Op-Ed
Obama’s peace for our time
Mr. President, are you absolutely sure you’ve got this right?
Doesn’t it trouble you, just a touch, Mr. President, that you might have this all wrong?
Isn’t there a nagging little voice, somewhere right at the back of your mind, warning you that, maybe, just maybe, you ought to be listening seriously to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei when he calls out “Death to America,” rather than insistently tuning him out?
Do you not have the slightest fear that, when history comes to judge you, it will bracket you alongside Neville Chamberlain? “The settlement of the Czechoslovakian problem, which has now been achieved is, in my view, only the prelude to a larger settlement in which all Europe may find peace,” the British prime minister declared on September 30, 1938 — precisely 76 and a half years ago. “This morning I had another talk with the German Chancellor, Herr Hitler, and here is the paper which bears his name upon it as well as mine… We regard the agreement signed last night… as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again… I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. Go home and get a nice quiet sleep.”
Does that inane rhetoric, that tragic rhetoric, not chill you as you read it all these decades later, knowing what happened next, and as your dutiful secretary of state seeks desperately to finalize the agreement you have sought with Iran — an agreement with a regime that makes no secret of its desire to see the elimination of Israel, an agreement with a regime that is expanding its hold on country after country in our region, an agreement that falls far, far short of dismantling Iran’s nuclear program? Do you not hear a grim historical echo, and ask yourself whether you are not risking the abandonment of another small, embattled democracy, and the emboldening of another ruthless would-be superpower, motivated by another hideous ideology?
Do you not worry, not even for a moment before you close your eyes at night, that your irritation with that impossibly arrogant prime minister of Israel has skewed your judgment? Can you easily shrug off his warnings that the Iranians are tricking you? Can you dismiss his charge that you could have done better, held firmer, set the bar higher? “One of the failures, I think, of our approach in the past has been to use a lot of strong rhetoric but not follow through with the kinds of both carrots and sticks that might change the calculus of the Iranian regime,” you told this writer when we spoke in Jerusalem in 2008, before you became president. Have you not offered too many carrots, and failed to brandish a terrifying stick? Can you ignore Benjamin Netanyahu’s concerns that the Iranians will inevitably violate this agreement, and that even if those violations are detected, you, Mr. President, are now the leader of an international community that lacks the will to prevent a subsequent Iranian breakout to the bomb?
Do you not ask yourself whether you might have acted differently in 2009, when the Iranian public mustered the beginnings of an attempt to oust the ayatollahs? You failed to offer concrete assistance, and their nascent uprising was brutally suppressed. Are you not even mildly disturbed by the notion that this accord, this deal you so determinedly seek, will cement in power this ideologically and territorially rapacious regime, this regime that so bitterly represses its own people?
Mr. President, I think you are troubled, and worried, and disturbed. I think, deep down, you do hear that nagging voice. I think the dispassionate, ultra-confident manner you affect masks the doubts. I fear you have surrounded yourself with people who dare not question you with sufficient intellectual vigor. I fear that you are willfully blinding yourself to the tragedy you are about to inflict upon us all.
I hope I’m wrong. I’m not certain. But we are plainly at a historical crossroads, and I worry — how could I not? — that a grave mistake is in the offing, with profound historical consequences, for Israel, the region, the free world. And it is the certainty with which you are pursuing what seems an unfathomable course of appeasement — of an enemy that reminds us all every day, in word and deed, that it is the enemy of the free world — it is that certainty of yours that worries me most of all.
Obama's peace for our time | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/peace-for-our-time/#ixzz3VvTXuqFd
Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook
Obama’s peace for our time
Mr. President, are you absolutely sure you’ve got this right?
Doesn’t it trouble you, just a touch, Mr. President, that you might have this all wrong?
Isn’t there a nagging little voice, somewhere right at the back of your mind, warning you that, maybe, just maybe, you ought to be listening seriously to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei when he calls out “Death to America,” rather than insistently tuning him out?
Do you not have the slightest fear that, when history comes to judge you, it will bracket you alongside Neville Chamberlain? “The settlement of the Czechoslovakian problem, which has now been achieved is, in my view, only the prelude to a larger settlement in which all Europe may find peace,” the British prime minister declared on September 30, 1938 — precisely 76 and a half years ago. “This morning I had another talk with the German Chancellor, Herr Hitler, and here is the paper which bears his name upon it as well as mine… We regard the agreement signed last night… as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again… I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. Go home and get a nice quiet sleep.”
Does that inane rhetoric, that tragic rhetoric, not chill you as you read it all these decades later, knowing what happened next, and as your dutiful secretary of state seeks desperately to finalize the agreement you have sought with Iran — an agreement with a regime that makes no secret of its desire to see the elimination of Israel, an agreement with a regime that is expanding its hold on country after country in our region, an agreement that falls far, far short of dismantling Iran’s nuclear program? Do you not hear a grim historical echo, and ask yourself whether you are not risking the abandonment of another small, embattled democracy, and the emboldening of another ruthless would-be superpower, motivated by another hideous ideology?
