Rolling MENA 2014 (Middle East)

those could be just astutely strategic words, like "no Palestinian state on my watch"

I don't know about astute but they could very well be strategic!

One of the writers of that foreignpolicy.com article you quoted Mordy, is from the conservative Hudson Institute. Thus it does not surprise me that he would ignore the US's support for Saudia Arabia in Yemen and in general, and then quote unnamed France officials regarding their alleged belief that the US is on the verge of profoundly reshaping its traditional alliance system in the Middle East, moving to a system where Iran replaces Saudi Arabia as the central pillar of regional stability.

remain vigilant! obv i don't know how true it is or isn't. i'm sure the french have officials to say nonsense just like we do in the US.

at the same time it's not news that the french have been pushing for a stronger deal and that there has been [maybe only a little] daylight between them and the US on this:
http://news.yahoo.com/kerry-seeks-boost-french-support-iran-deal-081130014.html

or In a sign of France’s determination, Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius called his negotiating team in Lausanne on Thursday to insist no deal could be forged that allowed for the rapid easing of U.N. Security Council measures, according to European officials.

their alleged belief that the US is on the verge of profoundly reshaping its traditional alliance system in the Middle East, moving to a system where Iran replaces Saudi Arabia as the central pillar of regional stability.

I dunno about replacing Saudi Arabia, but it has long seemed that US-Iran hostility is mostly frontin, and they are actually pretty tight where it matters.

"where it matters" hmmm

Iran Nuclear Talks Are Extended for Another Day
By MICHAEL R. GORDON 4:15 PM ET
Negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program were extended again after they were beset by competing claims and recriminations.

yep sounds like just one more day will do it

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/heavily-armed-rebels-battle-for-control-of-yemens-second-largest-city/2015/04/02/b37aa150-d8b2-11e4-bf0b-f648b95a6488_story.html?hpid=z4

Houthis keep advancing. Are the Saudis and others in their alliance gonna send in troops or not, I wonder?

press conference right now re iran

Saudis would hate to send troops, but they'd hate a Shiite state allied with Iran on their border even worse. I'd give odds they'll at least send in some troops, if it looks like a Houthi sweep.

esp bc http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/02/us-yemen-security-saudi-death-idUSKBN0MT18G20150402

i'll have to see details but it sounds like IAEA inspections (including at Arak), conversion of Fordow, and all sanctions immediately lifted?

obama speaking in 15 minutes

some of these details sound great if true - removing ability of arak facility to produce fissile material, sanctions dependent on compliance w/ snap-back provisions, anytime anywhere inspections, no more enrichment at fordow, limiting enrichment levels, natanz centrifuges cut in half. the really important bit is whether this stuff is true, agreed upon in iran (ie that they agree these are mutual understandings), but i mean -- i really couldn't expect much more.

human rights, ballistic program, terror support sanctions will not be lifted acc to obama

Iran and world powers have agreed on parameters of a deal to be reached by June 30.

http://www.vox.com/2015/4/2/8337347/iran-deal-good

yeah honestly, w/ the caveat that this isn't a final deal and there are a lot of missing details, i'm super impressed w/ the admin job on this. they did really well at managing expectations, over delivering, extracting what seems to be a ton of agreements -- i never thought iran would agree to anytime/anywhere inspections but, if the state fact sheet is right, they essentially did. if this is the way the final deal looks - esp if they agree on exporting nuclear materials by June - it'll be pretty good i think.

i'm somewhat skeptical (in the neutral sense of the term), but do hope for the best

we heard a few days ago from the british foreign secretary that the goal was to "deliver a narrative" (and of course both sides of the deal have narratives to sell, iran as much as US)

so at this point i'll take what we're hearing as "a narrative" (with significant areas of vagueness and de facto unclarity) and reserve judgment until learning more-- about the details and actual (de facto, not theoretical) implications

i think that's true. i definitely heard some things from zarif that contradicted things that the state dpt were claiming (like whether they can build a new core in arak)

What on earth did Bibi want from a nuclear deal?

this is going to sound callow but I've been reading Longerich's history of the Holocaust and it has been clarifying for my understanding, in broad ways, of Israeli policies. those things are so recent...

What on earth did Bibi want from a nuclear deal?

he didn't want a deal

it's hard to say what Bibi really wants re: Iran - I imagine his ultimate fantasy is being handed a pretext for Israel/US to invade and destroy the Iranian state

i think he probably would be happy w/ iran declaring an end to its proxy wars against israel

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel introduced a new demand Friday for the final phase of negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, saying the completed deal must include an “unambiguous Iranian recognition of Israel’s right to exist.”....

....Mr. Netanyahu’s statement on the Iran deal was his lengthiest and most detailed of the past week.

