I completely agree with your assessment. If the pre-agreement falls appart, a possibility not to dismiss, US will be politically in a worse shape than Iran. Going for war will be, as you said, the end of the NPT and most likely the whole post-Yalta international framework; not going for it, will be the end of the sanction regime. The more negociation we have on this issue the more the negative roles of Israel and SA will come-out to the forefront.

Posted by: ATH | Jan 13 2014 14:47 utc | 1

Very well said, b. Given the above, I guess we should all be rooting for senator Menendez and his AIPAC and rapture ready backers. I figure once sanctions collapse and Iran presses ahead with its scientific development in all its aspects, the US will be forced back to the table with real offers rather than threats.

Posted by: Lysander | Jan 13 2014 15:18 utc | 2

I'm curious why China would bother to make the US 'pivot' any easier. Seems to me they should be cheering for more US sanctions which they will gladly violate. Sell Iran whatever it needs, along with armaments and keep the US distracted from Asia for as long as possible.

Posted by: Lysander | Jan 13 2014 15:25 utc | 3

Terrific review b.
No-one is going bomb Iran, unless they've got a death-wish, as Medvedev hinted here:

CNN Interview with Dmitri Medvedev September 20, 2009
http://eng.kremlin.ru/transcripts/1622
...........
FAREED ZAKARIA: If Israel were to attack Iran, would Russia support Iran in such a conflict?

The second point. We have our allies with which we have concluded one or other agreements. In case of Iran we do not have obligations of this kind. But it does not mean that we would like to be or will be impassible before such developments. This is the worst thing that can be imagined. I have already commented on this issue. Let us try together to reason upon it. What will happen after that? Humanitarian disaster, a vast number of refugees, Iran’s wish to take revenge and not only upon Israel, to be honest, but upon other countries as well. And absolutely unpredictable development of the situation in the region. I believe that the magnitude of this disaster can be weighted against almost nothing. For this reason before making decision to deliver blows it is necessary to assess the situation. It would be the most unreasonable developments. But my Israeli colleagues told me that they were not planning to act in this way and I trust them.
...........

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jan 13 2014 15:53 utc | 4

To prevent U.S.-Iranian rapprochement the Neocon/Israeli/Saudi strategy appears to be to create Afghanistan-like "failed states" in Syria and Iraq. These failed states will eventually create blowback in Europe and the United States which will then be used by politicians to justify the usual Tomahawk strikes on aspirin factories plus Marine boots on the desert ground. That seems to be the Neocon plan at least.

Is there any political support for this? Absolutely not. But the Likud, Saudi and beltway princes don't care.

Posted by: Mike Maloney | Jan 13 2014 16:59 utc | 5

Of course another reason for the desire for diplomacy with Iran is that the world needs Iran's oil on the international market.

Alot has been written about the current oil supply crunch. Supplies have always been tight, with Saudi Arabia exporting at max capacity to make up for the Iran embargo. But recently things have gotten worse. In 2010 Libya exported over 400 million barrels of oil to Europe, making it third behind Russia and Norway on the European market at 11% of our total oil consumption. That supply has now virtually ground to nothing.

Syria was always a small player in the oil markets (by Middle East standards) but still exported around 137,000 barrels to Europe per day (mostly to Germany and Italy) now that is gone offline too. The recent events in South Sudan have brought things to crunch point. South Sudan with the third largest oil reserves in Africa is shutdown due to fighting over those refineries and oil towns. 300,000 barrels of oil per day that should be going to China is suspended.

When Europe, under pressure from the US, stopped buying Iranian oil a few years back alot here predicted higher oil prices. That happened, but what no one predicted was Libyan, Syrian, and Sudan's oil supplies would also go offline. I think this is an important reason for the "breakthrough" in diplomatic negotiations with Iran. Whatever the US Congress does or doesn't vote on, Europe is going to need to buy Iranian oil in the near term.

Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Jan 13 2014 17:32 utc | 6

Well said. I've been noticing this basic phenomenon for a while, not just with Iran but with Syria, Libya, Israel, etc. It's one of the major facts of US foreign policy in the Obama years: Obama announced a massive pivot to Asia, and so far has been unable to complete it, or really even to start it. The announcement of the "pivot" made allies like Japan willing to take more agressive positions, and put pressure on China to respond and stake out positions before the US could pivot. Now the US is caught between two regions, unable to control events in both. About the only thing going for the US government is that the rollback of the Arab Spring in Egypt and its halt in the Gulf have prevented the entire US project in the Middle East from collapsing. But that doesn't allow the US to extracate itself.

You also captured an important dynamic here:

The Zionist are pressing Congress to blow up the negotiations with Iran by legislating new uni-lateral U.S. sanctions on third parties. Obama can blame himself for having enabled such self defeating "suffocating sanction" strategy. That strategy is failing and the way out of it will be difficult for him. But Congress will not dare to vote directly for a war on Iran.

Congress doesn't need to vote directly for war, it just needs to make negotiations impossible, and that forces the US to remain on effectively a war footing the Middle East forever.

Posted by: Bill | Jan 13 2014 17:35 utc | 7

The time shortage to deal effectively with the fear of China is now becoming a major political issue for the US. As you put it correctly, sooner or later, she will have to appropriate a considerable amount of political, but also logistic, resources into its "pivot" strategy. And, she will need to free those from the middle-east region where they are the most heavily involved since 15 years ago -which we can now safely assess was due to a failed strategy.

Exacerbating this already serious issue is another factor more detrimental for a coherent American policy in the middle-east region. While a win-win approach to the relationship with the IRI is obviously the best one for the US, it is a catastrophic direction for two of her closest clients in the region. The US seems to have a semblance of temporary patch on the Israeli side. By initially coupling the "peace" process with the Iran's nuclear "issue", she seems to have succeeded to lock Israel in a process, meaningless for the Palestinian one would say but hard for both sides to extricate from politically. How strong this “lock” is remaining to be known. The other big question is how the US will approach the SA problem. In the brink of an open succession dispute, lacking enough legitimacy for a stable rule and dripping their strategic value in the eyes of their protector in a day to day basis, the house of Saud is showing signs of fear about a possible reversal of the politics that gave birth to their dominion on the peninsula during the 1920's. They are now openly claiming to have distanced themselves from a protector which in reality is the sole guarantor of their survival as a state. How the US will adjust her approach therein is to be seen.

Posted by: ATH | Jan 13 2014 17:42 utc | 8

Hehehe... Lavrov and Paris are discussing in Paris and there is not a single mention of Fabius in the article!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25711382
Obama 2, Hollande 0

Posted by: Mina | Jan 13 2014 18:18 utc | 9

Houps, read "and Kerry"

Posted by: Mina | Jan 13 2014 18:18 utc | 10

@9 Maybe because Monsieur Hollande is having marital problems.

