Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
June 25, 2015

The NYT Pre-Announces Iran Deal Failure

Judging from this NYT editorial a nuclear deal with Iran is not going to happen. The blame will of course be put on Iran even while the real reasons for the likely failure are unreasonable U.S. demands.

The editorial blames the Iranian senior leader Khamenei for the failure. Khamenei yesterday held a speech and repeated his red lines and parameters for a deal. There was nothing new in it. The same points have been made by him in since the start of the negotiations.

He says there will no IAEA snap inspections of Iranian military sites. It is well known that the U.S. used such international inspections in Iraq to extensively spy on the Iraqi military. There will be no questioning of Iranian scientists by the IAEA. Five nuclear scientist have been murdered in Iran after their names and faces became publicly known. Israel is suspected to be behind those killings. It is unreasonable to ask those scientist to risk their lifes to answer irrelevant questions about unfounded allegations of former nuclear research. Khamenei insist on an immediate lift of the sanctions when a deal is signed. He reasonably suspects that any other scheme, like with the sanctions on Iraq, would be used to keep the sanctions on forever while pressing on Iran to fulfill additional commitments. This especially when the IAEA, which is under strong U.S. influence, would be the agency to judge if a commitment is fulfilled or not. The agency would never be satisfied and the sanctions would stay.

The NYT editorial says Khamenei's points are "at odds with a framework agreement reached on April 2". That is a bit weird as the actual full framework agreement has not been made public. So how do the editorial writers know this? "Western officials also say Iran has agreed to ..." Oh, western officials claim something. Then of course they, not Khamenei who has repeated the above points over and over again, must be right?

The editorial comes two days after the NYT published an op-ed by one Alan Kuiperman which claimed that the Iran deal "has a fatal flaw". The op-ed was so fatally flawed on the facts that the Arms Control Association felt it necessary to rebuke (scroll down) it in detail.

Today the news side of the NYT carries a piece by its main sophister David Sanger which reports on a letter some republicans and five former functionaries of the Obama administration sent to him about the Iran deal warning that the deal "may be flawed". Only in the 11th paragraph do we learn their names and that the group was led by Dennis Ross, a well known Israel stooge. Only in the 26th of 27 long waxing paragraphs do we learn that letter was not written by those who sent it:

The letter emerged from a study group on nuclear issues organized by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a policy institute.

Not mentioned is that the Washington Institute was founded by AIPAC and is part of the Israeli lobby. Any letter that "emerged" there was likely written in Tel Aviv.

That the NYT now seems to run against any reasonable deal is suspicious. The paper is often the pre-publishing administration outlet spiked by background talks to "announce" official administration positions before they become official. I regard its current onslaught on a reasonable deal and the early assignment of guilt as a pre-announcement of the U.S. government position which will become official when, in a week or two, the current talks in Geneva will have failed.

Posted by b on June 25, 2015 at 18:51 UTC | Permalink


[The New Yorker]
June 24, 2015
Did Obama “Abandon Israel”
By Bernard Avishai
Michael Oren, the former Israeli Ambassador to Washington, made news last week—as well he might, since he’s publishing a book. Yesterday marked the release of a memoir of his years representing Benjamin Netanyahu, which he summed up in last Monday’s Wall Street Journal, in an article titled “How Obama Abandoned Israel.” The article included this pungent line: “While neither leader monopolized mistakes, only one leader made them deliberately.” The leader in question, of course, is President Barack Obama. From the moment the President took office, Netanyahu’s envoy saw him as promoting “an agenda of championing the Palestinian cause and achieving a nuclear accord with Iran.”

Oren doesn’t bother explaining what’s wrong with an American President pursuing an agenda of this kind. He insists, implausibly, that it “would have put him at odds with any Israeli leader.” He also doesn’t explain how a mistake can be made “deliberately,” which seems oxymoronic, something like a “planned accident.” But Oren’s formulation is no less quotable for being imprecise. It is obviously meant to achieve the same response as Mitt Romney’s statement that the President had “thrown allies like Israel under a bus.” For America’s “friends of Israel,” especially organized American Jews, putting “deliberately” and “abandoned” on the same page is enough. The juxtaposition bypasses the brain, going straight to the solar plexus.
What Oren is really calling into question is whether, when it comes to Israel, the Administration should have an independent foreign policy. His principle of no daylight, no surprises amounts to a virtual Netanyahu veto over anything the U.S. government might contemplate doing to, or about, Israel.
Just after his appointment, I unexpectedly met Oren in front of the King David Hotel, in Jerusalem, and he was reflexively warm, even ebullient. We got to talking, and I asked him (perhaps a little mischievously) how he felt about giving up the independence of an historian for diplomacy, especially when it meant defending a government whose ideological commitment to Greater Israel was at odds with his own professedly moderate views. He was, on balance, fine with this, he said, comparing it to putting on a uniform to do military service. The writer he had been (and I remained, though he was already too diplomatic to rub it in) could only live on the margins of world events, not shape them. He said that he’d be “playing with the big boys.”
Oren himself said in a campaign speech that a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem should not even be discussed: “We don’t have to speak at all about the division of Jerusalem. Jerusalem is not a part of the picture. Jerusalem will remain our eternal and united capital.” (Revealingly, perhaps, he has since backtracked on this position, and says the Palestinian capital could be discussed in the context of negotiations for a two-state solution.)

