Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
July 08, 2015

U.S. Wants To Trick Iran Into Never Ending Nuclear Talks

The talks between the P5+1 and Iran about the nuclear issues have been prolonged and prolonged. The U.S. does not get what it wants, total Iranian capitulation, and is not ready to find real compromises.

It seems that the Obama administration now wants to trick the Iranians into never ending talks and to thereby keep Iran under those restrictions that were agreed upon when the talks started:

[T]he White House may allow Iran nuclear talks to continue indefinitely under an interim agreement that already limits Iran's nuclear program.

While the pressure of deadlines set for June 30 and Tuesday succeeded in squeezing important concessions from Iran, "we haven't gotten everything that we wanted yet," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said.

"What we want to make sure of is that we continue to …keep in place, an agreement that freezes Iran's nuclear program, rolls it back in some key areas, while we continue to have these conversations," he said.

This may have been the plan all along.

The idea to keep the talks and the restrictions on Iran forever as An Alternative to the Iran Deal? was first published by one Yishai Schwartz on the conservative lawfareblog in May:

First, American negotiators would have to allow the current round of negotiations to fail, but without blowing up or reneging on any already-made commitments. Doing so should not be too difficult. ... Every few months, the sides will hold a summit and announce progress. Occasionally, limited sanctions relief will be exchanged for better inspections and increased constraints. In a few years, when memories have faded and sanctions are once again strangling the Iranian economy, we might pursue another comprehensive deal on more favorable terms. But more likely, we will continue to muddle along for years to come, exchanging limited relief for limited constraints---always keeping Iran from a nuclear capability, but never fully relaxing the vise.

Ali Gharib pointed out at that time that the Iranians are unlikely to go with such a plan:

Hardliners in Iran have already, for two years, been sniping and attacking negotiations, attacking Iran’s moderate president Hassan Rouhani and his foreign minister Javad Zarif. For the moment, Iran’s chief hardliner, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, has backed his negotiating team, but with caution and reservations. What the JPOA held for Iran was a light at the end of the tunnel. It’s not clear that Khamenei will simply hang on if Iran fails to get closer to it. If the big prize—lifting the harshest sanctions—remains elusive, Iran’s incentive to check itself will fade.

It is quite clear who is stalling the talks now. Iran wants all UN sanctions, including those on its weapon purchases and ballistic missiles, lifted. Those sanctions were put onto Iran over the nuclear issue dispute. The U.S. does not want to lift those, as it earlier agreed to, even when the nuclear dispute is resolved:

Russia and China have expressed support for lifting the embargo, which was imposed in 2007 as part of a series of penalties over Iran's nuclear program.

But the U.S. doesn't want the arms ban ended because it could allow Tehran to expand its military assistance for Syrian President Bashar Assad's embattled government, for the Houthi rebels in Yemen and for Hezbollah in Lebanon.

What have these issues to do with the nuclear agreement? Nothing. The U.S. is now trying to abuse the 2007 UN sanctions over nuclear activities to press completely unrelated issues. This may well be part of a strategy to forever prolong the talks.

The hawks in Iran as well as the Supreme Leader will not agree to such U.S. trickery. They will end all talks and return the nuclear program to its earlier status lifting all restrictions. The rather liberal Rouhani government will be damned as having fallen for the U.S. negotiation ploy.

Posted by b on July 8, 2015 at 18:54 UTC | Permalink


If accurate, then no new Iranian oil supply coming to market and oil prices too low?

Posted by: Steve | Jul 8 2015 19:10 utc | 1

I wouldnt be surprised at all these talks fail like they always do, - Iran wont capitulate, US wont have it any other way. It seemed with bigger Bear to fry the West would prefer to get oil/gas from Iran now, but hawks have more influence than businessman.

If infinite talks will continue for more than 6 months (I doubt Rouhani will give up sooner, and Khamenei wont allow for longer), Iran will end talks and up enrichment to 60%. As well as increasing support for Syria and houthis.

Posted by: Harry | Jul 8 2015 19:24 utc | 2

No, no, no, no !!!!

The US (Read: The White House + Kerry) already have worked out a deal. But in fear of retaliation of Israel & its "paid for" allies in the US, the White House is forced to pretend that the negotiations are tough.
And the response out of the US forces Iran to pretend to play it tough as well.