Posted by: dh | Jan 13 2014 18:31 utc | 11

Turkey, Egypt and Iran are the three pillars that have the keys for the stability in the region. Iran, an idependent state, doesn't have any obstacle in improving relationships with the two others. Turkey while seemingly open to bilateral improvement with Iran, is showing coolness (although recently tempered) due to her being anchored to the West/Nato agenda. Egypt on the other hand has a choppy relationships with both Iran and Turkey. She is in a transition period and the turnoils there haven't completely subsided. The ruler seems to have been bought-up by the Saudis and right now he is sticking to a policy similar to the Mubarak regime, although claiming more legitimacy. The direct, or even through Turkey -US proxy- approach to Egypt will be a good indicator of the kind of changes that we will witness in US-Saudi relationship in the future.

Posted by: ATH | Jan 13 2014 18:37 utc | 12

Yes, precisely. Where do you think the scandal came from? An Italian owned tabloid.
Hollande is so stupid that he didn't realize his new girlfriend was the best-friend of a girl (who happens to be the one to which the appartment is rented)who has had bad police stories in the last few months, being involved with Corsican crime scene. Even the name on the door (another name), is that of someone who just recently had been condemned for money laudering through a Parisian casino owned by the Corsican mafia.
Lovely, indeed. Hollande was trying to keep the 25 percent of favorable opinions he has, now he will probably slide to 10 percent.

At least he doesn't bother us anymore with his pro-KSA stance on Syria.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/you-need-to-go-to-geneva-opposition-source-reveals-threat-made-by-britain-and-us-over-syria-peace-talks-9057247.html

Posted by: Mina | Jan 13 2014 20:45 utc | 13

#12 I would suspect the Saudis need the Egyptians more than the other way round. They needed KSA as a pimp on the international stage, full point.

Posted by: Mina | Jan 13 2014 21:03 utc | 14

@Mina
I'm not sure about your assertion. If Egypt was deciding solely based on her own interests, she should have established normal relationship with Iran by now.

Posted by: ATH | Jan 13 2014 21:12 utc | 15

The generals established a normal relationship with Iran less than a month after they removed Mubarak. But the anti-Syrian rhetoric used by the Salafis + MB and the little anger of the West made the rest. Then, Morsi was elected and he changed the course (although he went to a summit and received Ahmadinejad)...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt%E2%80%93Iran_relations

Posted by: Mina | Jan 13 2014 21:19 utc | 16

@Mina
Egypt didn't establish normal relations with Iran. After the Iranian Revolution the relations were cut by Mubarak to never again be established at ambassadorial level. Morsi was the closest it could have got to normal relation, but again due to Salafi agitations even the small openning on tourism got smashed after a month and Iranian tourists were refused entry. Sissi is following the Wahabi/Saudi line on this.

Posted by: ATH | Jan 13 2014 21:24 utc | 17

Good analysis b. Obama made a decision about two years ago to NOT have war with Iran. That seemed clear at the time. Now his problem was to how to avoid such a war. Doing nothing would not work because the US and Israel were in the middle of some major acts that though not officially war came very close to it; i.e. sanctions, supporting Baluchistan terrorists to attack Iran, assassinating Iranian nuclear physicists, stuxnet and so on.

The only road was to come to some kind of negotiated deal that would relieve sanctions and also allow Iran to build peaceful nuclear power. Once that decision was made then the outcome is obvious. Obama is being forced by these dynamics that he has released when he decided against another ME war.

The rest of the world sees this clearly. There is no way that they will cut themselves out of lucrative deals with Iran once they see that the US position on Iran has changed. This is creating a certain irreversible dynamic to the whole process. It will not stop. The sanctions policy is on its way out. Right now Obama and Kerry have no choice but to follow through or see the US pushed to the side as Europe, Russia, China and India rush in to buy and sell with the Iranians.

Of course, the lobby might still succeed in moving Congress to sabotage Obama's efforts. If that happens it will not change the outcome -- sanctions will still be lifted but the US will isolated from the rest of the world. From China's perspective this might be the best outcome. If the US becomes completely isolated because of its Iran policy, why would any Asian nation want to ally with a loser like that when we try to pivot to Asia?

Posted by: ToivoS | Jan 13 2014 22:09 utc | 18

"Attacking Iran, which is not developing nuclear weapons, under some "non-proliferation" argument would destroy the U.S. moral-political position in the world while such an attack could not hinder but would justify Iran to start striving for a nuclear deterrent. "

An attack is just what the Israelis want ... a nuclear attack ... and they have the US Senate lined up, like ducks in a row, to do just that.

They still need 9 senators to get a veto-proof vote, and I cannot imagine them getting the House to go along.

I hope this is where Americans finally repudiate the Israeli 5th column, starting with these quislings in the US Senate.

Richard Falk has a good essay on The Emergent Palestinian Imaginary, and the idea of a 'Legitimacy War' fits not only the Israeli government vis a vis the Palestinians but the American government vis a vis the Americans and European governments vis a vis the Europeans.

Posted by: john francis lee | Jan 13 2014 23:59 utc | 19

Sorry, b

while I generally estimate your interpretations, I have to disagree here on at least 2 points.

Attacking Iran, which is not developing nuclear weapons, under some "non-proliferation" argument would destroy the U.S. moral-political position in the world

Possibly. More importantly though it would ruin and possibly destroy zusa and its position on multiple levels.
For one, looking at how painful (for zusa) the wars against comparably weak countries like I&A were, and how painfully little zusa achieved for a painfully high price, one has to assume that a war with Iran would be financially and militarily excessively costly and damaging.

Strategically even more devastating, however, would be the demasqing of the military strength, superiority, blah blah lies; Against a serious opponent it would quickly become evident that zusa actually has very few *reliable* "high-tech" weapons. Most of zusas (self)glorified military prowess is hardly more than (self)delusion, PR and plain lies.

Another very major danger is in the fact that Iran has developed rather high-tech (less capable than Russias but anyway quite capable) weaponry incl. an Iranian Jachont which, together with other missiles and smart tactics, might destroy a zus carrier and some other major ships.

Last but not least a war against a formidable opponent like Iran would bind so many forces that zusa couldn't do much about, for instance, a Chinese attack on and takeover of Taiwan.

If Obama would negotiate in good faith with Iran the United States could acquire a serious and reliable partner in the Gulf

No, most certainly not so.

Let's be realistic and honest. Iran *never* wanted to build nuclear weapons - and zusa *knew* that very well. Furthermore, Iran did make many good will attempts to resolve the imaginary problem; zusa just snubbed them because they, on orders of their izraeli masters, *wanted* the imaginary problem.
During many years of sometimes crippling and illegal attacks zusa almost destroyed Irans livelihood, killed many, many thousands of ill Iranian by denying Iran even medicine, strongly devaluated the Iranian currency and stole billions of Iran owned dollars by "freezing" them (and earning a very nice profit on those billions).

