that scenario might be a worse outcome than the scenario itself.

Monday, June 17, 2013, Angry

artappraiser — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 23:54:19 +0000

In reply to President-Elect of Iran Talks

Monday, June 17, 2013, Angry Arab News Service

Rohani

I went to sleep yesterday learning from the media that Rohani belongs to the Saudi-Israeli-US alliance. But I woke up this morning learning that he after all belongs to the Iranian-Syrian-Russian alliance.

Posted by As'ad AbuKhalil at 10:38 AM

A Churchill-Atlee moment in Iranian political history?
By Mark Pyruz, Uskowi on Iran, June 16, 2013

Kerry: U.S. Ready to Engage Directly with New Iranian Government
By Nader Uskowi, Uskowi on Iran, June 16, 2013

And yet people keep waging

Michael Wolraich — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 22:04:40 +0000

In reply to Churchill got thrown out

And yet people keep waging them

President-Elect of Iran Talks

artappraiser — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 21:57:25 +0000

In reply to Iran's Last Chance

President-Elect of Iran Talks of Easing Tensions With U.S.
By Thomas Erdbrink, 1:43 PM ET, New York Times

Speaking for the first time since his election victory, Hassan Rowhani called Iran’s nonexistent ties with the United States a “wound” that must be healed.

Churchill got thrown out

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 19:35:39 +0000

In reply to I agree. Bibi wanted an

Churchill got thrown out despite success from WWII. Bush Sr was voted out 1 1/2 years after the successful Gulf War I. Levi Eshkol had to share power with Begin over the 6 day war, Golda Meier had to resign because of perceived lack of preparation for the Yom Kippur war, and the war in Lebanon knocked out Ariel Sharon as Defense Minister for excesses/atrocities.

It's easier to survive ginning up a war than actually waging one.

I agree. Bibi wanted an

Michael Wolraich — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 14:31:10 +0000

In reply to Actually, Obama's time frame

I agree. Bibi wanted an attack this spring. Obama pushed him back by at least a year. My thesis is that neither will wait until 2017.

I hope you're correct that U.S. and Israeli leaders are just posturing for politics sake, but I doubt it.

Very interesting Pew global

artappraiser — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 13:39:40 +0000

In reply to Iran's Last Chance

Very interesting Pew global poll about Iran released June 11:

Main chart:

The summary on nukes:

....Across the E3+3 countries – the U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China – which are involved in on-again, off-again nuclear talks with Tehran, at least six-in-ten oppose Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

In the Middle East, Israelis are nearly unanimous (96%) in their opposition to Tehran developing nuclear weapons. But some Muslim publics in the region also voice strong objections to a nuclear-armed Iran, including roughly six-in-ten or more in Jordan (79%), Egypt (73%), Turkey (69%), and Lebanon (59%).

These are among the key findings of a new survey by the Pew Research Center conducted in 39 nations from March 2 to May 1, 2013. The poll also finds that, despite broad opposition to Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, key publics continue to disagree on policy toward Tehran. Among the E3+3 countries, for instance, at least seven-in-ten among those who oppose Iran’s nuclear program in the U.S., Britain, France and Germany back tougher economic sanctions, but the Russians and Chinese are divided on the issue. Meanwhile, only in the U.S. and France are clear majorities of people who oppose a nuclear armed Iran willing to support military action in order to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear arms.....

If you scroll down from there to Widespread Opposition to a Nuclear-Armed Iran, there is more detail and some charts on that as well. While there is not strong support for military action about it, it seems highly unlikely that a hit on a nuclear site would garner them a big victim card. Seems like they've a lot of global goodwill P.R. to do before anything like that sort of support could happen.

Actually, Obama's time frame

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 12:43:31 +0000

In reply to I think you meant less to the

Actually, Obama's time frame is pushing back on Bibi's. Again, if you read Jim, there was the speculation last Nov/Dec that Bibi was looking for a March attack. This time Obama's saying it won't be until at least a year, and it won't be because of making fuel, it'll be because of ability to actually field a bomb.

If we go back to the 2008 elections, there was a heavy push to bomb Iran the following year - if you recall Lieberman's campaign & other signals.

And presumably someone in Bibi's government knows how to read the Jerusalem Post, where they'll also learn:

The report also said Iran had increased to 167 kg (367 pounds) its stockpile of uranium refined to a fissile purity of 20 percent - a level it says it needs for conversion into reactor fuel. About 240-250 kg of 20 percent enriched uranium is needed for one atomic bomb if refined to a high degree.

Though fat man & little boy used about 50kg of uranium at 89%. Good luck with that huge amount of low-grade uranium combined with the huge casing to contain it. And Bibi's red line is the amount to produce 1 such bomb - i.e. no New Mexico test shot, just a crappy heavy dirty bomb in the head of a missile that can barely loft it.

I think Bibi's sad because the new guy isn't nearly as hateable as Ahmadinejad. What's a guy who only works on hate and fear to do? Good thing elections are behind him at least.

dagblog - Comments for "Iran's Last Chance"

Haleh Esfandiari @ NY Review

Asia Times

The other outcome, of course,

Monday, June 17, 2013, Angry

Monday, June 17, 2013, Angry Arab News Service

Rohani

And yet people keep waging

President-Elect of Iran Talks

Churchill got thrown out

I agree. Bibi wanted an

Very interesting Pew global

Actually, Obama's time frame