Do you not worry, not even for a moment before you close your eyes at night, that your irritation with that impossibly arrogant prime minister of Israel has skewed your judgment? Can you easily shrug off his warnings that the Iranians are tricking you? Can you dismiss his charge that you could have done better, held firmer, set the bar higher? “One of the failures, I think, of our approach in the past has been to use a lot of strong rhetoric but not follow through with the kinds of both carrots and sticks that might change the calculus of the Iranian regime,” you told this writer when we spoke in Jerusalem in 2008, before you became president. Have you not offered too many carrots, and failed to brandish a terrifying stick? Can you ignore Benjamin Netanyahu’s concerns that the Iranians will inevitably violate this agreement, and that even if those violations are detected, you, Mr. President, are now the leader of an international community that lacks the will to prevent a subsequent Iranian breakout to the bomb?
Do you not ask yourself whether you might have acted differently in 2009, when the Iranian public mustered the beginnings of an attempt to oust the ayatollahs? You failed to offer concrete assistance, and their nascent uprising was brutally suppressed. Are you not even mildly disturbed by the notion that this accord, this deal you so determinedly seek, will cement in power this ideologically and territorially rapacious regime, this regime that so bitterly represses its own people?
Mr. President, I think you are troubled, and worried, and disturbed. I think, deep down, you do hear that nagging voice. I think the dispassionate, ultra-confident manner you affect masks the doubts. I fear you have surrounded yourself with people who dare not question you with sufficient intellectual vigor. I fear that you are willfully blinding yourself to the tragedy you are about to inflict upon us all.
I hope I’m wrong. I’m not certain. But we are plainly at a historical crossroads, and I worry — how could I not? — that a grave mistake is in the offing, with profound historical consequences, for Israel, the region, the free world. And it is the certainty with which you are pursuing what seems an unfathomable course of appeasement — of an enemy that reminds us all every day, in word and deed, that it is the enemy of the free world — it is that certainty of yours that worries me most of all.
Obama's peace for our time | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/peace-for-our-time/#ixzz3VvTXuqFd
Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook
Bret Stephens: The Capitulationist
The Obama administration refuses to negotiate openly, lest the extent of its diplomatic surrender to Iran be prematurely and fatally exposed.
Bret Stephens writes: For a sense of the magnitude of the capitulation represented by Barack Obama’s Iran diplomacy, it’s worth recalling what the president said when he was trying to sell his interim nuclear agreement to a Washington, D.C., audience in December 2013.
“We know they don’t need to have an underground, fortified facility like Fordo in order to have a peaceful program,” Mr. Obama said of the Iranians in an interview with Haim Saban, the Israeli-American billionaire philanthropist. “They certainly don’t need a heavy-water reactor at Arak in order to have a peaceful nuclear program. They don’t need some of the advanced centrifuges that they currently possess in order to have a limited, peaceful nuclear program.”
An Iranian worker at the Uranium Conversion Facility at Isfahan, 410 kilometers, south of Tehran. The conversion facility in Isfahan reprocesses uranium ore concentrate, known as yellowcake, into uranium hexaflouride gas. The gas is then taken to Natanz and fed into the centrifuges for enrichment. (photo credit: AP Photo/Vahid Salemi)
Hardly more than a year later, on the eve of what might be deal-day, here is where those promises stand:
Fordo: “The United States is considering letting Tehran run hundreds of centrifuges at a once-secret, fortified underground bunker in exchange for limits on centrifuge work and research and development at other sites.”—Associated Press, March 26.
[Read the full text here, at the Wall Street Journal]
Arak: “Today, the six powers negotiating with Iran . . . want the reactor at Arak, still under construction, reconfigured to produce less plutonium, the other bomb fuel.”—The New York Times, March 7.
Advanced centrifuges: “Iran is building about 3,000 advanced uranium-enrichment centrifuges, the Iranian news media reported Sunday, a development likely to add to Western concerns about Tehran’s disputed nuclear program.”—Reuters, March 3.
But the president and his administration made other promises, too. Consider a partial list:
Possible military dimensions: In September 2009 Mr. Obama warned Iran that it was “on notice” that it would have to “come clean” on all of its nuclear secrets. Now the administration is prepared to let it slide.
“It was never especially probable that a detailed, satisfactory verification regime would be included in the sort of substantive framework agreement that the Americans have been working for.”
– The Economist
“Under the new plan,” The Wall Street Journal’s Jay Solomon and Laurence Norman reported last week, “Tehran wouldn’t be expected to immediately clarify all the outstanding questions raised by the IAEA in a 2011 report on Iran’s alleged secretive work. A full reckoning of Iran’s past activities would be demanded in later years as part of a nuclear deal that is expected to last at least 15 years.”
Verification: Another thing the president said in that interview with Mr. Saban is that any deal would involve “extraordinary constraints and verification mechanisms and intrusive inspections.”
Iran isn’t playing ball on this one, either. “An Iranian official on Tuesday [March 24] rebuked the chief of the U.N. atomic agency for demanding snap inspections of Iran’s nuclear sites, saying the request hindered efforts to reach an agreement with the world powers,” reports the AP. But this has done nothing to dent the administration’s enthusiasm for an agreement….(read more)
WSJ
The Obama administration refuses to negotiate openly, lest the extent of its diplomatic surrender to Iran be prematurely and fatally exposed.
Bret Stephens writes: For a sense of the magnitude of the capitulation represented by Barack Obama’s Iran diplomacy, it’s worth recalling what the president said when he was trying to sell his interim nuclear agreement to a Washington, D.C., audience in December 2013.