Right now, and particularly in the context of a major plan that will unfold very soon, Iran *has* to smile friendly and behave nicely - which is very humiliating and can be compared to your wife and daughter being raped and being forced to say friendly "Thank you, sir" to the thug.

NO WAY that Iran will be anything than a sworn enemy of zusa scum for decades to come. NOW WAY.

Now to the funny part ...

With the Russian contract and Chinas help all those big-mouth thug sanctions will actually turn *against* the west!
They, the western corporate whores are already starting to scratch at Irans doors; and understandably so. Just look at all those problem ridden zeu and zusa countries! Would french car makers love to sell their parts and cars to Iran again? Oh yes, sir, very much so.
Now guess: Where will a recovering Iran buy what it needs; in Russia and China or from the western whores who almost broke Iran?

Even worse, out of plain necessity Iran had to develop a lot of technology themselves. Nowadays, Iran even builds their own (civil) small and mid-size airplanes. And cheap. Guess where many NAM countries will buy their tech products and such will harm the industries of those who so comfortably terrorized Iran without hesitation and in the most brutal way ...

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Jan 14 2014 0:33 utc | 20

Re 11, 13: My own reading of the Hollande 'scandal' is that Hollande himself has engineered it, imagining that if a public reputation as a rake helped Sarkozy with the public, it should help him too. There is something about these strategies that suggests to me that several European countries are following a strategy which reflects a USAian perception of Europe as a continent populated by grotesques with exaggerated 'national characteristics', such as philandering for the French and comical stiff-upper-lip-ness for the Brits.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jan 14 2014 2:35 utc | 21

In a world divided between haves and have-nots, between postmodern and pre-modern, and between those for whom God is dead and those for whom God remains omnipresent, expecting coercion to produce reconciliation, acceptance or submission represents the height of folly. So force employed by the United States in faraway places serves mostly to inflame further resistance, a statement that is true whether we're talking about putting "boots on the ground" or raining down Hellfire missiles from the heavens.

What then is to be done? That which Washington is least capable of undertaking: Those charged with formulating policy must think anew. For starters, that means lowering expectations regarding the political effectiveness of war, which is demonstrably limited.

Take force off the metaphorical table to which policymakers regularly refer. Rather than categorizing violence as a preferred option, revive the tradition of treating it as a last resort. Then get serious about evaluating the potential for employing alternative forms of power, chiefly economic and cultural, to advance American interests. The result won't be a panacea. But it won't cost as much as open-ended war. And rather than creating new problems, this alternative approach just might solve some old ones.

Reading Andrew Bacevich is never waste of time. All very valid points, but I am afraid that's mission is an impossible one. It is an exercise of futility just as is thinking of ""negotiations in good faith". Some in the US have thought that by reforming a banks economic crisis would be solved! No system has reinvented itself, ever. Oligarchy at Capitol Hill will rather ended like Nicholas II in Russia than it will make some concessions and accommodation.

The good news is that an imperial power "inflame fierce resistance" as he noted. The bad news is that in the process everything is flattened. The US just love somebody else misery more than own good.

Unilateralism is the US way of thinking, living and conducting business and military affair. That they cannot the rule the world by itself is well known to them as well; that's why they need "allies". As we can see in latest example of India, US has strange way to define that very word. They love allies like the settler state where the US must have the commanding hight. The US do not need a partner(s).

Iran would be perfect "ally", but Iran consciences of its history, culture, size and wealth won't ever agree on such arrangement. Strict independence policy is codified in the Iranian constitution. More and more a question is does Iran need the west at all? Latest news is that China has became the world biggest trading nation - with India, Pakistan, Turkey, Russia, Indonesia in its proximity...the future is in the East.

Posted by: neretva'43 | Jan 14 2014 2:41 utc | 22

I am curious to know the view of everyone (irrespective on their worldview) about several things:

1) What is it that you think that US has a right to want in negotiations with Iran? What in your opinion would be fair for US to ask?

2) What is it -in your opinion- that Iran should not agree to in negotiations with US?

3) What is it -in your opinion- that Iran wishes to achieve by insisting on enrichment? Is it -do you think- only a matter of principle, or do you think there is anything more that Iran wishes to achieve by having an enrichment capability?

4) Do you look forward to US being able to "pivot to China"? Would a successful "pivot to china" be a positive development in your opinion?

Posted by: Pirouz_2 | Jan 14 2014 3:56 utc | 23

It seems someone was not happy about the Sheikh's comments because a section quoted in the OP have since been removed from the linked article.

http://www.thenational.ae/uae/government/dubai-ruler-speaks-to-bbc-about-uaes-legal-system-syria-and-egypt

The deleted comments can still be found elsewhere.

Asked whether he thought it was time to lift the sanctions, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, who is also the Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates, told British broadcaster the BBC:

“I think so and give Iran a space… Iran is our neighbour and we don’t want any problem, he said, adding that “everybody will benefit”.

“I think they’re telling the truth when they say just for civilian power,” Sheikh Mohammed said in the interview.

http://gulfbusiness.com/2014/01/dubai-ruler-calls-for-easing-of-iran-sanctions/

Posted by: Calig | Jan 14 2014 4:12 utc | 24

@ 23, Pirouz

The US really has no right to ask anything. The only 'fair' thing to do is lift all sanctions, apologize for past behavior, and thank Iran for complying with NPT despite numerous threats. But the US will make demands based on it (perception of) power. Something along the lines of "the strong do what they will. The weak bear what they must." Except Iran isn't weak, and the US isn't as strong as it used to be.

Iran has to act in the world as it is, not the world as it should be. Fortunately, the world as it is is going to be looking pretty darned good from Iran's point of view. In short, Iran should not concede enrichment under any circumstance. It should be prepared to make some limitations in exchange for huge sanctions lifting...but that is not likely to ever happen. So what Iran needs to do is play the reasonable party, which is has, and simply give the US the rope it will use to hang itself.

Principle and true scientific development. No country can afford to let the US dictate which technologies it may pursue and which ones it may not.

Actually, a pivot to Asia would be unfortunate for the world. Perhaps Iran needs the US to shift its attention elsewhere for a while, but for the world, it's probably best the US is bogged down in the middle east/Persian Gulf while Russia, China, Brazil, etc take the opportunity for useful and enriching endeavors. Those countries *should* therefore be prepared to strengthen Iran as much as they can, because it is definitely in their long term best interests.

Posted by: Lysander | Jan 14 2014 5:41 utc | 25

1) What is it that you think that US has a right to want in negotiations with Iran? What in your opinion would be fair for US to ask?