It criticized the framework agreement, saying it leaves “Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure,” since it does not call for shutting facilities, destroying centrifuges or halting research and development. The prime minister also criticized the promise to “lift sanctions immediately,” saying it “would greatly bolster Iran’s economy” and “give Iran thereby tremendous means to propel its aggression and terrorism throughout the Middle East.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/04/world/middleeast/benjamin-netanyahu-says-final-nuclear-deal-must-include-irans-recognition-of-israel.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

i don't think he'll get it, but i think it makes sense that the PM of Israel wants Iran to stop funding Hamas, and doesn't want any deal if it doesn't include that. how can you trust a deal from an enemy that is still dedicated to destroying yr country? (the P5+1 obv don't have this problem.)

Iran will surrender almost 15,000 centrifuges and will have none but the most basic centrifuges left. I understand Netanyahu's point but it's easier to ignore a declawed country's nattering about Israel.

yes, for sure. i think there's a lot in this deal that israel will benefit from. unfortunately it won't stop iranian missile transports to hezbollah but i'd rather deal w/ conventional missiles (esp in the age of the iron dome) than nuclear powered iran.

i think he probably would be happy w/ iran declaring an end to its proxy wars against israel

lol like he would believe such a declaration

Agreed. I'm shaking my head at the American media's using the term "two sides" and meaning America and Iran when it's Iran and the Security Council. Netanyahu's face saving pronouncements would have been harsher had it been two countries negotiating.

xpost

shakey, i think an iranian declaration that they'll stop funding hamas/hezbollah, or that they recognize israel's existence, etc would be a huge game-changer in the middle east. i think you're under-appreciating what it would mean.

Any comment from the Saudis yet?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/saudi-king-give-cautious-nod-to-iran-nuclear-deal/2015/04/03/aeb04901-e608-4735-8bf3-4dfd71c4c74d_story.html

x-posts: It's not only that the p5+1 doesn't have that problem, is that it has nothing do to with nuclear weapons. What would we say if Iran insisted that Israel tore down all the illegal settlements before they stopped their nuclear program? It has nothing do to with what was under discussion. Sanctions were put in place to stop the nuclear program, if Iran stops it's nuclear program it should expect that sanctions would be lifted.

my pt was more that if a country is openly engaged in hostilities against yr country, you can't even make a deal at all. the prerequisite for compromise is that the existence of yr negotiating partner is acknowledged. you can't make a deal w/ a country you believe is illegitimate. the US might have also had this problem if they took "death to america" chants more seriously than they do, but i think they're skeptical about iran's commitment to destroying the US. by contrast israel has good reasons to believe that Iran is not being cynical vis-a-vis "death to israel" and therefore no deal that first disavowed that could be legitimate. p5+1 which more-or-less does not have this issue at all obv doesn't need it addressed.

Right, but there is an important difference between not being able to deal yourself, and actively trying to sabotage other people making a deal. Isn't Iran without nuclear weapons good for Israel anyway?

good enough how? obv it's not good enough to not have nukes but still be funding hamas.

But that has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. Should Iran demand that Saudi Arabia stops bombing in Yemen and propping up the Bahrainian sunni-regime opressing the shia population? Iran is participating in a regional struggle for their interests, as is most of 'our sunni allies'. That is bad, undoubtedly so. But the sanctions was because of nuclear weapons, and they've made a ton of concessions on that point.

Agreed. I'm shaking my head at the American media's using the term "two sides" and meaning America and Iran when it's Iran and the Security Council. Netanyahu's face saving pronouncements would have been harsher had it been two countries negotiating.

― guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, April 3, 2015 3:48 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

US media doesnt want to have to explain to americans that there are in fact other countries out there. It makes their heads hurt.

Bibi and the neo-Con Washington Post editorial board think alike in trying to expand agreement beyond nukes through arguments like this:

The proposed accord will provide Iran a huge economic boost that will allow it to wage more aggressively the wars it is already fighting or sponsoring across the region.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-iran-deal-falls-well-short-of-his-own-goals/2015/04/02/7974413c-d95c-11e4-b3f2-607bd612aeac_story.html

do Bibi and WaPo propose imposing sanctions for Iran's sponsorship of Hamas ans Hezbollah

I don't mean to minimize Iran's contributions to instability in the region but pretty much *every* power in the region is contributing to the instability - everyone has or is funding someone else who's causing trouble. To single out Iran for this behavior is impossible to do without looking like a hypocrite.

I can't follow it frankly, who is next week's made-up group going to be to follow these "Houthis" in the story arc?

idk if I would call the Houthis "made-up"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/11515603/Iran-is-intensifying-efforts-to-support-Hamas-in-Gaza.html

gaza war pt. ∞ coming sooner than you thought

this time... it's personal