“We know they don’t need to have an underground, fortified facility like Fordo in order to have a peaceful program,” Mr. Obama said of the Iranians in an interview with Haim Saban, the Israeli-American billionaire philanthropist. “They certainly don’t need a heavy-water reactor at Arak in order to have a peaceful nuclear program. They don’t need some of the advanced centrifuges that they currently possess in order to have a limited, peaceful nuclear program.”
Hardly more than a year later, on the eve of what might be deal-day, here is where those promises stand:
Fordo: “The United States is considering letting Tehran run hundreds of centrifuges at a once-secret, fortified underground bunker in exchange for limits on centrifuge work and research and development at other sites.”—Associated Press, March 26.
[Read the full text here, at the Wall Street Journal]
Arak: “Today, the six powers negotiating with Iran . . . want the reactor at Arak, still under construction, reconfigured to produce less plutonium, the other bomb fuel.”—The New York Times, March 7.
Advanced centrifuges: “Iran is building about 3,000 advanced uranium-enrichment centrifuges, the Iranian news media reported Sunday, a development likely to add to Western concerns about Tehran’s disputed nuclear program.”—Reuters, March 3.
But the president and his administration made other promises, too. Consider a partial list:
Possible military dimensions: In September 2009 Mr. Obama warned Iran that it was “on notice” that it would have to “come clean” on all of its nuclear secrets. Now the administration is prepared to let it slide.
“It was never especially probable that a detailed, satisfactory verification regime would be included in the sort of substantive framework agreement that the Americans have been working for.”
– The Economist
“Under the new plan,” The Wall Street Journal’s Jay Solomon and Laurence Norman reported last week, “Tehran wouldn’t be expected to immediately clarify all the outstanding questions raised by the IAEA in a 2011 report on Iran’s alleged secretive work. A full reckoning of Iran’s past activities would be demanded in later years as part of a nuclear deal that is expected to last at least 15 years.”
Verification: Another thing the president said in that interview with Mr. Saban is that any deal would involve “extraordinary constraints and verification mechanisms and intrusive inspections.”
Iran isn’t playing ball on this one, either. “An Iranian official on Tuesday [March 24] rebuked the chief of the U.N. atomic agency for demanding snap inspections of Iran’s nuclear sites, saying the request hindered efforts to reach an agreement with the world powers,” reports the AP. But this has done nothing to dent the administration’s enthusiasm for an agreement….(read more)
WSJ
[h=1]Poll: Clear majority supports nuclear deal with Iran[/h] By Scott Clement and Peyton M. Craighill March 30 at 7:45 PM
By a nearly 2 to 1 margin, Americans support the notion of striking a deal with Iran that restricts the nation’s nuclear program in exchange for loosening sanctions, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds.
But the survey — released hours before Tuesday’s negotiating deadline — also finds few Americans are hopeful that such an agreement will be effective. Nearly six in 10 say they are not confident that a deal will prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, unchanged from 15 months ago, when the United States, France, Britain, Germany, China and Russia reached an interim agreement with Iran aimed at sealing a long-term deal.
Overall, the poll finds 59 percent support an agreement in which the United States and its negotiating partners lift major economic sanctions in exchange for restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program. Thirty-one percent oppose a deal.
Support outpaces opposition across nearly all demographic and political groups, with liberals (seven in 10) and Democrats (two-thirds) the most supportive. At least six in 10 independents and moderates also back the broad idea of a deal with Iran.
Republicans are about evenly divided on an Iran deal, with 47 percent in support and 43 percent opposed. The split contrasts with Republican lawmakers’ widespread backing of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech deriding the potential deal in early March before a joint session of lawmakers. Additionally, all but seven Republican senators signed a letter to Iran’s leadership warning that Congress or a future president could override any agreement made by the Obama administration.
Popular sentiment among Republicans is more in line with GOP lawmakers on the issue of whether Congress should be required to authorize any deal with Iran. A Pew Research Center survey released Monday found 62 percent of the public believes Congress, not President Obama, should have final authority over approving a nuclear agreement with Iran.
Republican Sen. Bob Corker (Tenn.), the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, and other lawmakers are building bipartisan support for a bill that would require Obama to submit an Iran agreement for congressional approval blocking the removal of sanctions on the Islamic republic for 60 days. The bill would require a veto-proof majority to force Obama’s hand.
Americans’ views on Iran have been shaped by deep worry over the prospect that it could develop nuclear weapons but also a hesitance to employ military force in an attempt to prevent that outcome. A February Gallup poll found more than three-quarters of the public thinks the development of nuclear weapons by Iran would pose a “critical threat” to the United States over the next 10 years. Yet fewer than three in 10 said Iran’s nuclear program — which it insists is for peaceful purposes — requires military action now in a CBS News poll last week; more than four in 10 said the threat can be contained for now and just under two in 10 said Iran is not currently a threat.
National telephone polls have found varying support for the notion of a deal with Iran, with surveys surrounding the late 2013 deal ranging from 44 percent to 64 percent support surveying voters or adults.
The latest Post-ABC poll’s 59 percent closely mirrors a February survey by the independent Program for Public Consultation. The survey, which provided respondents with detailed briefings approved by congressional staff from both parties, found 61 percent preferring to make a deal with Iran that allows limited uranium enrichment over ramping up sanctions to push for a complete end to Iran’s nuclear program.