In short, Oren is propping up a government whose “sense of tribe” has taken him to places no liberal should consider going. As Obama put it, deliberately, in “Dreams from My Father,” about confronting the legacy of black nationalism in Chicago, “Our sense of wholeness would have to arise from something more fine than the bloodlines we’d inherited.” And I use “propping up” exactingly: Netanyahu’s government holds a one-seat majority. I hope Oren will be reminded, by audiences at universities and interlocutors at Georgetown dinner parties, that a more convincingly democratic opposition is waiting in the wings, while he himself bears responsibility for the government remaining in power.

Posted by: okie farmer | Jun 25 2015 19:40 utc | 1

Interesting in light of the NYT item, RT's published its take on the release of a "secret doc" that appears to be related to carrots aimed at Iran,

"As the hard talks are set to start, the US is willing to offer concessions to Tehran that would boost its civilian nuclear industry, AP reported citing a confidential document perpetrating [sic] to the deal. The draft is one of several technical appendices meant to detail the terms, and it has dozens of text marked by brackets that indicate wordings over which the parties do not agree."

Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 25 2015 19:54 utc | 2

The main issue for myself is the preferred position of US hegemonic tactics re this Nuclear fraud of a deal, to weaken then destroy Iran.

The successful talks tactic, is more sophisticated way to weaken Irans nuclear capabilities and economy, setting it up until the time was "right" so Iran was to be militarily attacked by the U.S. Empire or it's Mid East allies. That position is a longer term view, as the US Empire sees it, as though it is not ready to successfully attack Iran just yet.

The destroying the talks tactic, is a more imperialistic impatient way, using the planned "failed" talks, so to sell the lie of how unreasonable Irans leaders are to deal with, and setting up more Western based sanctions, isolation, condemnation and the sooner plan of war crimes attack.

Posted by: tom | Jun 25 2015 20:35 utc | 3

thanks b and other commentators..

"Five nuclear scientist have been murdered in Iran after their names and faces became publicly known." bet the msm doesn't talk about that any, or the rationale iran has for it's position either.. it is all about the exceptional nation continuing on in it's merry making murderous ways..

Posted by: james | Jun 25 2015 21:26 utc | 4

The NYT has gone negative on the direction of the P5+1 talks. But I'm not so sure it signals that an agreement is dead. Obama has to deliver something to the Democratic base after the TPP nightmare or the party going into 2016 we'll be indistinguishable from the GOP, and one-party government will essentially be guaranteed for the next four years (at least). So at this point I think Obama/Kerry will bring something to Congress. Whether it is by June 30, or whether he can get it through neocon majorities in both the House and Senate is more a long shot.

As for the Sanger piece about the open letter from former Obama officials, nothing is more the sign of true powerlessness in politics than the circulation of an open letter.

Posted by: Mike Maloney | Jun 25 2015 21:29 utc | 5

@5 Powerless they are. But the NYT has to publish this stuff. Sanger and Co are hoping Iran will walk away from the table thus creating an excuse for more sanctions and military action. It's so transparent as to be laughable.

Posted by: dh | Jun 25 2015 21:39 utc | 6

I dunno. The Iranians seem very keen on relieving sanctions. They may go for than is logical. After all, what does it matter if the US wants to see what doesn't exist.

Posted by: Laguerre | Jun 25 2015 21:46 utc | 7

@7 'After all, what does it matter if the US wants to see what doesn't exist.'

Because Israel will never believe it doesnt' exist. The inspections will just get more intrusive.

Posted by: dh | Jun 25 2015 21:50 utc | 8

It was a very bad sign for a reasonable deal six months ago when Obama failed to reach an agreement with Iran and put it off for six months. This has allowed the neocons inside Washington to re-organize and plan to subvert the deal that had been tentatively agreed to then. In any case, we have to see this article coming out of the NY Times for exactly what it is: a major Zionist news outlet in the US is making a last ditch effort to undermine an agreement that any sensible person knows could be reached today.

It was 100% predictable that Iran would not allow any international agency (especially the IAEC which is run by American approved stooges) unlimited access to inspect any military site in Iran. Without any question Iran has one major deterrent against US attack. These are the anti-ship missile batteries they have positioned along the southern coast facing the Persian Gulf especially along the Straits of Hormuz. If the US was allowed unlimited right's of inspection they would gain enough information to take out those batteries with preliminary bunker buster aerial bombing. As long as the location of those batteries are not known, this gives the Iranians the ability to sink any US warship in the Persian Gulf should war break out. This is a military fact that has been accepted by the US Navy at since 2007.

In any case I think we are seeing a last minute effort by the Zionist's to sabotage those talks and I doubt that they have any special influence right now inside the Obama admin. Oren's book is part of this effort and given it's hysterical tone I doubt very much that the Israelis right now have any special influence with the negotiation team. Given the even Denis Ross has come out so openly looks more like a sign of desperation rather than any special inside influence. What they are trying to do is create a political crisis that will force Obama to hesitate yet again. We will find out next week how he and Kerry face this challenge.