Posted by: Pirouz_2 | Jan 13, 2014 10:56:28 PM | 23

A1. It is false and misleading to 'forget' to mention that Iran is responding to coercion, not "negotiating" with its tormenters. One cannot, and should not, 'negotiate' with people who tell lies and don't listen.

A2. They should be guided by Putin, which is precisely what they are doing (LOL).

A3. It's a matter of principle. The name of the principle is SOVEREIGNTY and it's nobody's business but Iran's what they do.

A4, The US and the West have already pivoted to China (and Pakistan and other low cost countries). That's where circa 150-200 million manufacturing jobs have been exported to by the 1% since ~1970. And it's why the chances of economic recovery in the West are somewhat South of Zero and getting worse.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jan 14 2014 7:08 utc | 26

Rowan, I am afraid he IS really in deep trouble:

Girl-friend 1 (who benefits nevertheless from an office and 5 devoted staff within the Elysee + title "First Lady") is in the hospital, and she has sent him through a friend interviewed in Le Parisien newspaper a "request of clarification". No one really liked this First Lady to start with, as she had managed to keep her journalist weekly column in Paris Match while being the new First Lady (NB: Hollande had promessed to break with the bling bling style aka people-isation of Sarkozy).
Girl-friend 2's best friend, the one whose appartment they were using for their meetings (5mn from the Elysee, call him a pragmatic, if only for the name of the street "Circus St"), has been under investigation by the police in the latest months after her guy was assassinated in Corsica (another guy, the father of her children has just received a sentence for money-laudering and it was his name that was on the door and used for the phone-line).
Now add to this Mrs Royal, the Ur-girl-friend (betrayed for girl-friend 1), and mother of his 4 kids, who dreams to reconquer the head of the socialist party and become Mrs President.

A 21st century French veaudeville.

Posted by: Mina | Jan 14 2014 9:43 utc | 27

http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/8/91531/World/Region/Turkish-police-raid-Islamic-charity-near-Syria-bor.aspx

Posted by: Mina | Jan 14 2014 9:49 utc | 28

What does the pivot to "Asia" mean? It has rightly been identified as a pivot to China. And "pivot", that word, what do we reasonably read into it? It looks like a codeword for aggression and provocation against China. The physical form it is to take is in the US Navy. And US diplomacy is imperial force, plus the threat of force, violence in short.

The international crisis that embroils Syria has not abated. Instead, it has only receded from view a little, as the focus of aggression and gamesmanship shifts about; therefore, Obama is still supporting Saudi intrigue, while pretending not to; so the Great Game is relentless in its purpose; and the players in Washington are impatient to move on to a more pressing objective, the payoff of all their psychopathic energy.

The fate, and the militaristic concentration of the empire, is centered now on time, pressing and precious time; for time is obviously on the side of China. Each moment that passes sees the bankrupt USA further sinking, and China ascendant. As far as the peace of the world is concerned, we are no better off than the European Powers after the crisis in the Balkans in 1913.

We are back to that, because if you look at the movement of US leaders and their fellow die-hards in Japan, you will observe that the instincts remain a question of priority; and the whole Middle East imbroglio centered on Iran is just an encumbrance to these psychos. Even Israel has become a millstone around the neck of Obama, the mascot of Wall Street, because time is wasting.

The globalist objectives and the fundamental creed of power, combined with the heady sense of invincibility, is added to the fascist intensity, the flight forward, the naked now.

Well, you get the idea. Time is passing. Time stands as the enemy as China grasps the torch. This won't be an argument between pessimism and optimism; for there is only a test of strength now, that counts, between the people of the empire and their government.

Posted by: Copeland | Jan 14 2014 10:32 utc | 29

QUOTE "Iran and Russia are negotiating an Oil-for-Goods swap worth $1.5 billion a month that would enable Iran to lift oil exports substantially, 'undermining' (illegal war crime) Western economic sanctions that helped 'persuade' Tehran in November to agree to a preliminary deal to curb its nuclear program" ... (and derailing the Iran-Syria Gas Pipeline Project competition to a soon-coming Israeli Leviathan Field LNG Terminal).

This is exactly the same strategic path that US-UK-IL set for Saddam, following after GW1 economic sanctions and self-destruction of his WMDs placation, (as Iran now promises with enriched uranium denaturing.) Then EU threw Saddam a bone, the 'Oil for Food' program, remember, that plunged the global price of crude oil to $12.50 a barrel. Remember?

First the Banksters pushed through Gramm-Leich-Bliley, clik-clik. Then Saudi Prince Bandar said the KSA would 'like to see oil at $25 a barrel', clik-clik. Bada-boom, bada-bing, the Lesser Bush was off to war with a cocked hat, 'Let's Roll' and the rest is $143 a barrel oil and (-)$17,000,000,000,000 in perpetual, interest-only debt repayments ... FOREVER.

Now comes Obama, ZUSA's Black Menem, "Oh mine eyes have seen the GLORY!" with exactly the same economic sanctions, the same 'diplomatic negotiations' platitudes used on Saddam and Gaddafi, and the 'breakthrough' promise of denaturing Iranian nuclear options, at the same time as the Supremes say, 'Eh, so what if Wall Street sets up whole tranches of synthetic commodities futures levered debt on nano-hair trigger for the first announcement of war?'

It has already been PROVEN that WADC-NOVA insiders tips with Wall Street nano-computers buys have reached the market AHEAD of actual public announcements of 'setbacks' before, and then, 'Ooo, la-la, wake up, Little ZUSA, ...time to die.'

The painted ponies go up and down, and the painted ponies go round and round, we're captive in their circle game of lies.

Posted by: Chip Nikh | Jan 14 2014 10:39 utc | 30

@ 30, not quite like the Iraqi oil for food program. That was administered through the UNSC, with 15 representatives, any single one of whom could veto any item Iraq needed to purchase. The US/UK would be in the habit of vetoing almost everything.

I don't know the details of the Russian proposal, but it seems like just a bilateral deal between Iran and Russia and the rest of the world has no say in the matter. The question remains of what Russia is prepared to sell, and how they will price Iranian oil. If they are only willing to sell basic foods at grossly inflated prices, then yes, it becomes another 'oil for food' scandal. I doubt Iran would agree. OTOH, If Iran can obtain a wide variety of Russian goods and services, electronics, medicines, etc at something close to market prices, then it is a big plus.

Posted by: Lysander | Jan 14 2014 12:23 utc | 31

@27 RB @21 is quite correct. All these scandals are scripted. Hollande doesn't really want to dip his wick in actresses but he has to provide his handlers with something juicy every once in a while and being a good stooge he plays his role to the hilt. Likewise Eton only exists to provide Hollywood with stereotypes.