The Post-ABC survey finds that even those with limited hopes of a fruitful agreement are open to a deal. Support crests above 80 percent among respondents who are at least “somewhat” confident a deal will stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. But even among those who are “not so confident” about an agreement succeeding, two in three support a deal. Only among those who are not confident at all about stopping Iran does opposition rise to a majority, though even here, 31 percent support a deal.
While polls find support for Obama’s approach of negotiating toward an agreement, he receives negative marks for dealing with Iran overall. The CBS News poll found 38 percent approving of his handling of relations with Iran, significantly worse than his overall job rating.
The Post-ABC poll was conducted March 26 to 29 among a random national sample of 1,003 adults interviewed by telephone, including 335 cellphone-only respondents. The overall margin of error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
By a nearly 2 to 1 margin, Americans support the notion of striking a deal with Iran that restricts the nation’s nuclear program in exchange for loosening sanctions, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds.
But the survey — released hours before Tuesday’s negotiating deadline — also finds few Americans are hopeful that such an agreement will be effective. Nearly six in 10 say they are not confident that a deal will prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, unchanged from 15 months ago, when the United States, France, Britain, Germany, China and Russia reached an interim agreement with Iran aimed at sealing a long-term deal.
Overall, the poll finds 59 percent support an agreement in which the United States and its negotiating partners lift major economic sanctions in exchange for restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program. Thirty-one percent oppose a deal.
Support outpaces opposition across nearly all demographic and political groups, with liberals (seven in 10) and Democrats (two-thirds) the most supportive. At least six in 10 independents and moderates also back the broad idea of a deal with Iran.
Republicans are about evenly divided on an Iran deal, with 47 percent in support and 43 percent opposed. The split contrasts with Republican lawmakers’ widespread backing of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech deriding the potential deal in early March before a joint session of lawmakers. Additionally, all but seven Republican senators signed a letter to Iran’s leadership warning that Congress or a future president could override any agreement made by the Obama administration.
Popular sentiment among Republicans is more in line with GOP lawmakers on the issue of whether Congress should be required to authorize any deal with Iran. A Pew Research Center survey released Monday found 62 percent of the public believes Congress, not President Obama, should have final authority over approving a nuclear agreement with Iran.
Republican Sen. Bob Corker (Tenn.), the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, and other lawmakers are building bipartisan support for a bill that would require Obama to submit an Iran agreement for congressional approval blocking the removal of sanctions on the Islamic republic for 60 days. The bill would require a veto-proof majority to force Obama’s hand.
Americans’ views on Iran have been shaped by deep worry over the prospect that it could develop nuclear weapons but also a hesitance to employ military force in an attempt to prevent that outcome. A February Gallup poll found more than three-quarters of the public thinks the development of nuclear weapons by Iran would pose a “critical threat” to the United States over the next 10 years. Yet fewer than three in 10 said Iran’s nuclear program — which it insists is for peaceful purposes — requires military action now in a CBS News poll last week; more than four in 10 said the threat can be contained for now and just under two in 10 said Iran is not currently a threat.
National telephone polls have found varying support for the notion of a deal with Iran, with surveys surrounding the late 2013 deal ranging from 44 percent to 64 percent support surveying voters or adults.
The latest Post-ABC poll’s 59 percent closely mirrors a February survey by the independent Program for Public Consultation. The survey, which provided respondents with detailed briefings approved by congressional staff from both parties, found 61 percent preferring to make a deal with Iran that allows limited uranium enrichment over ramping up sanctions to push for a complete end to Iran’s nuclear program.
The Post-ABC survey finds that even those with limited hopes of a fruitful agreement are open to a deal. Support crests above 80 percent among respondents who are at least “somewhat” confident a deal will stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. But even among those who are “not so confident” about an agreement succeeding, two in three support a deal. Only among those who are not confident at all about stopping Iran does opposition rise to a majority, though even here, 31 percent support a deal.
While polls find support for Obama’s approach of negotiating toward an agreement, he receives negative marks for dealing with Iran overall. The CBS News poll found 38 percent approving of his handling of relations with Iran, significantly worse than his overall job rating.
The Post-ABC poll was conducted March 26 to 29 among a random national sample of 1,003 adults interviewed by telephone, including 335 cellphone-only respondents. The overall margin of error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
[h=1]Iran Matters Most[/h] MARCH 30, 2015
Roger Cohen
Continue reading the main story Share This Page
Do the Iran deal. Defeat the barbaric marauders of Islamic State. In the fragmenting mayhem of the Middle East, these must be the American and Western priorities.
They are objectives rooted in the strict Western interest. An Iranian nuclear accord lasting at least a decade that ring-fences a fiercely monitored and strictly limited enrichment program compatible only with civilian use is not an ideal outcome, but it is the best conceivable outcome of protracted talks that have already reversed the nuclear momentum in Iran and established a bridgehead between Washington and Tehran.
Any such agreement — and the deadline is imminent — must leave Iran a minimum of a year from any ‘‘break-out’’ to a bomb. The alternatives are far worse. Centrifuges and enrichment levels would resume their upward curve. War drums would beat again despite the fact that calls to attack Iran are an irresponsible invitation to disaster.
[h=2]Roger Cohen[/h] [h=3]International affairs and diplomacy.[/h]
American or Israeli bombs on Persia (or both) would have all sorts of ghastly consequences, but the fundamental argument against such folly is that they would cause no more than a hiccup in Iran’s nuclear program before spurring it to renewed and unmonitored intensity. This would be war without purpose, or war on false pretenses. We’ve seen enough of that.