Posted by: ToivoS | Jun 25 2015 22:29 utc | 9

Yes ToivoS, The Iranians have the ability to wreck the economies of the West simply by closing down the Strait of Hormuz, but the US always wants to humiliate their opponents, usually by continually moving the goal posts. The negotiations with North Korea also failed because the hardliners in Congress suspected the North Koreans of breaching agreements, then, the US had to facilitate the construction of two 1,000 megawatt light water reactors, to be supplied by Japan and South Korea, and provide 500,000 tons of heavy fuel oil annually until the reactors were ready. The reactors fell way behind schedule and the oil deliveries were suspended. The North Koreans now have the bomb and the US will not/cannot threaten them. In the Iranian case, they have said they do not want the bomb. I suspect that this is not about the bomb, rather the growing economic power and regional influence of this major player in the region, all to the detriment of the hegemonic ambitions of Israel/Saudi Arabia and of course the USA.

Posted by: harry law | Jun 25 2015 23:05 utc | 10

@7 "After all, what does it matter if the US wants to see what doesn't exist."

After all, what does it matter if the Iranians agree to step onto an escalator that never, ever stops?

Oh, of course, the escalator will never, ever stop, so they'll be stuck on it forever......

The Iranians aren't stupid, so why would they ever agree to that?

Posted by: Yeah, Right | Jun 25 2015 23:29 utc | 11

The issue here is whether the NYTs is acting as a mouthpiece for Administration shills, or whether it is acting as a mouthpiece for those who are opposed to the Administration's efforts.

.... Dennis Ross.
.... Gary Samore.
.... Robert Einhorn.
.... David H. Petraeus.
.... Stephen J. Hadley (!!!!)

Both Ross and Petraeus left the Administration as disgraceful embarrassments to Obama.

Hadley, of course, was never an ex-Administration figure, coming as he did pre-disgraced.

Not too sure on what terms Samore and/or Einhorn left the Administration (maybe it was on good terms, or maybe in high dungeon) but either way they aren't the biggest of fish.

But I can't agree with b on this.

That the NYTs agrees to give these "ex-advisors" (a.k.a. "proven failures") a venue for their nonsense tells you much about the influence that the Israel Lobby has on The Paper Of Record.

But it probably tells you next to nothing about what the Administration's thinking, other than that it is turning a deaf ear to the likes of Israel's Lawyer Ross, The Sky Is Falling Samore, Put It Back In Your Pants Petraeus, or Have You Ever Been Right On Anything Hadley.

Obviously so, since those shills are now reduced to shrill catcalling from the sidelines.

Truly, the worse thing possible for an egoist is to be.... ignored. And Obama appears to be ignoring these dudes to the extent that they are reduced to pathetic "open-letters" that probably went straight into the nearest trash can.

Or Sanger's desk, which pretty much amounts to the same thing.

Posted by: Yeah, Right | Jun 26 2015 0:05 utc | 12

Looks like my hypothesis (as stated here) has been proven then.

That the whole thing was a sham, to try and keep Iran out of interfering with the Syrian 'plan' by the Coalition of the Terminally Insane (CoTI).

Yes the warning sign ToivoS was that 6 month delay. But rather than assume it gave time for the neo-cons to regroup, I ask: What if Obabam is a neo-con (mosty) and at that time the Syrias war was going badly for the CoTI, without decisive Iranian involvement. Therefore the delay was just to try and keep Iran out of the action for longer while more CoTI forces were built up.

The evidence is that on Syria and Russia the difference between Obama and the neo cons is cigarette paper thin, if anything.

I also think that the reason why they pushed the button on the Ukraine at that time was the desire to cripple the Russian navy from any further interference in the Med. After the USNs showdown with the Russian navy in 2013 over Syria.

Posted by: Lisa | Jun 26 2015 0:06 utc | 13

@13 I don't think so. Obama does appear to want a deal with Iran, but like all post-WW2 US Administrations he mistakes "capitulation" for "diplomacy".

Obama wants a deal with Iran, but his concept is one in which Iran gives him everything he wants, while he gives no assurances in return.

It must be utterly mystifying to the Americans that the Iranians won't jump at that offer, since this involves the USA showing a magnanimous willingness to put the USAF away and instead accept their opponent as Uncle Sam's Newest Supplicant.

Such imperial largess is therefore regarded as an "American concession", since it requires Uncle Sam to restrain its natural tendencies which is, of course, to simply bomb, bomb, and then keeping bombing until the problem is reduced to rubble.

So I think the reason why Obama hasn't clinched a deal yet is because he has a fundamental misunderstand of what a deal with the USA entails.

In his mind he is showing quite heroic restraint, and that alone should be regarded as an American concession of almost unparalleled proportions. This Administration thinks that the Iranians are just being ungrateful for that largess and, therefore, being unreasonable in wanting to stand up for their rights.

Posted by: Yeah, Right | Jun 26 2015 0:28 utc | 14

Only time will tell but I think this NYT piece is most likely agitprop or Kabuki to develop the drama after these long and boring negotiations. Business, industry and oil interests are firmly behind this deal and they pay the politicians who will dance to their tune eventually. Even the Saudis are basing their nuke development on the parameters of this deal.