Posted by: dh | Jan 14 2014 13:16 utc | 32

I've been saying this for months: every commentator in the MSM has assumed that the choice is this:
a) a deal that leads to an easing of sanctions, or
b) no deal, in which case the sanctions remain in place, set in stone, etc. etc.

Baloney.

The choice for Obama is exactly as B has said: Obama either goes for a deal *now* while the sanctions still give him leverage, or he pisses around and pulls everyone's chain - which will result in the BRICS all bolting for the door.

And if the sanctions fall apart because of his prevarication then.... gosh.... where is his leverage?

Posted by: Johnboy | Jan 14 2014 13:25 utc | 33

Youtube leaks
Turkish intelligence behind assassination of three Kurdish militants in Paris?
http://www.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2014/01/14/la-piste-d-un-tueur-d-etat-se-renforce-dans-l-assassinat-des-trois-militantes-kurdes-a-paris_4347774_3214.html

Posted by: Mina | Jan 14 2014 13:52 utc | 34

Never underestimate the stupidity if the US, they are considering sanctions against the Russians because of the barter arrangements, it must not be forgotten that the only legal sanctions put in place by the UNSC involve very minor ones....
1 A proliferation-sensitive nuclear and ballistic missile programmes-related embargo
2 A ban on export/procurement of arms and related materiel etc etc.
3 A travel ban and an asset freeze on designated persons and entities.
Big deal, the Russians, Chinese and any other country with any self respect will tell the US, Go F...Your Selves.

Posted by: harrylaw | Jan 14 2014 14:01 utc | 35

"Big deal, the Russians, Chinese and any other country with any self respect will tell the US, Go F...Your Selves."

The Russians are already telling the US to go fuck themselves with their economic-warfare tactics known as "sanctions" - that's what the 1.5 Billion deal is about, and the fact that it's barter is a kind of "P.S. We don't need no stinkin Dollar!"

Posted by: stfu | Jan 14 2014 14:06 utc | 36

@27 RB @21 is quite correct. All these scandals are scripted. Hollande has to provide his handlers with something juicy every once in a while and being a good stooge he plays his role to the hilt. Posted by: dh | Jan 14, 2014 8:16:02 AM | 32

Girlfriend #2's best friend, the one whose apartment they were using for their meetings, has been under investigation by the police in the latest months after her guy was assassinated in Corsica. Another guy, the father of her children, has just received a sentence for money-laundering and it was his name that was on the door and used for the phone-line.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jan 14 2014 14:26 utc | 37

Just check Le Monde's articles. And the video-interview of "a friend of our First Lady" in le Parisien.fr telling Hollande that "she's ready to pardon him but awaits from him a clarification (from the hospital where she apparently decided to withdraws)".
Our First Lady by the way has no legal status (reason why Sarkozy married Bruni quickly)and some say she should pay taxes as Hollande's partner, and not as if she was single, i. e. much more taxes than what she currently pay (with a free-staff at the Elysée!!
It was this staff who announced Friday she was in hospital. ou imagine the effect of reading "the Directeur de Cabinet of the First Lady has announced she was being hostpitalized after a strong "coup de blues", i. e. shocked/down.
So now that we have two First Ladies... I always think it is real hypocrisy that French laws punish polygamy... even Segolene Royal was never married to Hollande... the guy really has a problem.

It must be confortable to think that the powerful people in this world always plan and complot. Admitting their stupidity and their mistakes hurts actually a bit. I was convinced the EU technocrats were pushing people in the hands of the extreme-right willingly, but now that I see Hollande's behaviour I understand that it is simply the result of a well-known "folie des grandeurs".
Just give 7,000 euros per month to a guy to do nothing in his Brussels office (exempted of taxes) and he'll end up not being able to google a name on a front-door or ask his girl-friend whose bed they are using.

Posted by: Mina | Jan 14 2014 14:41 utc | 38

There is a theory which saying that Khomeini is brought to power by the West - British and US, again.

My attempt to read Robert Dreyfuss's book "Hostage to Khomeini" failed, on half way through it I dismissed the book as a too conspiratorial - as a lunatics. But, there is some other authors with similar claim such as F. William Engdahl who, in some circles, enjoy a voice as conspiratorial theorist. I really do not give a damn when somebody label him or me as conspirator, what I looking for are a facts or a logic.

For myself that thought was too frightening and too baseless. "Illogical" too, they had brought the Shah to power, and then topple him some 30 years later. But the facts remains the Shah become too independent and too developmental, i.e. nationalistic. All three is what the West and the Globalists hate to see.

Looking back, an events from recent past: Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Somalia etc. and analyzing a political forces which have taken power in mentioned countries, I would say that theory isn't any more only conspiratorial, it is quite real with all its implications. What kind of the forces? They are backward and destructive in every sense - Syria? - they bring down to rubble countries which are ascending in its societal development, i.e. Yugoslavia. They all are exactly the same in its philosophy and the methods. There is a pattern of these so-called low intensity wars.

This above are indisputable facts about countries from Southeast Asia and Africa.

Now my speculation about Iran. What the West hoped for was a chaos that Iran will descend by installing Khomeini and clergy, by the way, he (Khomeini) could be seen in video when the West overthrown Mosaddegh, he was described as a "collaborator". Political scene in Iran was very chaotic and divergent and a country itself multi-ethnic. But such scenario did not materialize either because of the imperial arrogance or their perception of the clergy. It is apparent the clergy was well organized and entrenched and the Tudeh party was everything contrary to that.

My point is: One way or the other regardless of political forces on the throne in Iran, the US and "allies" have nothing to bargain for with Iran. The Iranians are too consciences of its size, culture and the past. Respect is a MUST for them (or for anybody who hold to themselves) it is starting point which the West and in particular American must learn. Americans, in essence, culturally, are the barbarians. The Iranians are too nationalistic to be dealt with on a level that the West lay down the principles of negotiations.

Posted by: neretva'43 | Jan 14 2014 14:43 utc | 39

Beats me what all these attractive ladies see in this absolute plonker,does he have the force de frappe in his trousers, and is he going to audition for the next James Bond part?

Posted by: harrylaw | Jan 14 2014 14:46 utc | 40

A lapsus.

instead Southeast Asia, should be Southwest Asia.

Posted by: neretva'43 | Jan 14 2014 14:47 utc | 41

Harrylaw

A man who detains political, intellectual or financial power arouses women as much or more than physical appearance or sexual power. History is full of ugly but well placed men who got the most beautiful women in their bed and who got dumped when they lost their "power".

Posted by: Virgile | Jan 14 2014 15:08 utc | 42

What Andrew Bacevich, in its article imply and admits, by asking "What then is to be done? That which Washington is least capable of undertaking: Those charged with formulating policy must think anew" is a savage nature of political system.