Iran is a hopeful and youthful society. Nurture the hope. Don’t imprison it. A deal lasting 10 years would condemn Iran and America to a working relationship over that period. I use the word ‘‘condemn’’ advisedly. It would not be pretty. In fact it would be ugly. There would be plenty of disagreements.
But jaw-jaw is better than war-war. Much can be achieved with nations that have fundamental ideological differences with the United States; look at the history of Chinese-American relations since they resumed in the 1970’s. During the next decade the Islamic Republic is likely to go through a leadership change. Its society is aspirational and Westward-looking. ‘‘Death to America’’ has become a tired refrain. What these elements will produce in terms of change is unpredictable, but the chance of positive developments is enhanced by contact and diminished by punitive estrangement of Tehran.
Would it be preferable that Iran not have the nuclear capacity it has acquired? Sure. Can there be absolute guarantees a deal would be honored? No. But diplomacy deals with the real world. The toughest, most important diplomacy is conducted with enemies. Opponents of an accord have offered no serious alternatives.
Only elementary knowledge of Iran is needed to know that sanctions will never bring this proud nation to its knees. It would rather starve than cave. What better assures Israel’s security, a decade of strict limitation and inspection of Iran’s nuclear program that prevents it making a bomb, or a war that delays the program a couple of years, locks in the most radical factions in Tehran, and intensifies Middle Eastern violence? It’s a no-brainer.
I like the current inconsistencies in President Obama’s Middle East policy. Some ask how it can make sense to pursue an Iran deal while backing Arab states, principally Sunni Saudi Arabia, in a campaign against Iranian-backed Houthi forces in Yemen. To which the answer is first that interests drive foreign policy, not the pursuit of consistency (Stalin was once the most effective of American allies); and second that America is making it clear to Iran, even before any possible deal, that it will not abandon its allies, including Egypt and the Saudis, just because a nuclear agreement has been reached. This is an important message. The United States will oppose Iran where its interests and those of its allies demand that, deal or no deal.
One area where American and Iranian interests broadly coincide is in defeating Islamic State, the latest expression of the metastasizing Salafi Islamist ideology of murderous hatred toward Western civilization that produced 9/11 and recent murderous rampages in Europe. Islamic State is also a Sunni revanchist movement in Iraq and Syria, directly opposed to Shia Iran. There is nothing uplifting about the overlap in American and Iranian interests, but that does not make it any the less important. Rolling back Islamic State requires at least tacit Iranian cooperation.
America cannot stop the Sunni-Shia schism in the Middle East that its invasion of Iraq exacerbated. It cannot rebuild the Sykes-Picot order, or the borders that went with it. It cannot reverse its failure to prevent the worst in Syria (which will forever blot Obama’s record), nor its failure, outside Tunisia, and particularly in Egypt, to nurture the hope of the Arab spring for more representative societies freed from the paralyzing (and mutually reinforcing) confrontation of dictatorship and Islamism. It cannot prevent the violence inherent in all these developments. Nor should it hide its eyes from the fact that this violence will last a generation at least.
This is not cause for despair but reason to concentrate, fiercely, on the two attainable objectives that matter most now.
Roger Cohen
Continue reading the main story Share This Page
Do the Iran deal. Defeat the barbaric marauders of Islamic State. In the fragmenting mayhem of the Middle East, these must be the American and Western priorities.
They are objectives rooted in the strict Western interest. An Iranian nuclear accord lasting at least a decade that ring-fences a fiercely monitored and strictly limited enrichment program compatible only with civilian use is not an ideal outcome, but it is the best conceivable outcome of protracted talks that have already reversed the nuclear momentum in Iran and established a bridgehead between Washington and Tehran.
Any such agreement — and the deadline is imminent — must leave Iran a minimum of a year from any ‘‘break-out’’ to a bomb. The alternatives are far worse. Centrifuges and enrichment levels would resume their upward curve. War drums would beat again despite the fact that calls to attack Iran are an irresponsible invitation to disaster.
[h=2]Roger Cohen[/h] [h=3]International affairs and diplomacy.[/h]
American or Israeli bombs on Persia (or both) would have all sorts of ghastly consequences, but the fundamental argument against such folly is that they would cause no more than a hiccup in Iran’s nuclear program before spurring it to renewed and unmonitored intensity. This would be war without purpose, or war on false pretenses. We’ve seen enough of that.
Iran is a hopeful and youthful society. Nurture the hope. Don’t imprison it. A deal lasting 10 years would condemn Iran and America to a working relationship over that period. I use the word ‘‘condemn’’ advisedly. It would not be pretty. In fact it would be ugly. There would be plenty of disagreements.
But jaw-jaw is better than war-war. Much can be achieved with nations that have fundamental ideological differences with the United States; look at the history of Chinese-American relations since they resumed in the 1970’s. During the next decade the Islamic Republic is likely to go through a leadership change. Its society is aspirational and Westward-looking. ‘‘Death to America’’ has become a tired refrain. What these elements will produce in terms of change is unpredictable, but the chance of positive developments is enhanced by contact and diminished by punitive estrangement of Tehran.