Posted by: Wayoutwest | Jun 26 2015 0:39 utc | 15

@ karlof1 | 2

"As the hard talks are set to start, the US is willing to offer concessions to Tehran that would boost its civilian nuclear industry "

I found this ironic, since Iran by joining IAEA already should be getting all the help they need with civilian nuclear industry. Its right there, in signed documents. US and West reneged the agreement, and now they offer as a concession what Iran was already entitled to? Not much of a carrot, especially since US demands Iran's full capitulation in return for such "carrots".

Bottom line, unless US gives up on idea of hammering Iran into capitulation, there wont be a nuclear deal. Its that simple.

Posted by: Harry | Jun 26 2015 1:41 utc | 16

Yeah, Right : I might possibly have some leanings towards this thoery if it was not for the fact that at every point, where an agreement might be hammered out, the US (or one of its 'sock puppets') ramped up the demands.

We have had near agreements over and over, all spoiled by another escalation in demands (or the inverse an unwillingness to deescalate sanctions).

So appplying 'Occam's Razer' to this, then I conclude that there was never a desire by the US for a settlement, rather it was just part of the CoTI's 'strategy'.

As for Obama's 'neo-conness', I just take the Ukraine and Russia. Obama has repeatedly escalated rhetoric against Russia. The latest just after Kerry going there, seemingingly to accept the 'facts on the ground' and try and come to some sort of agreement with Russia, a week or so later Obama states that Russia is a bigger securty threat than ISIS (again). And I don't see any sign of him not agreeing with the unprecedented military build up by NATO, or the South China Sea face down with China.

So let's take as a working hypothesis that Obama is as neo-conservative as he is neo-liberal econonmically (that is: just about totally) and his main issue is dealing with internal US poltical opposition (mostly from the military, which doesn't want to get sucked back into the ME, but is happy with a Russia face down and the Saudi Arabian and Israeli political lobbies). If you do that then his positions become quite logical and consistent.

Look at the Obama 'grand strategy', where neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism comes together. The TPP, TISA & TIPP, combined with military showdowns with Russia and China. These are full on military and economic wars with them. The ME, is just supposed to be sideshow by now, though it keeps sucking the US back in thanks to the intransigence of Saudi Arabia and Israel (combined with some mad Turkish dreams).

In this 'grand strategy' Obama probably does want to neutralise Iran as a Russian/China ally and would be happy to throw them a temporary bone to achieve that (they can be taken care of later after all). But the domestic politics means he has to support the current Sunna Wahabi ME takeover attempt as pushed by SA and Israel, this means no deal with Iran. But he also has to resist their attempts to get the US doing the 'heavy lifting' militarily against Syria and Iran, because this takes resources away from the build up against Russia and China. So he is trying to tread a fine line, do enough in the ME to keep Israel and SA off his back, while lining up the big forces elsewhere.

It's not that he doesn't really support the Wahabbi takever (beng a neo-con he will of course) it is just that he sees it as a distraction right now from the 'big play', the complete economic and military isolation of China and Russia.

Posted by: Lisa | Jun 26 2015 1:46 utc | 17

The American Jews are mostly in favor of the US-Iran deal and do not want Obama to be humiliated by a failure. The NYT article is their apology to Israel as the deal is looming.

Posted by: Virgile | Jun 26 2015 2:04 utc | 18

So the U.S. is impotent because the Israeli Netanyahoo through Oren deems it so. The NYT is parroting the official line because they are paid shills. Americans want peace, but the Zionists can't live with peace. Unfortunately, the whole Israeli population pays the cost for the minority that runs its government. In fact, they will pay the ultimate price if/when war breaks out because of the ego driven losers running their government, along with perhaps the idiots in the American government too.

Posted by: Norman | Jun 26 2015 3:16 utc | 19

I think Obama's AmeriKKKa is in HUGE trouble. i.e. terminal.
Neither Russia nor China are concealing their contempt for AmeriKKKa's "military prowess." If Obama fails to strike a deal acceptable to Iran, it will be one step short of a declaration of war (the final step being one more stupid pronouncement by Obama). The world's patience with AmeriKKKa has expired. Its next war will be a real war - and its last.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 26 2015 3:46 utc | 20

"Even the Saudis are basing their nuke development on the parameters of this deal."

The Saudis aren't basing "their" nuke development on anything, because even their best friend the United States would swiftly intervene if the least trust-worthy regime on the planet, the Saudis, were to develop anything approaching a nuclear device. Not to mention the Israelis, who would never, ever allow such a thing.

This whole "Saudi Nuke Scare" is about as believable as your "Russian-Saudi Relationship" you invented yesterday.

Posted by: guest77 | Jun 26 2015 4:29 utc | 21

After oil all that will work will be nuke energy,so oil rich with cash to burn are splashing out on future events

Pragmatic....uranium will be worth more than gold...unless alternative energy strategies can be found

Presently I am working on making electricity from turbines driven by sound....just need a bit of funding to kick it off

Posted by: mcohen | Jun 26 2015 4:42 utc | 22


I know you have trouble keeping up or understanding current events, G but the Saudis and Russians signed an agreement to build 13 nuke power reactors in SA and announced it in ST Pete a few days ago. The Saudis stated earlier that they wouldn't oppose the US/Iran deal because it would allow them to build a nuke program comparable to the Iranian's.