Realistically, one cannot expect that those people to "think anew."

Posted by: neretva'43 | Jan 14 2014 15:09 utc | 43

Neretva, the US wanted Khomeini if he was the only remaining alternative to another Mossadeh. But what is more telling is that the IRGC fought alongside the CIA and al-Qaeda in what was then Yugoslavia, against Milosevich. There is a natural concert of powers against 'communism', or anything remotely resembling it. Here is my opinion: What ended the covert collaboration was Israel. After 9/11, the entire US security structure was temporarily weakened, and Israel took advantage of that to slap a permanent veto on all further CIA covert cooperation with the IRGC. And it stuck, ever since. That's how powerful Israel is. In my opinion.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jan 14 2014 15:19 utc | 44

"But what is more telling is that the IRGC fought alongside the CIA and al-Qaeda in what was then Yugoslavia, against Milosevich."

This is foolish statement, but it is typical for the westerners, where Miloshevich is portrayed as a victim. Miloshevich, nominally socialists, was a fascists. During WWII there were ultra-nationalistic movement Chetniks, a Nazi collaborators who seeks restoration of monarchy under hegemony of Serbs. That's is what he was. Miloshevich was the best friend of the West in their aim to destroy Yugoslavia.

There are several instances of cooperation between the Gov. of Iran and the US, most notably Khomeini's "helps" in bringing Reagan to the White House. Bosnia episode is a minor one.

"...the US wanted Khomeini if he was the only remaining alternative to another Mossadeh."

Sorry I do not what do mean by this?

Posted by: neretva'43 | Jan 14 2014 15:32 utc | 45

Figures like Miloshevich (and all in ex Yugoslavia e.g. Tudjman from Croatia, Izetbegovich from Bosnia) have its "expiration date" in so-called international relationship. Elaborating "expiration date" would take time, but you know what I mean.

Posted by: neretva'43 | Jan 14 2014 15:41 utc | 46

"....and Israel took advantage of that to slap a permanent veto on all further CIA covert cooperation with the IRGC."

I do not corespondent with this, at all.

Posted by: neretva'43 | Jan 14 2014 15:47 utc | 47

"But what is more telling is that the IRGC fought alongside the CIA and al-Qaeda in what was then Yugoslavia, against Milosevich."

IRGC did not have troops in Bosnia, maybe some instructors. Iranians paid for weaponry a lot but just fraction reached into Bosnia.

OK, if you believe in AQ so be it. But who brought them and why? CIA brought "volunteers" there that is for sure, if one knows what front-line were and look like the only way would be by air (NATO) or by land in military convoys. Check point were every dozen kilometers form different forces. Interestingly, nobody is mentioning "volunteers" from Russia, Ukraine and Greece even from Australia.

Why? Most likely to some degree to "equalize" and "balance", if not to annul guilt of those who started that bloody war. To shows a Bosnian muslim in dark light despite the facts that the Bosnian did not needed AQ and they did only the damage in PR matter. There is thesis that all sides are guilty and equally savages.

We can see the exact same things in development in Syria.

Posted by: neretva'43 | Jan 14 2014 16:09 utc | 48

Sanctions on Iran reminds me of this:

"Jewish boycott of German goods"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_boycott_of_German_goods

Traitor congress threat America.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jan 14 2014 16:10 utc | 49

One more reason I forgot to mention, very important one, is: AQ was there in help to "radicalize" a Bosnian muslims. This is so typical an imperial and hegemonic leitmotif, and so strange to the Bosnians as well as the Syrians.

Posted by: neretva'43 | Jan 14 2014 16:17 utc | 50

Miloshevich, nominally socialists, was a fascists. During WWII there were ultra-nationalistic movement Chetniks, a Nazi collaborators who seeks restoration of monarchy under hegemony of Serbs. That's is what he was. Miloshevich was the best friend of the West in their aim to destroy Yugoslavia.

This is nonsense - borderline retarded to be honest.

Milosovitch is on record as telling Serbs that they had nothing to fear from other groups in the region - that co-existence was the way forward for Serbs and for Yugoslavia. He was not a nationalist, in the sense you mean, at all

You really are full of shit sometimes

Milosovitch had absolutely nothing to do with Chetniks - you just inserted that there as a smear attempt

Posted by: stfu | Jan 14 2014 16:36 utc | 51

Is this the Western "leftist" and "progressive" has spoken out?

Posted by: neretva'43 | Jan 14 2014 16:44 utc | 52

"Honey, I think I've found this old bag of stuff Carlos was looking for last time he visited us"
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/8/91578/World/Region/Palestinians-apologise-for-illegal-arms-at-Prague-.aspx

Posted by: Mina | Jan 14 2014 16:49 utc | 53

This is someone that knows you're full of shit.

The proof that you're full of shit is your reply - someone that wasn't full of shit would have addressed what I said - you didn't, nor will you, because you're full of shit.

what you said re Milosovitch is pure bullshit, and you know it.

Posted by: stfu | Jan 14 2014 16:49 utc | 54

or, American savage?

Posted by: neretva'43 | Jan 14 2014 16:52 utc | 55

seems I'm speaking to a Grade-A moron that thinks he can con his way out being caught deliberately lying by making retarded comments regarding Americans and savages.

Posted by: stfu | Jan 14 2014 16:56 utc | 56

I wonder what his next retarded comment will be?

Posted by: stfu | Jan 14 2014 16:57 utc | 57

combination of #52 and #55?

Posted by: neretva'43 | Jan 14 2014 16:58 utc | 58

teabagger?

Posted by: neretva'43 | Jan 14 2014 17:00 utc | 59

you certainly act like one anyway

Posted by: stfu | Jan 14 2014 17:01 utc | 60

You?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/16/1017625/-This-diary-is-for-my-TEABAGGER-readers

Take careful look at photos!

He, he, he

Posted by: neretva'43 | Jan 14 2014 17:02 utc | 61

Let me ask you? How have you become the teabagger? By sleeping under the rock? Raised in the cave? Or...

Posted by: neretva'43 | Jan 14 2014 17:06 utc | 62

Posting moronic photos in reply to being called a liar isn't really a winning strategy imho.

But do feel free to continue that line of argument, I'm sure it'll distract everyone from the fact that you're full of shit

Posted by: stfu | Jan 14 2014 17:07 utc | 63

"Or..."

Nah - I just figured out you were full of shit regarding Milosovitch, that's all.

Posted by: stfu | Jan 14 2014 17:09 utc | 64

"Posting moronic photos in reply to being called a liar isn't really a winning strategy imho."

Don't be so cruel to yourself. It is not you fault, it is the mother nature. Or God?