Would it be preferable that Iran not have the nuclear capacity it has acquired? Sure. Can there be absolute guarantees a deal would be honored? No. But diplomacy deals with the real world. The toughest, most important diplomacy is conducted with enemies. Opponents of an accord have offered no serious alternatives.
Only elementary knowledge of Iran is needed to know that sanctions will never bring this proud nation to its knees. It would rather starve than cave. What better assures Israel’s security, a decade of strict limitation and inspection of Iran’s nuclear program that prevents it making a bomb, or a war that delays the program a couple of years, locks in the most radical factions in Tehran, and intensifies Middle Eastern violence? It’s a no-brainer.
I like the current inconsistencies in President Obama’s Middle East policy. Some ask how it can make sense to pursue an Iran deal while backing Arab states, principally Sunni Saudi Arabia, in a campaign against Iranian-backed Houthi forces in Yemen. To which the answer is first that interests drive foreign policy, not the pursuit of consistency (Stalin was once the most effective of American allies); and second that America is making it clear to Iran, even before any possible deal, that it will not abandon its allies, including Egypt and the Saudis, just because a nuclear agreement has been reached. This is an important message. The United States will oppose Iran where its interests and those of its allies demand that, deal or no deal.
One area where American and Iranian interests broadly coincide is in defeating Islamic State, the latest expression of the metastasizing Salafi Islamist ideology of murderous hatred toward Western civilization that produced 9/11 and recent murderous rampages in Europe. Islamic State is also a Sunni revanchist movement in Iraq and Syria, directly opposed to Shia Iran. There is nothing uplifting about the overlap in American and Iranian interests, but that does not make it any the less important. Rolling back Islamic State requires at least tacit Iranian cooperation.
America cannot stop the Sunni-Shia schism in the Middle East that its invasion of Iraq exacerbated. It cannot rebuild the Sykes-Picot order, or the borders that went with it. It cannot reverse its failure to prevent the worst in Syria (which will forever blot Obama’s record), nor its failure, outside Tunisia, and particularly in Egypt, to nurture the hope of the Arab spring for more representative societies freed from the paralyzing (and mutually reinforcing) confrontation of dictatorship and Islamism. It cannot prevent the violence inherent in all these developments. Nor should it hide its eyes from the fact that this violence will last a generation at least.
This is not cause for despair but reason to concentrate, fiercely, on the two attainable objectives that matter most now.
Yes and Pakistan the only Muslim nuclear power is in the Saudi coalition . Pakistan will provide Saudi with nuclear weapons after the Iranian nuclear talks have ended. Pakistan has also one of the largest conventional forces in the world. They have troops stationed in Saudi along the Saudi/Iranian border.
Yes the idiot Obama who pressed the reset button with Russia with disasterous consequences.
Yes the Obama idiot who welcomed the Muslim Brotherhood into Egypt, yet is cold to probably one of the best at fighting terrorism in the Middle East, that is President El cisi. Egypt has the largest military force in the region and is determined to quash Iranian influence and meddling in Arab affairs.
Yes Obama is increasing tensions in the Middle East and creating a arms race and a unification of regional forces against Iran.
The Arabs with Pakistan will go it alone against the non Arab Persians.
The idiot tried to press the reset button on a member of the Axis Of Evil, and his arrogant beliefs will end up with a Middle East Apocalypse.
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/03...c-when-asked-if-nuke-deal-would-happen-190671
Secretary of State John Kerry allegedly responded in a most unusual way to a reporter’s question Friday whether a nuclear arms deal could be reached with Iran before the March 31 deadline.
“Allah willing,” Kerry replied — in Arabic, according to Laura Rozen, a reporter covering the Iran nuclear talks in Lausanne, Switzerland, for the Washington, D.C.-based online publication, Al-Monitor.
----------
This cannot be real. Seriously.
Secretary of State John Kerry allegedly responded in a most unusual way to a reporter’s question Friday whether a nuclear arms deal could be reached with Iran before the March 31 deadline.
“Allah willing,” Kerry replied — in Arabic, according to Laura Rozen, a reporter covering the Iran nuclear talks in Lausanne, Switzerland, for the Washington, D.C.-based online publication, Al-Monitor.
----------
This cannot be real. Seriously.
Simple question of Logic SB. If you assume everything Iran is saying in these talks are a lie, and that they have many more "Nuclear Sites" than they reveal, and we won't be able to monitor them all because they are lying, then how is bombing the "nuclear sites" that we know about gonna stop them from getting the bomb, since it's only a fraction of what they "really have", right? Of course, any one with actual logic knows bombing Iran's land will lead to war quickly, and will eventually lead to Iran getting the bomb far quicker than if our talks succeed.
Spammy thinks these negotiations are about avoiding war, which is why the fool believes a bad deal is worse than no deal. No, this is about preventing the Islamo-Nazis from developing nukes. Period. This is why he, along with the treasonous bastards he's cheering on, will fail miserably.
Israel and the Saudis aren't even at the table, so this diplomatic charade is DOA.
John Effin' Kerry says this deal will happen if, "Allah wills it" face)(*^%
Wolf Blitzer grills the that blonde bimbo at the State Dept asking how will this shit deal not turn out like North Korea?
If you still can't hear the war drums, you must be deaf or in denial.
Israel and the Saudis aren't even at the table, so this diplomatic charade is DOA.