In other words: if all opposition would "go up in smoke today, then we have a deal within say a week or a month.

Posted by: Willy2 | Jul 8 2015 19:25 utc | 3

The goal of the U.S. and its vassals is not to prevent some imaginary Iranian nuclear weapons program, it is to prevent Iran from developing alternative sources of power that would enable a more competitive industrial economy, and prevent Iran from freeing up significantly more of its fossil fuels for sale (to other U.S. competitors). I wonder how the U.S. would respond if the Iranians invested massively in solar,wind and alt-energy research.

Posted by: psakiwacky | Jul 8 2015 19:26 utc | 4

the idea that the usa wasn't interested in any deal has been suggested all along.. there were a few folks that had those rosy impression of obama doing something different.. not me personally..

Posted by: james | Jul 8 2015 19:27 utc | 5

A conflict within the US, I guess. Obama wants peace, as in Cuba. The Israel Lobby says no.

It's sad that the US is reduced to internal conflicts, with one faction warring against another. It's not good news for the future of the US, to have policy dominated by foreigners.

Posted by: Laguerre | Jul 8 2015 19:34 utc | 6

I agree that U.S./Israel would prefer talks to go on indefinitely, maintaining all sanctions and Iran's current fission freeze, but since this can't happen Obama will have to deliver something to Congress. If only for domestic party politics and keeping the peace wing from galloping off the reservation, not to mention his cherished legacy, he is going to have to deliver something to Congress.

What happens from there is anyone's guess. If the P5+1 talks end in a week or two with a JPOA, that means that Congress's 60-day review will coincide with yet another budget impasse and government shutdown at the end of September.

Posted by: Mike Maloney | Jul 8 2015 20:04 utc | 7

It's less a case of forever negotiations, but a case of achieving maximum weakening of Irans nuclear power potential, as well as maintaing the PR lie of Irans nuclear weapons threat that's manipulated to force sanctions.

Since the Iranians surrendered so much last time, that was a green light to the evil US empire to push for how much more they could get away with.

This tactic is a mid to long-term view to weaken now, so to militarily attack later. Through proxies, allies or by the US its self. Or pick any combination you like.
The neo-con/Republican view, is to have no concessions and attack sooner.
One way is sophisticatedly planned domination, and the other way is impatient domination

Posted by: tom | Jul 8 2015 20:15 utc | 8


Absolutely! A large grain of salt should be applied to Fox News reporting (especially when they interview John Bolton as an authoritative voice). The lede is buried in the line which follows b's quote:

But the U.S. doesn't want the arms ban ended because it could allow Tehran to expand its military assistance for Syrian President Bashar Assad's embattled government, for the Houthi rebels in Yemen and for Hezbollah in Lebanon. It also would increase already strong opposition to the deal in Congress and in Israel.

Posted by: Rusty Pipes | Jul 8 2015 20:18 utc | 9

John Bolton is deep in the pocket of Israel. He admitted somemuch in a Fox News interview. It was a (very revealing) slip of the tongue.

Posted by: Willy2 | Jul 8 2015 20:30 utc | 10


- Here's an excellent website that follows A LOT OF people that are "in the pocket" of Israel and other right wingers.

E.g. info on John Bolton:

Posted by: Willy2 | Jul 8 2015 20:35 utc | 11

As one who was optimistic that these talks would lead to an agreement I must admit that the US is still not willing to sign a deal. I certainly hope that at this point that Iran does not fall into the perpetual negotiation trap. The Palestinians found themselves in that trap when they agreed to the Oslo process. As long as negotiations continued it allowed Israel to settle more West Bank land and to bomb Gaza at will. It seems the PA remains shackled to the "peace process".

If this latest round fails Iran should simply announce that the talks are over. They should then restart their uranium enrichment process and continue to build their nuclear powered electric grid. Then they should work hard to integrate themselves into the CSO, join BRICS and work to become part of the Eurasian economic zone alongside China and Russia. In the short term they will lose some oil revenue. In the long term they will still have that oil that will have value on the world markets. In the meantime, being excluded from Western exports, they can continue to build a local self sufficient economy. This, of course, will result in some short term sacrifice for the Iranian people being excluded from Western commodities, entertainment, fast foods and culture. This could cause some political problems but if they accept that their nation will emerge stronger.