Posted by: Wayoutwest | Jun 26 2015 4:53 utc | 23


All those unprincipled frauds that held hope for Putin, should have extinguished that preposterous delusion about Putin being a "good" guy, or less evil enough to receive political support, based on that economic deal with the fucking Saudi terrorists just last week. Last week should have sealed that tomb of hypocrisy for Putin, and shut it forever.

Notice how it hardly got any coverage by "left" sites and blogs.

Putin could not give a shit about anyone on the whole fucking planet. He spends all his time on the world stage, not giving a shit about human rights or democracy, but cutting weapons and economic deals so to solely strengthen the Russian state. Th

Posted by: tom | Jun 26 2015 6:58 utc | 24
Scott Ritter explains why Iran shouldn’t accept ‘no notice’ inspections of its nuclear sites
Nuclear negotiations between Iran and what’s known as the P-5 + 1 group of nations are scheduled to conclude on 30 June. A ‘framework agreement’ was set out in April, but still at issue is what kind of access inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency will have. Iran has agreed to inspections of all the sites it has declared are being used to develop its nuclear power programme. The US insists that any agreement must also address what it calls ‘possible military dimensions’ – that is, allegations that Iran has pursued an undeclared nuclear weapons capability – and is demanding the right to conduct ‘no notice’ inspections of nuclear sites, and to interview Iranian nuclear scientists. ‘It’s critical for us to know going forward,’ the US secretary of state, John Kerry, said in June, that ‘those activities have been stopped, and that we can account for that in a legitimate way.’ France has said that any agreement that doesn’t include inspections of military sites would be ‘useless’. Iran has been adamant that it won’t allow them and that its nuclear scientists are off-limits. These positions seem irreconcilable and unless something changes a nuclear accord is unlikely.
The provisions of the NPT are at the heart of the framework agreement with Iran, and the measures contained in it – which include sophisticated remote monitoring, and environmental sampling at undeclared facilities – should be more than adequate to establish whether or not it has diverted any nuclear material to a weapons programme. The framework agreement also calls for a range of verification measures beyond those required by the NPT. These cover centrifuge production and aspects of the uranium fuel cycle such as mining and processing, and are needed to verify that Iran isn’t engaged in covert uranium enrichment using a secret cache of centrifuges and unaccounted-for stocks of uranium ore. No notice inspections to investigate ‘possible military dimensions’, however, go far beyond anything required by the NPT. The question is whether such an intrusive measure is warranted or whether, as Iran argues, the inspections would infringe its legitimate security interests.
The facts appear to support Iran’s position. Countries subjected to intrusive no notice inspections have to be confident that the process isn’t actually an intelligence-led operation aimed at undermining their legitimate interests.
The history of no notice inspections in Iraq does not bode well for their use in Iran. Such inspections are intelligence-based exercises. The bulk of the intelligence underpinning the US concerns over ‘possible military dimensions’ comes from the ‘alleged studies’ documents – a series of files the IAEA obtained in 2008 which appear to show that Iran had conducted some nuclear weapons development in 2002 and 2003. Their credibility has often been called into question and the Iranians declare they are fake. There’s good cause, too, to believe that much of the remaining intelligence buttressing the CIA’s case against Iran is flawed. The strange tale of the Iranian physicist Shahram Amiri, whose defection the CIA facilitated in the spring of 2009, serves as a case in point. Amiri was for several years before his defection an American agent-in-place whose reporting was used by the CIA in formulating its assessments on Iran. But his re-defection to Iran in 2010 suggests that he may have been a double agent, calling into question all his reporting to the CIA, before and after his defection. Operation Merlin, in which the CIA attempted to pass on to Iran flawed designs for a nuclear weapon, further undermines the CIA’s credibility as a source of information about an alleged Iranian nuclear weapons programme.
When Iraq finally told the truth about its weapons programmes, no one believed it. We used to joke about how often we came back from an inspection empty-handed, repeating the saying that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

The intelligence about the ‘possible military dimensions’ of Iran’s nuclear programme is of questionable provenance and most of it is more than a dozen years old. The consequences of failure to reach a nuclear accord with Iran today are too serious for the world to embrace a process that has been so controversial while having so little impact on legitimate disarmament. This is especially true when the inspected party, as is the case with Iran, has agreed to implement stringent verification measures and has a proven track record of abiding by them. Iran has been put in the impossible position of having to prove a negative. If it accepts inspections based on allegations it knows to be baseless, then it’s opening itself up to an endless cycle of foreign intrusion into its military and security infrastructure, and the inability of inspectors to discover something of relevance will only reinforce the belief that something is being hidden. We saw this happen before in Iraq, and the end result was a war based on flawed intelligence and baseless accusations that left many thousands dead and a region in turmoil.

Posted by: okie farmer | Jun 26 2015 7:18 utc | 25

The NYT wrongly predicted that the talks would fail in march too, blaiming Iran that time as well. I don't consider them, or any news source, as a reliable indication of how the talks are proceeding.

Posted by: never mind | Jun 26 2015 7:28 utc | 26

(I think this is what US are hoping will get inspections of military installations. of)
As negotiators are about to gather in Vienna for the final round of talks on Iran’s controversial nuclear program, the US is offering concessions to Tehran to sweeten the deal, a draft document detailing would-be deal’s term shows.
On Tuesday Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei reiterated his position, saying that no deal would be made that would allow international inspectors to visit military facilities. Tehran is concerned that such inspectors would double as spies for the US and its allies. Washington says it wants such inspections to maintain a robust verification regime to ensure that Iran is sticking to its part of the bargain.