Posted by: neretva'43 | Jan 14 2014 17:10 utc | 65

you know if you just ignore me maybe no one else will notice that you're full of shit! ;-)

Posted by: stfu | Jan 14 2014 17:12 utc | 66

stfu? really?

Posted by: neretva'43 | Jan 14 2014 17:13 utc | 67

I know now!

combination of #52 and #55 and #61?

Yesss! The winning combination, it doesn't get better than this! yeees!!!

Posted by: neretva'43 | Jan 14 2014 17:17 utc | 68

You like this combination or...is this too complex for you? Simple minded!? Pick you number!

Posted by: neretva'43 | Jan 14 2014 17:22 utc | 69

It's official

the numbers 52 and 55 and 61 are the winning combo in this weeks moron lottery - well done neretva'43 - no moron deserves this win more than you

Posted by: stfu | Jan 14 2014 17:26 utc | 70

He, he, he,

I wish I had you brain. To relax a bit.

There is movie Life of Brian, not sure there is Life of Savages.

But there is Borat, right?

Posted by: neretva'43 | Jan 14 2014 17:31 utc | 71

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKFfQdUSnSM

Posted by: neretva'43 | Jan 14 2014 17:34 utc | 72

http://youtu.be/giV-RlpltGQ

Borat has Lunch with The Arizona Republican Committee

He, he, he

Posted by: neretva'43 | Jan 14 2014 17:37 utc | 73

New readers can safely skip the last 20 posts.

Posted by: dh | Jan 14 2014 17:38 utc | 74

"Honey, I think I've found this old bag of stuff Carlos was looking for last time he visited us" (link) Posted by: Mina | Jan 14, 2014 11:49:14 AM | 53

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jan 14 2014 17:56 utc | 75

for my dear a savage friend

Igor Stravinsky -The Rite of Spring

A bit of Soft-Skills won't hurt.

When I hear the word “culture”… otherwise very good site.

Posted by: neretva'43 | Jan 14 2014 19:11 utc | 76

1) What is it that you think that US has a right to want in negotiations with Iran? What in your opinion would be fair for US to ask?

Plain nothing. zusa is in no legitimate position whatsoever to expect or demand anything.

2) What is it -in your opinion- that Iran should not agree to in negotiations with US?

Any and everything.
I'm pretty sure the Iranians have just been playing out a script. And now (Jan. 20) it's basically over. And Iran can - finally! - begin to recover.

3) What is it -in your opinion- that Iran wishes to achieve by insisting on enrichment? Is it -do you think- only a matter of principle, or do you think there is anything more that Iran wishes to achieve by having an enrichment capability?

They want to a) principally to being plundered of their legitimate rights and b) they want to build up peaceful nuclear technology, among other for energy concerns.

4) Do you look forward to US being able to "pivot to China"? Would a successful "pivot to china" be a positive development in your opinion?

That question is irrelevant because, de facto, zusa is larely irrelevant and so are their pivots and othet wet dreams, self delusions and ruling-by-propaganda attempts.

Ceterum censeo israel americanamque delenda esse.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Jan 14 2014 19:28 utc | 77

1) What is it that you think that US has a right to want in negotiations with Iran? What in your opinion would be fair for US to ask?

-nothing but asking for help in syria.

2) What is it -in your opinion- that Iran should not agree to in negotiations with US?

-not give up libanon and syria.not giving up enrichment or full n-cycle.

3) What is it -in your opinion that Iran wishes to achieve by insisting on enrichment? Is it -do you think- only a matter of principle, or do you think there is anything more that Iran wishes to achieve by having an enrichment capability?

-they wish US and EU to accept(thats not allowing) that iran has the right to enrichment.why?
because they want to be a part of the international comunity although they posess a nuclear threshold capacity(like lets say Japan).with international comunity,I mean before sanctions.

Posted by: Some1 | Jan 14 2014 20:36 utc | 78

1) What is it that you think that US has a right to want in negotiations with Iran? What in your opinion would be fair for US to ask?

just nothing.i was confused

Posted by: Some1 | Jan 14 2014 20:37 utc | 79

By, de facto, blocking involvement of Iran in Geneva II talks, Syrian conference, Washington clearly showed its intentions. Do not foul ourselves.

"Kerry said that it would be difficult to see how Iran could be a ministerial partner in the Geneva II talks. However, he said that Tehran could play a helpful role in finding a solution to the conflict in Syria.

Kerry suggested that Iran’s diplomatic office in Geneva might be able to help as an unofficial participant."

"Criticizing Kerry's proposal for Iran's sidelined participation in the Geneva II conference, Afkham said Tehran would only accept the proposals which are in line with its dignity."

RESPECT?

Posted by: neretva'43 | Jan 14 2014 21:03 utc | 80

dh @74 LOL- thanks for that!

b- thanks for the overview.. i enjoyed post 6 and 18.. one can learn a lot reading posts here and if nothing else consider a number of possibilities not presented in any of the mainstream media.

the usa is in a continuing precarious position.. by negotiating with iran they challenge the cozy relationship they've had with israel and s.a... the usa has been spreading itself thin for some time now.. china and russia are quite happy to see the usa embroiled in as many conflicts as they are and hope it continues, i am sure.. another with iran will definitely be biting off more then they can chew.. is usa foreign policy really being driven by israel as some suggest? we are in the process of finding out and it appears the answer as demonstrated lately thru iran is a partial no.. like a game of chess, it is interesting to watch the next move!

Posted by: james | Jan 14 2014 23:16 utc | 81

Neretva

With due respect, perhaps you have confused Milosevic with Mihailovic.

Posted by: truthbetold | Jan 14 2014 23:34 utc | 82

Oh feck

Its an airhead convention

Run!

Posted by: stfu | Jan 14 2014 23:49 utc | 83

To me it looks like the WaPo tries to put its own spin on US negotiations with Iran. Russia was already for months in negotiations with the US to reach a deal on "Syria" but NOT on "Iran". This "Russian pressure" gave Obama & Kerry a good excuse to change the policy towards Syria.

I have a different take on the info provided here. It seems both Russia & the US are trying to cozy up/kiss up to Iran. I think Russia is VERY well what improving US-Iranian relations would mean: Deterioration of Russian-Iranian relations. In other words: the ongoing confrontation between Russia & the US has moved into the next stage of confrontation.
But a US - Iranian "rapprochement" also is threathning for a number of other countries in the Middle East. E.g. Israel.

Posted by: Willy2 | Jan 15 2014 0:08 utc | 84

Oooops. Add the word "aware" between "very well" & "improving".