Posted by: ToivoS | Jul 8 2015 21:51 utc | 12

Look like my hypothseis I posted a bit back was fairly right then.

That is: as a card carrying member of the Coalition of the Terminally Insane (CoTI, US/Israel/Saudi/Turkey/minnows) the US was just using the negotiations as tactic to try and keep Iran out of interfering in their 'greater middle eastern rearrangement plan'.

I must admit I expected them to just fail, hat tip to whoever come up with the idea of 'negotiating' forever, or at least until Syria is finished, Lebanon taken care of then the CoTI can then go for Iran itself.

Of course it means that Iran will pull the plug so that the CoTI can look all innocent and their tame media can spin this as justificaton for their attacks on Syria (etc)and for the continuing political 'rehabilitation' of 'our boys' Al Nashra (and no doubt for IS later). Loved that recent Guardian piece on AN a while back, showing that they are now the major official mouthpiece of the UK Govt, much to chagrin of the Telegraph no doubt.

Though Iran was obviously waking up to this, hence the recent move of 17,000 troops to Syria. However it bought the CoTI a lot of time to have their fun, as Iran was obviously reluctant to rock the boat too much when it (wrongly) thought there might be a settlement.

It also means that Iran will probably become a card carrying memeber of SCO very shortly.

Oh well, the game is afoot as they say. Lots of end games coming up in the near future, Greece, TPP, TISA,, TIPP, Ukraine, China.

Russia and China have a hard decision to make, to get involved far more in the ME, on the logic of 'it is better to fight over there than on our doorstep', or wait as the US (Japan, NATO, etc) build up ever more forces on their borders. The problem for them to solve is how to ensure that US forces get directly involved in the ME, thus weakening them, without weakening themselves. In this they have Israel and SA as de-facto allies, who want the US to do the heavy lifting.

As I said before, the CoTI must all be patting themselves on their backs, feeling that things are going their way right now, after their panic when IS went off reservation. IS got the 'message' and is mostly back on track now...for the moment.

Posted by: Lisa | Jul 8 2015 22:53 utc | 13

Just read from a 2004 guardian art. That Prescot Bush and jack Kennedy funded Hitler, and without them Hitler would have not risen to power. This means the regime change has even longer connects, and has been a constant!

Posted by: Kevin | Jul 8 2015 22:53 utc | 14

This 'peace process' is such a loser for Iran ... why do they continue? There is no Abbas-like US/IL mole in Iran as there is in Palestine, making sure that the death by a thousand cuts proceeds ... is there? I admit I've never trusted a religious figure in politics.

Maybe the aspiring Iranian Western-wannabes are desperate for ... whatever it is they perceive as valuable in the West ... and they are strong enough to force the farce's continuation?

According to Xinhua, India and Pakistan are slated for membership in the SCO at Ufa. Iran is still listed as observer, along with Afghanistan and a couple of others. Maybe this is in 'deference' to the endless 'peace' talks with the P5+1 ?

Perhaps the plan is for Iranian gas to move via pipeline to Pakistan and to China and to be repackaged as LPG at the new Chinese gas production facility in Pakistan as well, for shipment worldwide ? They could call it Pakistani gas or Chinese gas and ignore the UNSC sanctions. The US sanctions they can/could ignore without pretense. I wonder what currencies they'll use to price the Pakistani/Chinese gas?

Posted by: jfl | Jul 9 2015 1:06 utc | 15

I suspect it would be more correct to say that the US wanted to, and has been, tricking Iran into never-ending talks. And that phase will soon come to an end.
We can't talk about an existential Iranian threat without talking about the Shitty Little Country which has most of the Shitty Big Country's politicians in its pocket. Judging by the plethora of negative reports, every week in 2015, from many international News sources on the subject of SLC's genocidal behaviour in Gaza (and Jewish-Occupied Palestine generally), I think the "Israel" Project has well and truly worn out its welcome in the minds of a clear majority of the World's population.
There's no doubt in my mind that the supremacist social engineering experiment known as "Israel" will pass its use-by date before Iranian Civilisation is Iraqified.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 9 2015 1:06 utc | 16

It's amusing, in a throw-up-in-my-mouth kind of way, that the Yankees see themselves as a 21st Century version of Rome. But the grim reality is quite the reverse. Rome spread Civilisation and Culture.
The Yankees are Hell-bent on destroying both - including, but not limited to, the so-called Homeland.