John Effin' Kerry says this deal will happen if, "Allah wills it" face)(*^%
Wolf Blitzer grills the that blonde bimbo at the State Dept asking how will this shit deal not turn out like North Korea?
If you still can't hear the war drums, you must be deaf or in denial.
It's real important that Kerry spoke Arabic with an Iranian girl who referenced Iran. I bet he once said shalom to someone who referenced Israel. 
hno:He's probably a Muslim Convert also, like the German Pilot, right Capser? Your guys sickness never cease to amaze. You care about the stupidest things. But only when they make the rounds of the extreme right wing blogs, as this nonsense is, 3 days after it happened. This is almost as important as Obama Chewing gum.
hno:He's probably a Muslim Convert also, like the German Pilot, right Capser? Your guys sickness never cease to amaze. You care about the stupidest things. But only when they make the rounds of the extreme right wing blogs, as this nonsense is, 3 days after it happened. This is almost as important as Obama Chewing gum.
It's real important that Kerry spoke Arabic with an Iranian girl who referenced Iran. I bet he once said shalom to someone who referenced Israel.
I care about Iran not getting nukes. So does Israel. So do the Saudis.
What do you care about again? Oh yeah, a meaningless non-binding agreement filled with empty promises from a sworn enemy of the United States that routinely calls for America's destruction.
Tell us again who the stupid one is?
At least we agree on something - "can't fix stupid"
Saudis Said to Aid Israeli Plan to Bomb Iran
February 25, 2015
Exclusive: As the Obama administration is rushing to complete a nuclear agreement with Iran and reduce regional tensions, the Israeli media is reporting on a deal with Saudi Arabia to let Israeli warplanes transit Saudi airspace en route to bombing Iran, reports Robert Parry.
According to an Israeli media report, Saudi Arabia has agreed to let Israeli warplanes fly over Saudi territory to save fuel while attacking Iranian nuclear sites, the latest indication of how the two former enemies have developed a behind-the-scenes alliance that is reshaping geopolitics in the Middle East.
“The Saudi authorities are completely coordinated with Israel on all matters related to Iran,” a European official in Brussels told Israel’s Channel 2 in a report broadcast on Tuesday and described in other Israeli media outlets.
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/02/25/saudis-said-to-aid-israeli-plan-to-bomb-iran/
February 25, 2015
Exclusive: As the Obama administration is rushing to complete a nuclear agreement with Iran and reduce regional tensions, the Israeli media is reporting on a deal with Saudi Arabia to let Israeli warplanes transit Saudi airspace en route to bombing Iran, reports Robert Parry.
According to an Israeli media report, Saudi Arabia has agreed to let Israeli warplanes fly over Saudi territory to save fuel while attacking Iranian nuclear sites, the latest indication of how the two former enemies have developed a behind-the-scenes alliance that is reshaping geopolitics in the Middle East.
“The Saudi authorities are completely coordinated with Israel on all matters related to Iran,” a European official in Brussels told Israel’s Channel 2 in a report broadcast on Tuesday and described in other Israeli media outlets.
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/02/25/saudis-said-to-aid-israeli-plan-to-bomb-iran/
Of course, being the lying, War Mongering sicko Casper is, he fails to post the article Attached to this picture from 2010, the retaliation of Iran and the costs to Israel.
Scenarios for an Israeli attack in Iran: view from Tehran
This week, news website Asr-e Iran has published a commentary article by commentator Seyyed Ziaoldin Ehtesham, discussing the various possible scenarios following an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The article first presented an optimal scenario for Israel: Israeli fighter planes arrive from Jordan, northern Saudi Arabia, and southern Iraq, and attack four targets simultaneously: the uranium enrichment facility in Natanz, the uranium enrichment facility near the city of Qom, the heavy water reactor in Arak, and the uranium conversion facility in Esfahan. The four sites are destroyed in several minutes, the fighter planes safely return to base, and the pilots receive a hero’s welcome back home. The Iranian government holds an emergency meeting, condemning the Israeli attack as a blatant violation of international law. The Iranian representative to the UN also releases a strong-worded announcement against Israel. Anti-Israeli protests are held in Iran, with the protestors chanting “death to Israel”. Several countries in the world support the Israeli attack, calling it a necessary act of self-defense. Other countries condemn the attack, while still others remain silent. After several days of extensive media coverage of the destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities by Israel, the situation settles down and things go back to normal.However, it is the commentator’s view that this scenario is far from what would actually happen. Iran of 2010 is not Iraq of 1981, and the consequences of the Israeli attack on the nuclear reactor in Iraq cannot be compared to those of an Israeli attack in Iran. Iraq was busy fighting Iran and had no desire to confront Israel. Iran, however, is focusing all of its military and defensive plans on the threat posed by Israel, it has the political willpower and national ability to launch a military response to any Israeli attack, and it will never settle for a diplomatic response to a military attack by Israel.
The Iranian response will be reflected in asymmetrical warfare. Israel’s nuclear facilities may be the first victim of an Israeli attack on Iran. Even if Israel believes it has the ability to protect its nuclear facilities, there is nothing it can do against various kinds of rockets coming in from various directions. Iran is likely to surprise Israel, just as Hezbollah surprised it in the “second Lebanon war”.
