dagblog - Comments for "Iran nuclear deal reached in Geneva"

I'm glad you "concede that

acanuck — Thu, 28 Nov 2013 20:43:42 +0000

I'm glad you "concede that Bush squandered an opportunity in 2003," Michael. But it wasn't just a misjudgment that Iran wasn't really serious; it was a conscious, ideologically driven decision to derail any chance of rapprochement. And it worked. We got eight years of hostility and Ahmadinejad.

Just to refresh your recall of what Iran put on the table in 2003:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/17/AR200606...

The real damage came with the January 2002 "axis of evil" speech. Reformist president Mohammad Khatami, elected with 70% support, had been calling for dialogue since 1997. After 9/11, Iran allied itself with the U.S. in overthrowing the Taliban, offering escape routes for downed pilots, backing the U.S. nomination of Karzai, etc. In just four months, that growing co-operation was rewarded -- out of the blue -- with "axis of evil." And still Khatami sent out feelers.

In passing, Foreign Minister Zarif, who negotiated the current deal with Kerry, is said to be the guy who drafted the 2003 proposal. A wasted decade.

Part of the reason sanctions

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 28 Nov 2013 20:32:18 +0000

In reply to You are correct to point this

Part of the reason sanctions were effective was our occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq - borders not available to sneak stuff through. Plus with Syria turned into a civil war zone thanks to ours & Saudi backing, and our/UK/France/Italy's overthrow of Libya, we might have affected Mullah thinking. Hard to chalk that up to just sanctions - there's a lot of military spend & weapon fire on the ground there.

And that unity thing? It so happens most of those countries didn't really see a need to punish Iran, but our diplomacy & foreign policy has turned into "who can we get to sign on to sanctions & invasions" - yes, we're refining our ability to twist arms, and not worth the political capital to keep us off our Mideast foraging.

As I pointed out before, Bush created the opportunity for Ahmadinejad to replace the much more Western friendly Khatami - but we'll just erase that from our history books and pretend Rouhani's an aberration and Iran's always just been pushing towards nuclear weapons with that 20% highly-enriched fuel. Just a bunch of crazy Muslims out to destroy the world - fortunately we pulled them back to the side of light.

You are correct to point this

artappraiser — Thu, 28 Nov 2013 18:05:35 +0000

In reply to I concede that Bush

You are correct to point this out to commenters. Seems like all of a sudden everyone's forgetting that the reason this "detente" is happening is the EU and others finally joined the U.S. with much stricter sanctions in 2012 (which the Obama administration did work hard at making happen.) Clearly, the unity show with sanctions had a change-of-thinking effect on the mullahs about how to go about pursuing getting respect from the rest of the world. (I would argue much more so than the "Green Revolution" which they gave all indication of feeling that they had crushed without much blowback.) Rouhani was allowed to be a candidate for president and also to suggest that he would get the sanctions turned off. Iran has actually not at all been shy about communicating straight out that this is all about getting sanctions turned off. Previously, they did not trade with U.S. but trade with a lot of the rest of the world was seen as sufficient and this picture fit in with the "Great Satan" narrative. Once the U.S. had a bigger multilateral unity show, they changed their minds and attitude.

So much for those from the left who think sanctions are ineffective immoral communal punishment when dictatorships are involved. And furthermore, it's interesting that conservative hawks right now are arguing that full sanctions should stay on when they usually laugh at them as ineffective.

It should be noted that very early in his presidency Obama tried some nicey nice communication (happy nowruz messages and diplomatic etc.) and was quickly rebuffed.

"The U.S. might have been

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 28 Nov 2013 11:19:44 +0000

In reply to I concede that Bush

"The U.S. might have been more proactive in trying to engage Iran after the revolution, but I doubt that it would have come to much. Iran wasn't ready. I hope that it's ready now."

Might have been more proactive, ah yes.... quite the understatement, or say quite the opposite of our intent. 2 links for your edification:

"United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq war"

"History lesson: When the United States looked the other way on chemical weapons"

Perhaps the US wasn't ready, and aside from 4 years of Khatami-Clinton, still isn't quite ready. (Obama pretty well backed into this latest deal grudgingly along with the one with Syria - accidental diplomacy?)

I concede that Bush

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 27 Nov 2013 20:58:20 +0000

In reply to I'd check your version. Iran

I concede that Bush squandered an opportunity in 2003, but it's ridiculous (and patronizing to Iran) to suggest that the U.S. has been rebuffing Iran's desire to normalize relations for 35 years.

*referring to attack as an

Anonymous pp — Wed, 27 Nov 2013 20:45:44 +0000

In reply to I'd check your version. Iran

*referring to attack as an army, not in supplying weapons, which every power in the region does, including US, Russia, qatar, Saudis, Turkey, Israel, Egypt, France, etc.

I'd check your version. Iran

Anonymous pp — Wed, 27 Nov 2013 20:41:03 +0000

In reply to I appreciate your

I'd check your version. Iran of course had a popular reformist leader in the 90s constantly at odds with the Imam. bush's Axis of Evil gave the leadership the excuse to shut down the stagnating reforms, and thus came the populist Ahmadinejad. Post-9/11 the Iranians seemed to be helping the US behind the scenes, but we went out of our way to make them the enemy.

In 2008 we had candidates discussing impending attacks on Iran and earlier the use of a pre-emptive nuclear strike. Diplomacy American style I suppose. Bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran was just a piece of McCain's maverickness i suppose. Then again, you say 35 years freezing out America. I suppose our support of Hussein's attack on Iran with a prolonged bloody war was all Iran's fault. After all, theyve been such aggressors the last hundred years, having attacked uh, well... nobody.

As for Israel, take a poll in Iraq about Zion and it won't be a dime's difference from Iran's. (Suspect Iran might be a bit more western and educated on the subject, but may be my prejudice). but iraq is now our puppet while iran is our enemy

I appreciate your

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 27 Nov 2013 19:43:00 +0000

In reply to Roger Cohen has a good take

I appreciate your proscription for engagement, but your history is one-sided. Until recently, Iran showed no interest in engaging "the Great Satan" and does not even recognize Israel's existence (not to mention financing a hostile military force on the Lebanon border). You might say more accurately that freezing out America and Israel for 35 years was an aberration with enormous bad consequences for Iran.

The U.S. might have been more proactive in trying to engage Iran after the revolution, but I doubt that it would have come to much. Iran wasn't ready. I hope that it's ready now.

Roger Cohen has a good take

acanuck — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 21:10:29 +0000

In reply to Iran nuclear deal reached in Geneva

Roger Cohen has a good take on what this deal means in the long term for Israeli foreign policy and internal politics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/26/opinion/cohen-israels-iran-dilemma.htm...

The NYT also looks at how this accelerates a shift in U.S. relations with Saudi Arabia and in fact the whole balance of power (not just military) in the Middle East. Logically, it's four-cornered: Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Freezing Iran out for 35 years was an aberration with enormous bad consequences -- not least the destruction of Iraq. Even under its current theocratic regime, Iran was potentially a solid ally against Al-Qa'ida and its ilk. Instead, the U.S. has (blindly, it seems) fueled Sunni-Shia conflict. Bad for those in the countries affected, but also for the West and the world at large. Syria is the poster child. Normalizing relations with Iran and recognizing its role as a regional power is long overdue. Maybe Obama is finally earning his Nobel.

According to this, Brent has

Donal — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 15:16:36 +0000

In reply to Just in passing, the threat

According to this, Brent has been at a plateau for several days, and the spread above WTI is fairly high:

http://oil-price.net/dashboard.php