Wake up Yankees! Your contemptuous and contemptible government hates you.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 9 2015 1:44 utc | 17

Interesting story in Rolling Stone about the former A.G., about his return to the same firm he left to become A.G. His old office was kept empty, awaiting his return. Cronyism, just plain old corruption, by any other name. Just another one in the Washington/W#all Street Cabal, taking the money from the taxpayers and dancing back to their former hangouts. One might also get the impression that there are a number of "Manchurian candidate[s]" in the congress too.

Posted by: Norman | Jul 9 2015 5:03 utc | 18

That always amused me too. If analogies from the Ancient World have to be made then I'd say the US is a modern-day Assyria, based on the type of domination American elites execute and on the Byblical stereotypes - more of the former really, but it's fun to watch the sh*t hit the fan when you mention to some devout yankee that his country of freedom actually behaves like the main villain of his favourite fairy tail story.

Posted by: Grim Deadman | Jul 9 2015 6:45 utc | 19

It's difficult to read this and not think of the many blowhards that insisted that peace with Iran was inevitable. Their bogus reasoning? Obama's legacy.

The other BS was that Obama is standing up to the neocons to make peace. What baloney. Obama IS a neocon (if you ignore the Obot propaganda and look at his actions). Actually, a neolibcon. How can anyone fail to notice that he has given the neocons everything that they want and that he spouts the neocon 'exceptional!' mantra every chance he gets?

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jul 9 2015 7:52 utc | 20

Lets not forget the Obama Administration's consternation over Russia's decision to revive the sale of the S-300/S-400* to Iran.

Blocking delivery of the S-300/S-400* might be a major reason for extending the talks indefinitely.


* The s-300 is not in production anymore, so the contract might be filled with the more advanced S-400.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jul 9 2015 8:30 utc | 21

Mike Maloney says:

If only for domestic party politics and keeping the peace wing from galloping off the reservation...

please elaborate on the peace wing. who, exactly, might they be?


What I do know is that as the nuclear deal with Iran is not the real issue, whether it succeeds or fails will have no impact, because Washington’s objection to Iran is Iran’s independence. Iran is in Washington’s way. The nuclear threat hoax that Washington created was just a propagandistic way to bring insouciant Americans and Europeans around to an attack on Iran (Paul Craig Roberts)

Posted by: john | Jul 9 2015 9:04 utc | 22

When a certified whack job like Senator Lindsey Graham agrees with the US negotiating position, you can be sure it will not benefit Iran. "Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.,a Republican presidential candidate said last month that the U.S. should keep the interim agreement in force. "That's worked pretty well for the world," he said. "It has controlled Iran's nuclear ambitions." Yes a win win situation for the US. Limit Iran's nuclear activities and keep the sanctions on, I agree with ToivoS @12 Iran should look east, the US will never accept Iran as a normal nation, still less a trading partner, never.

Posted by: harry law | Jul 9 2015 9:20 utc | 23

...just think of American foreign policy as the drip drip drip of 'diplomacy' (think Chinese water torture) punctuated by multiple Luca Brasi moments.

Posted by: john | Jul 9 2015 9:43 utc | 24

All of the main sticking points, including the sanctions, arguably the most difficult part of the negotiations, have been resolved. I don't see how either side could walk away now from a potential deal.

Even if the Obama administration has "the buyers remorse", from the Lausanne agreement which really got the ball rolling, it's close to being a done deal.

It's the Syrian red line/chemical weapons all over again.

Posted by: never mind | Jul 9 2015 10:44 utc | 25

Remember ALL MY CHILDREN, PAYTON PLACE or so many other soap opera in the past and many in different format right now on TV.?
So we should believe the soap opera is a big part of American culture.
The American not just love to watch it, also they love to play or turn any things to soap opera.
So we should not be surprised that the Iranian nuclear deal is taking this long.
Second, our dear smart American friends knew that big events such as BRICK and SCO is coming in Russia.
The way they played poop party in winter Olympic in Russia, they was thinking they can interrupt those big event of BRICK and SCO and keep spotlight in Geneva.
They failed.