Posted by: okie farmer | Jun 26 2015 10:04 utc | 27


PRO does NOT have 'The Bomb', despite now three generations of military spooks with full pensions spreading the 'Big Lie' and the $Bs that TBL brings.

What PRK has is fuel oil and ammonium nitrate fertilizer by the kiloton, gifts from Great Shaytan, which combines to make ANFO. Any high school kid can fill three railroad tank cars with the stuff and drive it down into the underground cavern, then set it off after The Big Announcement.

Western observers measure a paltry 1 kiloton seismic event, three, no, five different nations making air sampling over- flights detected ZERO radioactivity,...and we're off on the fourth spook career with full pension psyop.

I would not be surprised if Obama gave 'Lil Kim the triggers, just to push his 'Pivot to Asia', now the greatest covert-in-plain-view arms race in all of human history, by the most dead-busted broke nation in all of human history, at a time of the greatest advances and freedoms and wealth in all of human history..but only for The Chosen of Big Lie.

Posted by: Chipnik | Jun 26 2015 10:20 utc | 28


Iran has more recoverable oil than any nation besides KSA and RU, they are only one of a few nations left still holding out against the Bankster Death by Credit-Debt, and Iran has more crown jewels and precious metals than the Queen of England.

The 'accord talks' are just the Israeli Python engulfing the Palestine State, the Fed Banks Cobra waiting for its USAryan prey to blacken and die. An old disgusting GoTs for our time, with the Rape episode anytime now.

Posted by: Chipnik | Jun 26 2015 10:34 utc | 29

@17 "I might possibly have some leanings towards this thoery if it was not for the fact that at every point, where an agreement might be hammered out, the US (or one of its 'sock puppets') ramped up the demands."

I'm not entirely sure that statement is correct.

What the USA keeps doing is ramping up the pressure. No question about that - sanctions are much tougher than they were even a few years ago.

But the demands they make in the negotiations are demonstrably less, and those demands keep sliding, sliding, sliding with every new round of negotiations.

You can even see Sanger's fluff-piece admitting as much: "the positions were frequent talking points for the Obama administration before it faced the inevitable compromises involved in negotiations".

And the reason why is easy to see i.e. every time the USA places a marker on the table then the Iranians respond by upping its nuclear program.

The initial USA demand (back when the Iranians weren't doing any enrichment) was "no enrichment, ever".
The Iranians responded by beginning the enrichment of uranium, albeit at research pilot-plant levels.

The next USA demand was "no industrial-scale enrichment, ever".
The Iranians responded by enriching to 5% uranium (i.e. suitable for power-generating reactors).

The next USA demand was "a freeze on any further enrichment".
The Iranians responded by enriching to 20% (i.e. fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor).

The pattern has been very consistent: every time the USA demanded an unconditional freeze *at* *the* *current* *level* then Tehran simply upped what they were doing (the only time the Iranians responded otherwise was six months ago mainly, of course, because that deal was explicitly limited to six months).

The result is an upping of the PRESSURE being applied by the Americans, sure. But matched by a concurrent lessening of the American DEMANDS at the negotiating table.

Not that the USA really had any choice, since sticking to their old demands would have made them look out of touch and utterly in denial of the new realities.

Here, a simple example: Netanyahu has always insisted on "no enrichment, not ever", and he still does. He has been the very model of consistency.

And the Americans also used to share his position. But not any more, and not for a long time i.e. their position has softened, even as Netanyahu's position looks increasingly delusional.

I know that is not the accepted wisdom, but it is the truth nonetheless. You just can't see it, because you mistake the sound and the fury for the actual negotiating position of the Americans.

The Americans are perfectly capable of upping the PRESSURE while simultaneously reducing their DEMANDS, and that is exactly what they have been doing.

And that fact - and it is fact - outrages Dennis Ross, Gary Samore, and their fellow shills.

Well, f**k 'em, I say.

They had no idea what they were doing when they were in government, so nobody should be inclined to listen to a word they say now that they are ensconced in the whoredom-land of the Lobby.

Posted by: Johnboy | Jun 26 2015 12:25 utc | 30

Tom24;Is it the Russians who give cover to the odious Egyptian regime,or our own Zionist MSM and government?Israel rules US,and voila,they are very happy with that odious regime.
Putin is pragmatic,and the Russians do have their own Islamic insurgency to deal with,unlike the USA,who stirs the Jihadi pot regularly.

Posted by: dahoit | Jun 26 2015 15:58 utc | 31

If talks fail, would the world continue to abide by sanctions regime?

Posted by: Andoheb | Jun 26 2015 16:32 utc | 32

Andoheb@32 In my opinion no, the sanctions imposed by the UNSC do not amount to a great deal. The unilateral and illegal sanctions regime imposed by the US, followed by the EU [also illegal] are the problem. The Iranians know Western companies are chomping on the bit to get a slice of the lucrative Iranian market in oil and gas, if the US/EU continue to shoot themselves in both feet. I am sure the Russians Chinese and the other BRICS will step in and make huge profits, especially when it can be proved that the failure of the talks was a result of the US not negotiating in good faith.