Posted by: Willy2 | Jan 15 2014 0:10 utc | 85

truthbetold aka stfu aka...whatever-next-your-puppet-name-is

I did not confuse anything, OK. This getting annoying? and it is not a topic, the internet is full of it. I'll give you two links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAM_Plan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virovitica-Karlovac-Karlobag_line

Posted by: neretva'43 | Jan 15 2014 0:43 utc | 86

So according to the lying bullshitter neretva43 apparently the internet is full of something(evidence of what he claims regarding milosovitch i guess)

Yet for some strange reason instead of actual evidence all we get is more bullshit -bullshit links this time,

The first bulshit-link was to an alleged HYPOTHETICAL plan and the other an alleged HYPOTHETICAL line on a map

FFS

You really are full of shit.

Links to hypothetical "evidence"?

What a moron

Posted by: stfu | Jan 15 2014 0:58 utc | 87

right, savages.

Posted by: neretva'43 | Jan 15 2014 1:15 utc | 88

x2

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/16/1017625/-This-diary-is-for-my-TEABAGGER-readers

Posted by: neretva'43 | Jan 15 2014 1:16 utc | 89

anything else?

Posted by: neretva'43 | Jan 15 2014 1:18 utc | 90

ah, yes, I forgot this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny4a-oxOndo

Posted by: neretva'43 | Jan 15 2014 1:20 utc | 91

Yep, still a moron

Grade A+ now

Posted by: stfu | Jan 15 2014 1:22 utc | 92

@stfu aka savages aka teabagger

Teabagger's Computer Vocabulary:

*Backup - What you do when you run across a liberal in the woods.
*Bug – What you do to your Congressman at a town hall meeting.
*Byte - What your pit-bull did to your Barack Obama doll.
*Chip – The smart son who can load a magazine in 32 seconds.
*Terminal – Socialist Amtrak station.
*Crash - When you go to a Starbucks Coffee by mistake.
*Digital - Counting to nine on your fingers.
*Fax – Rush Limbaugh’s opinion.
*Hacker – Your wife after 26 years of smoking.
*Hardcopy - Picture looked at when selecting tattoos.
*Internet - Where you put your hair at work.
*Keyboard - Where you hang the keys to the Hummer.
*Mac – Your favorite restaurant.
*Megahertz - How your head feels after listening to "Barry".
*Modem - What you do to liberals who want socialist health care.
*Mousepad– Nancy Pelosi’s office
*Network – Fox News.
*PC – Losing your freedom of hate speech.
*ROM - Where the pope lives.
*Screen – Camouflaged netting to hide ammo stash.
*Serial Port – Boones Farm with breakfast.
*Superconductor – Glenn Beck, but Lou Dobbs is getting better every day.
*SCSI (pronounced scuzzi) – Your first cousin after sex.
*WYSIWYG – 5.5 inches.

Posted by: neretva'43 | Jan 15 2014 1:24 utc | 93

where did you go?

Tea Party Meeting?

Posted by: neretva'43 | Jan 15 2014 1:28 utc | 94

Are you really that moronic that you think a load of verbal-wank about teabaggers will distract from the fact that you're full of shit?

Really?

Posted by: stfu | Jan 15 2014 1:28 utc | 95

#93 you have to write 50 time tonight. OK?

Posted by: neretva'43 | Jan 15 2014 1:29 utc | 96

95

No, not at all.

http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/s/C/3/Tea-Party-Meeting.gif

Posted by: neretva'43 | Jan 15 2014 1:31 utc | 97

he, he

love this: Screen – Camouflaged netting to hide ammo stash.

Posted by: neretva'43 | Jan 15 2014 1:33 utc | 98

@84 It is an interesting point, I think echoed by those asking why China would want to see improved relations as well. But I don't think it is so much of a zero sum game. In any case I can't see that the United States has any hope of having a "positive" relationship with Iran, though it could certainly be less negative.

Russia would not like to see Iran drift out of the BRIC/NAM camp, but neither would want to encourage relations to be so poor that there would be a chance for a shooting war between Iran and the US. Russia has the advantage when the relations are cold, but also much to lose if it came to war - more than the US even, I suspect (if only for reasons of geography). My guess is that the dynamic we saw in Syria - with Russia standing up for Syria, but also eager to deal to avoid war which would surely be a massive disaster right on its doorstep - applies to Iran x 100.

The fact is that while the United States seems to have some kind of pathological power trip to pursue, Iran, Russia, and nearly every other country (save France/UK/Israel/Saudi - all heavily militarized globalist oligarchies) just want to develop. The problem for the US is that - in its efforts for empire - we have allowed other countries to become so deeply involved in our affairs - Israel, the Saudis, and even countries like Egypt, a powder keg so long kept under the US thumb and prevented from its natural development that US only stops the payments and the coercive involvement at its own peril - that it is hard to see how the US extracts itself from those "obligations". Which is why I can't ever imagine a true "Pivot to Asia" occurring.

In any case, the United States cannot have good relations with Iran almost by definition, because Iran wants to be an independent power. That automatically puts it in the enemy camp. It's the Shah or nothing for the USA, is my guess.

As for Pirouz questions- I hesitate, because my knowledge here is so so thin (unlike other places where it is thin yet I'm content to shoot my mouth off, I know the Iranians here are always ready for a serious debate!) but I'll try:

1) What is it that you think that US has a right to want in negotiations with Iran? What in your opinion would be fair for US to ask?

That Iran follows it obligations under the NPT. No more, no less. The US, as being furthest from Iran, must stop acting the most threatened. And it must stop massively nuclear armed Israel from playing the distressed, bullied, victim. Clearly nothing could be further from reality.

2) What is it -in your opinion- that Iran should not agree to in negotiations with US?

Anything more than its obligations under the NPT. Unless it should choose to give up some rights in an effort to secure a nuclear free Middle East... including Israel.

3) What is it -in your opinion- that Iran wishes to achieve by insisting on enrichment? Is it -do you think- only a matter of principle, or do you think there is anything more that Iran wishes to achieve by having an enrichment capability?

Certainly to be self sufficient in nuclear energy, as any country of its size and scientific advancement would desire. But Iran's leaders would be crazy, considering that Iran is surrounded by nuclear armed states, not to be looking for some deterrent, even if only a "breakout" capability such as Japan has. Though the only possible scenario one could see for their use would be during a ground invasion of Iran, it would still be a useful deterrent, especially considering the plight of her two - recently and currently occupied - neighbors. And I suppose, if this history is still remembered, Iran may be thinking of her situation during the Second World War.

4) Do you look forward to US being able to "pivot to China"? Would a successful "pivot to china" be a positive development in your opinion?

This has disaster written all over it. But as stated above, it cannot happen. The US has too many "friends" looking to prevent it.

Posted by: guest77 | Jan 15 2014 1:45 utc | 99

Dear B,

I don't want to overstep my bounds, but any chance you can you kick this moron, stfu/foff, off of here please?

Thanks,

Your humble guest

Posted by: guest77 | Jan 15 2014 1:48 utc | 100