Posted by: Massoud | Jul 9 2015 14:28 utc | 26

- US & Iran are close to a deal.

Posted by: Willy2 | Jul 9 2015 14:38 utc | 27

Willy2@27 Gareth Porter thinks a deal is very close. He may be right, unfortunately the US has a habit of reneging on deals. This one requires certain guarantees. "The “guarantee” would take the form of a pledge to take specific legal steps necessary to suspend US sanctions and terminate the EU sanctions upon IAEA verification of the Iranian implementation measures, according to the Iranian official". Verification by the IAEA [some regard Amano as a tool of the US] could take some time, meaning forever. The bottom line is, never trust the US to do either the correct, or moral thing.

Posted by: harry law | Jul 9 2015 15:15 utc | 28

Hopefully this all Zionoise from the monsters and Obomba makes a deal.
Hey,ot,Shaun Walker says it was the Russkies or separatists(Graun) who shot down that flight.What a wanker and inventor,this little dweeb.

Posted by: dahoit | Jul 9 2015 15:38 utc | 29

I still give it 50% that a deal with *some* substance is made. See willy2 and Rusty Pipes above.

Remember, big biz - notably fossil fuels and banking, airlines, auto-makers - as well as many others - are fed up with the sanctions. The European sanctions started to crack some time ago, Europe was always very reluctant. European and other (Dubai etc.) banks have been stung for billions as sanction-busters and they are FED UP.

It looks like without easing of US sanctions the US will be a loser. (Independently of UN sanctions, the irrelevant nuclear matters, etc.) Some articles use terms like ‘evaporating sanctions’, ‘psychologogical barrier broken’, etc. But who knows, b’s take is good. A lot of posturing is going on.

See for ex. Fortune April 3 2015 (understates)

Posted by: Noirette | Jul 9 2015 16:03 utc | 30

@28 No amount of verification will convince Israel.

Posted by: dh | Jul 9 2015 16:05 utc | 31

@Jackrabbit #21

I presume China and Russia now regrets supported UN sanction on Iran?

Posted by: Jack Smith | Jul 9 2015 17:15 utc | 32

Jack Smith @32

Maybe, since they are now supporting a lifting of sanctions. But nations don't have 'regrets', right? It was in their interest at the time. If Iran, Russia, China had not 'engaged' in this exercise they would've been labeled adversaries and anti-peace.

When Obama announced the interim peace deal, he said that it was a last chance for peace and a way to unite allies. The sanctions were not working and European allies were looking for a way to do business with Iran. The peace talks have effectively extended the 'Cold War' with Iran.

I'm not sure what your point is. That a lot has changed in the last year and a half?

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jul 9 2015 17:49 utc | 33


No amount of verification will satisfy Israel. Israel needs a bogeyman to rationalize its Sparta-state existence. The absence of such a bogeyman is an existential threat.

Posted by: Rusty Pipes | Jul 9 2015 17:52 utc | 34

@34 rusty quote.. "The absence of such a bogeyman is an existential threat." that would apply in a few obvious examples on the planet at present - nato and the usa to name a few other countries/organizations...

Posted by: james | Jul 9 2015 19:07 utc | 35

- Netanjahu's biggest fear is that Iran will stick to the deal they're about make with the US. Then all the israeli fear mongering will fall flat on its face.
- The IAEA is in the pocket of the US as well. So, the White House doesn't have to fear those inspections.

Posted by: Willy2 | Jul 9 2015 19:17 utc | 36

this is exactly the method the jews are using....endless bullshit....time to call their bluff...back out of the talks....

Posted by: mhouston | Jul 9 2015 20:39 utc | 37

Lavrov tells it like it is at the BRIC's summit in Ufa..
“It is not possible that terrorists be used at temporary allies in order to isolate a particular political regime, and that is what we have seen in Syria,” said Lavrov, highlighting how the West and the US have ignored the terrorists’ activities in order to topple the political “regime” in Syria and worked to freeze Russia’s initiatives at the Security Council to prevent the escalation of the situation in the country".

Posted by: harry law | Jul 9 2015 20:46 utc | 38

@ Jackrabbit | Jul 9, 2015 4:30:02 AM | 21

The Russian are not better than the USians. Both are piece of shit, sorry “exceptional”, god chosen. The Russian screw up Iranians whenever they could. It is not only S-300. They "approved" only because of situation in Ukraine and general relation to the West otherwise....