Posted by: harry law | Jun 26 2015 17:09 utc | 33

One of the main sticking points is the idea of making sanctions relief reversible if the Iranians don't comply ...'snapback'. Russia and China have a veto on that at the UN. Samantha Powers is working hard to get around it.

Posted by: dh | Jun 26 2015 17:22 utc | 34

IMHO, the UNSC sanctions are illegal because they want to limit the rights of the Iranians that have been given to them by the NPT and that are unalienable (Article IV). The Security Council may overrule international treaties if a member of the UN gets into conflict with UN Charter because of the obligations derived from a treaty. But this is not the case here. It is about rights.

Posted by: g_h | Jun 26 2015 17:37 utc | 35


It is both Russia and the US that are supporting the Junta in Egypt. Read Putin's many speeches where he states clearly his desire to partner with the West in the New World Order, he just demands an equal partnership not a vassal position.

The USSR's invasion and ten year war in Afghanistan can also be considered a direct cause of the Jihadi movement today.

Posted by: Wayoutwest | Jun 26 2015 19:16 utc | 36

re 8

Because Israel will never believe it doesnt' exist.
Of course not. Goes without saying. I was giving what might be the point of view of the public in Iran, not mine. Though I should have been more explicit. It was a brief late-night post.

As far as I can detect, Iranians are pretty fed up with the sanctions, which prevent their economy from growing as it should. There might be a temptation to think that giving in might be OK. Which of course it wouldn't.

I have much confidence in current Iranian diplomacy. They are pretty subtle. However, they might come under pressure from non-governmental opinion - by that I mean mainly the business sector, who want to grow the economy. I have already recounted to MoA my experience in Turkmenistan in 2012, of being blocked by the lines of Iranian trucks exporting their products there and further away in Central Asia. It's an economy bursting to succeed.

I wouldn't want here to go into what might actually happen if Iran were released from sanctions. A neo-liberal economy might not be as nice as Iranian businessmen currently imagine.

Posted by: Laguerre | Jun 26 2015 19:21 utc | 37

@37 'A neo-liberal economy might not be as nice as Iranian businessmen currently imagine.'

They may have trouble keeping their daughters out of Starbucks.

Posted by: dh | Jun 26 2015 19:28 utc | 38

re 38

They may have trouble keeping their daughters out of Starbucks.
Those who have the stars of Starbucks in their eyes have already left, and settled in "Little Tehran", otherwise known as Los Angeles.

Posted by: Laguerre | Jun 26 2015 19:42 utc | 39

It's obvious that there has been a massive "brain-drain" from Iran. The country has been deprived of many of the best who might have worked for their homeland. I'm not going to count how many Iranians there are are who have significant positions in the computing world.

In part, this is a product of the populist nature of the Islamic regime in Iran. They search for support from the poor, the majority necessarily in a democratic election.

The other part is the historical separation of the elite from the people in Iran. It started in the period of the Sassanian Kings (226-651 AD). In that time the elite were separated out by not having to pay taxes. Under Islam, the country was mainly ruled by Turkish Sultans, but the Iranian elite continued to run the administration.

Under the Shah, son of an army colonel, Azeri in origin, the elite cleaved to him, and were thus expelled at the time of the revolution. They complain a lot, and dream of getting on the next plane to Tehran.

Things have moved on since then. There are complex relationships between Iranians who moved to the West, and their families who remained in Tehran. I saw one such student last week.

Posted by: Laguerre | Jun 26 2015 20:50 utc | 40

@40 Thanks for the inside glimpse. Would you say the expats generally approve of the nuclear deal...or not? What are their feelings about Israel?

Posted by: dh | Jun 26 2015 21:10 utc | 41

re 41

Thanks for the inside glimpse.
I absolutely don't have any inside information.

Would you say the expats generally approve of the nuclear deal...or not?
I don't know, I'd have to ask my Iranian students. Answer in several days, when I've seen them.

Posted by: Laguerre | Jun 26 2015 22:09 utc | 42

@42. That's OK. I imagine most Iranians who live in the West see Iran as a backward theocracy.

Posted by: dh | Jun 26 2015 22:20 utc | 43

As a pure outside observer let me make another prediction. On June 30th the US will enter into an agreement with Iran over this nuclear enrichment issue. It will cause the Zionist to go ballistic. The prospect for war with Iran will have diminished. The Zionist will go through full throttle to use this fact to show that Obama is anti-Israel. Without realizing that Obama has been as pro-Israel as every president since Truman. Poor, poor Israelis, they do not realize where their friends are.

Posted by: ToivoS | Jun 26 2015 23:18 utc | 44

I have confronted Mr. Oren several time and each time thought that he would have fitted well in the Cristie Administration in NJ rather than in the complex and grave setting of Israel. Many Jew suffer a genuine but sincere complex series of contradictions that only bespeak their genuine and tortured attempts to resolve them; they are pained and labored, faced for what they are but never run away from. Oren struck me as one so convinced of his gift at deception that he felt that his hasbara is gold. All his writings failed to stand up to scrutiny and his charmed shyster existence fooled no one but himself. He manages to convince those holding their eyes tightly shut that it is dark outside but he can see so he will guide us. However, if you fail to shut your eyes, you can't help but wonder: WHAT THE F---!