According to the commentator, news agencies in the world will report simultaneously on the Israeli attack in Iran and the Iranian counter-attack that will follow immediately. After the Iranian response, Israel will have two choices: first, remaining silent over the strong Iranian response and accepting the restoration of the nuclear facilities and the continuation of Iran’s nuclear activity, which would mean a strategic defeat for Israel. Second, continuing the attacks on Iran, which would mean broadening the conflict with it. A war between the two countries would result in widespread destruction in Iran; however, such a war would spell the end of Israel. Unlike the Israelis, who would never be able to cope with sustained warfare, the Iranians lived through an eight-year war against Iraq. A war like that would set Israeli cities ablaze and erase all that Israel has created in the past six decades to attract Jews from all over the world. The commentator concluded by saying that the first bomb Israel were to drop on Iran would begin a process of changing the political map of the Middle East, sparking a fire in the region that would affect the whole world—directly or not (Asr-e Iran, June 14).
Hmm, this may be kind of important. Funny how you left that out. Of course, when you're praying for a war as you and your ilk are Casper, such messy details are unimportant.
Riyadh’s only condition is that Israel make some kind of progress in peace talks with the Palestinians, Channel 2 reported Tuesday, citing an unnamed senior European source.
Watch This Fox Host Realize Gohmert Is Bonkers As He Unveils His 'Plan' To Bomb Iran
By David
3/29/15 1:45pm
Possible Republican presidential candidate Louie Gohmert shocked Fox News host Arthel Neville with what she said was a "dangerous" and "volatile" plan to bomb Iran's nuclear sites.
During an interview on Sunday, Gohmert argued that President Barack Obama negotiations with Iran had already failed because he was "already allowing them to go full-blown nuclear."
The Texas Republican said that he had another solution for dealing with Iran: "You step up the sanctions full-blown, and I think that it's time to look at a plan to go in and bomb them."
But Neville immediately saw a downside to effectively declaring war on Iran.
"If the U.S. bombs Iran's nuclear facilities, do you think Russia is going to stand by and let that happen?" she asked.
"I don't think Russia is in a position to do anything," Gohmert opined. "They're bogged down too many places."
"You really don't think -- I mean, that's a volatile option there," Neville pointed out as she searched for words. "To go in and bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, and you really believe that Russia will stop and say, 'Okay, fine, go for it.' I mean, that's a dangerous..."
Gohmert argued that Russia might even get behind an attack on Iran because its leaders were "concerned about radical Islamist terror much more so than [the Obama] administration is."
"They're not crazy over there in Russia," he insisted.
"We haven't discussed an actual plan because I'm sure it's quite complex," Neville observed, bringing the segment to a close. "We don't have one on the table, not from you this morning."
"Well, yeah, I think that once Iran realizes we're serious about taking it out, they come to the table," Gohmert said.
By David
3/29/15 1:45pm
Possible Republican presidential candidate Louie Gohmert shocked Fox News host Arthel Neville with what she said was a "dangerous" and "volatile" plan to bomb Iran's nuclear sites.
During an interview on Sunday, Gohmert argued that President Barack Obama negotiations with Iran had already failed because he was "already allowing them to go full-blown nuclear."
The Texas Republican said that he had another solution for dealing with Iran: "You step up the sanctions full-blown, and I think that it's time to look at a plan to go in and bomb them."
But Neville immediately saw a downside to effectively declaring war on Iran.
"If the U.S. bombs Iran's nuclear facilities, do you think Russia is going to stand by and let that happen?" she asked.
"I don't think Russia is in a position to do anything," Gohmert opined. "They're bogged down too many places."
"You really don't think -- I mean, that's a volatile option there," Neville pointed out as she searched for words. "To go in and bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, and you really believe that Russia will stop and say, 'Okay, fine, go for it.' I mean, that's a dangerous..."
Gohmert argued that Russia might even get behind an attack on Iran because its leaders were "concerned about radical Islamist terror much more so than [the Obama] administration is."
"They're not crazy over there in Russia," he insisted.
"We haven't discussed an actual plan because I'm sure it's quite complex," Neville observed, bringing the segment to a close. "We don't have one on the table, not from you this morning."
"Well, yeah, I think that once Iran realizes we're serious about taking it out, they come to the table," Gohmert said.
http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20150331000048&cid=1101
China's foreign minister, Wang Yi, arrived in Switzerland's lakeside city of Lausanne on Sunday to join the ongoing Iran nuclear talks in an effort to push forward the expected framework agreement.
Wang is expected to hold bilateral talks with his Iranian counterpart Mohammad Javad Zarif, US secretary of state John Kerry, high representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini and Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov respectively later on the day, sources close to the Chinese team told Xinhua.
'i got this'.......
China's foreign minister, Wang Yi, arrived in Switzerland's lakeside city of Lausanne on Sunday to join the ongoing Iran nuclear talks in an effort to push forward the expected framework agreement.
Wang is expected to hold bilateral talks with his Iranian counterpart Mohammad Javad Zarif, US secretary of state John Kerry, high representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini and Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov respectively later on the day, sources close to the Chinese team told Xinhua.
'i got this'.......
Just watched it, and the headline host realizes he is bonkers, is absolute rubbish.What leads you to think that what she says or her expressions give you a sense that he is bonkers.
He is correct Russia could do ZERO.
He is correct Russia has a big Islam problem (as does China).
She is bonkers for even considering Russia would intervene is US bombed Iran nuclear facilities. We are talking about a bombing and missile attack lasting a few hours if that.