Luckily Iranians have long memory and learned instinct to relay on its own.

Posted by: neretva'43 | Jul 9 2015 22:18 utc | 39


Oh, the nostalgia! Back in the day, Zionist trolls from Daily Kos would use sockpuppets to drop little anti-Semitic turds at competing sites with more free speech. Then the trolls would run back to the dKos admins and demand that kossacks who commented or linked to the other sites be banned.

Posted by: Rusty Pipes | Jul 9 2015 22:29 utc | 40

From The Hill: Top Dem: Only alternative to Iran deal is bombing campaign

Posted by: CTuttle | Jul 9 2015 23:20 utc | 41

#40 FDL was one such site that they'd utilize, Rusty...! 8-(

Posted by: CTuttle | Jul 9 2015 23:22 utc | 42

Is China and Russia also cooperating on this delay?.......

Posted by: notlurking | Jul 9 2015 23:51 utc | 43

Are China and Russia also cooperating on this delay?????

Posted by: notlurking | Jul 9 2015 23:53 utc | 44

Figuring out what Russia and China are really doing is not straightforward, but my impression is that they are threatening to break the sanctions, declare that the Western diplomacy is duplicitous etc. Russia may do it more emphatically. Arms embargo with Russia not participating is a pretty dull knife, would China give Iran access to its banking system?

In the meantime, defeating Salafi extremists does not seem possible without Iran. Some beg to differ, two titles i have seen today in

A Strategy To Defeat ISIS Without Strengthening Iran

Executive Vice President, Center for Security Policy

Shaggy’s Music Could Defeat ISIS

Photo of Kaitlan Collins
Entertainment Editor

Without wasting time on drivel and bandwith on streaming ads, I guess the second article is more serious.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Jul 10 2015 1:17 utc | 45

"Diplomatic sources in Vienna cautioned late on Thursday night that the western powers have toughened their stances after the US lost a self-imposed deadline for a deal with Iran even more demands from the Iranian team.and are raising."

Anyone surprised?

Posted by: Harry | Jul 10 2015 2:01 utc | 46

Typo: "and are raising even more demands from the Iranian team."

Posted by: Harry | Jul 10 2015 2:02 utc | 47

@30 @45

Combine your two intuitions for the best possible outcome:

1. the US (Israel) browbeats the US/EU TNCs into bleeding themselves to death, and

2. Russia, China and the rest of the world break the sanctions, make tons of money, build a replenished and healthy Iran.


Maybe you're mcohen dropping 'an anti-Semitic turd' a la @40 ? but if you're 'on the level' it's

' this is exactly the method the Israelis are using....endless bullshit....time to call their bluff...'

In fact Jews in the US and all over the world outside the US, and Israel, have had the scales drop from their eyes:


BDS Israel for the real Jewish community, outside Israel, is coming to stand for

  Boycott, Disown, Separate from

Posted by: jfl | Jul 10 2015 2:08 utc | 48

"We see certain changes in the positions particularly just last night... on a lot of issues unfortunately," the official said, adding, "There was an approach that was acceptable ... but then all of a sudden people came up with some view for changing ideas, and this makes it rather difficult."

Posted by: Harry | Jul 10 2015 5:35 utc | 49

ellen told oprah on her show that she lost her first love to a "well hung tongue"

oprah replied "gosh,that sounds like a mouth full" TM mcohen 2015


Posted by: mcohen | Jul 10 2015 7:42 utc | 50

The Geneva interim deal envisaged the removal of all the UN and unilateral US and EU sanctions against Iran under a final comprehensive deal.Now the West are adding more conditions.
Harry @ 46 asked is anyone surprised? I am not, the US always move the goal posts. When North Korea attempted negotiations with the US on their nuclear programme the US reneged on the deal, promising 2 light water reactors and 500,000 tons of oil per year until the reactors were built. Due to heavy pressure from Congress the deal fell through. John Bolton was part of GW Bush's administration, the North Koreans refused to have anything to do with him. In fact [and here is where I agree with them] they called Bolton 'Human scum'.
Also, in a framework agreement approved by the six powers and Iran in April known as the Lausanne Statement, the seven nations agreed that a final deal would include removal of all sanctions as well as a UN Security Council resolution which would call all the five UNSC sanctions resolutions imposed against Iran's nuclear activities as "null and void".
The first two UNSC resolutions boycotted export of military, specially missile, hardware and software to Iran, a sanction that - along with all the other embargoes imposed against Iran under the five UNSC resolutions - would be automatically removed under the new UNSC resolution that, according to the Lausanne framework agreement, should be issued on the same day that the final deal is endorsed.
Hence, the debate over the removal of the UN Security Council arms embargoes against Iran MEANS US DEFIANCE OF BOTH AGREEMENTS.