I hope no one concludes that most Jew are this blind, nor that he is this dumb. To the contrary, he has been raised with a notion that is the ultimate ethnic myopia: that he deals with "dumb goyim." Many propagandists on both the Israeli and Palestinian side waste trees publishing such level of self-serving dribble. Bu the fact is that far more Israelis and Palestinians, as well as Diasporic Jews, struggle far more sincerely and academically and, above all, with a genuine desire to resolve this terrible conflict than does this typical neocon, seeing himself as soooo smart and his readers as soooo dumb that he can sooooo superficially and soooo dishonestly deal with painful and sad complexity. Fortunately, his works only hurt some trees converted into paper for the printing of his books. But it is not all a waste of pulp as it causes others-- Jews and non-Jews alike-- to discriminate between hasbara held together merely by hutzpah and a genuine effort to find a solution that binds together Israelis and Palestinians into a team to save the Middle East from endless tragedy. Propaganda and scholarship and usually be distinguished by those who really want do, just as courage and cowardice can be. Oren's works are so superficial and propagandistic that I do not think people of good will need waste too much time on the details he distorts and disregards while denigrating those in responsible positions who do not serve his ends. But my conclusion came from extensive reading of his works and I wouldn't want anyone to just take my word for it. So why not demand that he debate in meaningful dialogue those who do not agree with him. That is the Jewish way!

Posted by: DE Teodoru | Jun 27 2015 0:13 utc | 45

Sorry, but are you sure the full text of the April 2 agreement has not been made public? I can't find anything online stating that this is the case.

Posted by: Nicecore | Jun 27 2015 0:25 utc | 46

Bad news to international stability: no nuclear deal in Iran and a greek debt referendum...

Posted by: guy | Jun 27 2015 3:03 utc | 47

2 july hard rain gonna or no deal

you know.....the rain in spain falls mainly on the plane

Posted by: mcohen | Jun 27 2015 5:39 utc | 48
Executions in Iran soar under president Rouhani, now two per day:
They were probably executed for criticizing the Ayatollahs.

Posted by: Ken Kelso | Jun 27 2015 6:32 utc | 49
Iran Executes Woman Who Killed Her Alleged Rapist

Posted by: Ken Kelso | Jun 27 2015 6:33 utc | 50

We should now change the Golda Meir quote to when the Iranians love their children there will be peace. Watch this video
Ayatollah Khomeini Sexually assaulted a crying and screaming 4 year old girl

Posted by: Ken Kelso | Jun 27 2015 6:33 utc | 51
Jailed Iranian Ayatollah Calls Regime ‘Worse and More Evil than ISIS or the Taliban’
Nov 11, 2014

Posted by: Ken Kelso | Jun 27 2015 6:33 utc | 52
favorites : AJC - Global Jewish Advocacy

why am I not surprised ^^

Posted by: zingaro | Jun 27 2015 8:13 utc | 53

Further to my post @ 43 it seems there are Iranian/Americans who favor the nuclear deal...

Posted by: dh | Jun 27 2015 16:52 utc | 54

Someone else finally 'gets it', the mad dreams of the Turkish part of Coalition of the Terminally Insane (what could possibly go wrong):

"If he could some day assume this mantle, his authority and influence would extend throughout the Sunni Muslim world. An added reason for him to not only prevent the destruction of the IS, but indeed to help it succeed.

The taking over of the IS after it is established in Syria and Iraq, and possibly beyond, would be a delicate operation - a smooth change-over at the top. He is probably already planning and preparing for it by inserting Turkish agents into its top layers, and establishing clandestine relations with the former Iraqi officials already there. At an appropriate time, the Salafis leading the IS would be quietly removed, and a more cooperative head would take over. Someone who, at the appropriate time, would transfer the title of Caliph of Islam to the most powerful Muslim leader of the time ‒ Recep Tayyip Erdoğan."

Posted by: Lisa | Jun 27 2015 21:13 utc | 55

The whole negotiation is a Chinese Fire Drill and I believe both sides know it and both sides expect "no deal". We gain credos for pushing sanctions and they gain credos for showing US intransigence and shifting the agenda. The Iranians know full well that any concessions they make will have no meaningful results for them because we'll never relinquish our sanctions in any substantive way and what we do relinquish will be be symbolic (think "humanitarian aide", imports of medicines, etc. allowed, but nothing real) in a way designed to humiliate (they are smart enough to know what a group of head cases our congress is).
We may be getting played in the whole process because it will give other more pragmatic countries (BRICS) the excuse they're itching for to break away from U.S. driven sanctions regime and gain commercial advantage while simultaneously weakening U.S. diplomatic and financial hegemony.
Both sides expect to win from the failure of the negotiations, but I don't think we're going to be on the winning side; history's tides are beginning to run against us.

Posted by: adrian | Jun 28 2015 0:58 utc | 56


I needed a good laugh so thanks for this one, it's a doozy. I'm fairly certain the Islamic State is very strict about who they choose as Caliph and he must be an Arab descendant of the Prophet. Erdogan is a Muslim but not an Arab and also not even a Turk, he is of Georgian descent.

Posted by: Wayoutwest | Jun 28 2015 1:36 utc | 57

The comments to this entry are closed.