Posted by: harry law | Jul 10 2015 8:58 utc | 51

Flynt Leverette and Hillary Mann Leverette, on Obama's failure to make the strategic case for an Iran deal..

Posted by: harry law | Jul 10 2015 9:13 utc | 52

there could be 4 principles to an understanding understanding law is always ruled by relegion therefore the west needs to accept the principles of shia islam in relation to any deal with iran

2.any deviation from principled agreements will bring divine judgement and the consequences....

3.the use of weapons of mass destruction for the sole purpose of greed and power lust will fail

4.ask not of your neighbour what you would not ask of yourself...disarmament must be met with same

Posted by: mcohen | Jul 12 2015 10:25 utc | 53

It seems that the negotiations are degenerating into a game of chicken between "Western nations" and Russia + China. RT hints that a compromise is already formulated, but also posts a number of op-eds castigating USA, which reflects the official position. Eastern nations could declare sanctions null and void and proceed with hitherto proscribed activities, with Western nations imposing sanctions, Russia cutting oil export and China cutting purchases of US debt, and mutually assured economic destruction showing up in force.

This is definitely not something that they would decide lightly, but they can do it if they explain the situation adequately to their population and to the rest of the non-western world. Thus some critical mass of Western duplicity can lead there. USA can print money and survive well with North American oil, plus the population is adequately indoctrinated, but Europe can be a different story.

Concerning Leverettes' article, I have mixed feelings. On the bright side, quite true. On the dark side, why the learned authors fail to explain how THEY see the strategic case for the deal with Iran? For example, the imbalances of our policies enabled our allies to conduct deeply destructive policies in Syria, Yemen and other countries which result in blowback that is felt in a number of countries including European nations, Belgium, France, UK, Italy, Greece, Malta etc. First, waves of refugees. Second, citizens returning home from jihad, well trained in weapons and explosive and mentally dangerous -- radicalized, PTSD, and even operating alone, not to mention in pairs, can wreck quite a bit of havoc. Turkey can actually experience a civil war, not too mention a number of such wars that already commenced in Africa, Mali and Nigeria, for example. Last and perhaps least, policies of fomenting mayhem in other countries are immoral and criminal. What is sorely needed is a powerful signal to Israel, Turkey and Gulf nations that the West will not support them forever in whatever they are doing.

As a limited measure of progress, those facts can be hinted in the mainstream media, like NBC News, but still only vaguely. So Stalinism is over, but still far to Perestroika. Leverettes' castigate Obama for obfuscating the strategic and moral situation, but themselves are as vague as the current media police requires. When the Czar is vague, loyal subjects have the right to be vague, but woe to those who dare to be clear.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Jul 14 2015 4:55 utc | 54

Formal Iran Nuclear Deal Reached. So blares No details. I have to assume the Iranians have been screwed if they agreed to a deal the USA was willing to sign.

As far as "a powerful signal to Israel, Turkey and Gulf nations that the West will not support them forever in whatever they are doing" ... I see no sign that is imminent. The latest headline broadside I've seen was castigating the Thais/Chinese for arresting about 20 (of 109 repatriated) of the CIA's Uighurs whom the Plutocrats' Republic swears were on the way to Turkey to join ISIS. Hard to tell if these particular 20 were, but easy to believe the CIA is using the Uighurs as it has used and is using the Chechens, inside and outside Xinjiang. Including the two CIA Chechens who 'got away' and apparently were responsible for the bombing at the Boston Marathon a couple of years ago.

Posted by: jfl | Jul 14 2015 8:37 utc | 55

Posted by: Fernando | Jul 18 2015 5:16 utc | 56

The comments to this entry are closed.