Rolling MENA 2014 (Middle East)

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

Chuckie Schumer, the Manchurian Likud leader-to-be

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/chuck-schumer-bucks-white-house-on-iran-116713.html

P much every other Dem majority leader in my lifetime (even Reid) had at least some positions I agreed with - but Schmuck is the worst by a wide margin

x-post re Hamas in Gaza---Iran and Hamas back together again

Iran’s renewed support is a sign of a revival in Iran-Hamas relations, allies previously torn apart over the conflict in Syria, where Shi’ite Iran backed President Bashar Assad, while Hamas stood by its Sunni allies.

But in Yemen, they're on opposite sides

http://www.vox.com/2015/4/7/8363525/rumsfeld-memo-feith

Memo from 12 years ago yesterday asking Feith for proposals on Syria,Libya, and Korea and referencing Iraq

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/opinion/israels-unworkable-demands-on-iran.html?smid=fb-share

The alternative is no deal, and Iran simply moves forward on its nuclear program without any limits

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/09/world/middleeast/cia-director-says-irans-economic-peril-helped-drive-nuclear-deal.html?_r=0

The C.I.A. director, John O. Brennan, speaking Tuesday night at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, suggested that a key to the deal was the election of President Hassan Rouhani, who had hardly been the supreme leader’s first choice.

It took more than two years, he suggested, for the new president, a former nuclear negotiator himself, to persuade the far more isolated Ayatollah Khamenei that “six years of sanctions had really hit,” and that the economic future imperiled the country’s leadership.

From that NYT op-ed:

The Israelis have also said there should be no agreement or lifting of sanctions until Iran recognizes Israel. Iran’s hostility and threats toward Israel and its involvement in terrorist activities are heinous and unacceptable. But those issues should be dealt with separately; resolving them should not be made conditions of the nuclear agreement. Getting to a final deal won’t be easy. Mr. Obama must continue to be tough and determined in the coming months of negotiations. Israel’s demands, however, must not become an excuse to scuttle what seems to be a very serious and potentially groundbreaking deal.

I don't know if the US can get a better deal out of Iran. This deal looks pretty good, though to be frank, I remain concerned that Obama is presenting some of its provisions as done, when Iran has not only not agreed to them, but is saying otherwise in the Iranian media. But before this slips out of the annals of history, I think it's worth remembering:

Only recently have some come to think that diplomacy by definition cannot be tough. They forget the example of Truman, and Kennedy and Reagan. These presidents understood that diplomacy backed by real leverage was a fundamental tool of statecraft. And it is time to once again make American diplomacy a tool to succeed, not just a means of containing failure. We will pursue this diplomacy with no illusions about the Iranian regime. Instead, we will present a clear choice. If you abandon your dangerous nuclear program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, there will be meaningful incentives — including the lifting of sanctions, and political and economic integration with the international community. If you refuse, we will ratchet up the pressure.

For fun, another moment from nuclear negotiation history:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TcbU5jAavw

Before I take your questions, I'd like to say just a word about the framework with North Korea that Ambassador Gallucci signed this morning. This is a good deal for the United States. North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program. South Korea and our other allies will be better protected. The entire world will be safer as we slow the spread of nuclear weapons. South Korea, with support from Japan and other nations, will bear most of the cost of providing North Korea with fuel to make up for the nuclear energy it is losing, and they will pay for an alternative power system for North Korea that will allow them to produce electricity while making it much harder for them to produce nuclear weapons. The United States and international inspectors will carefully monitor North Korea to make sure it keeps its commitments. Only as it does so will North Korea fully join the community of nations.

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/media/images/82205000/jpg/_82205284_khameneitweet.jpg

Iran's leader says Saudi air strikes causing genocide
Houthis storing ammunition in residential areas: Saudi spokesman

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uUkB8fKbys

First fourth is about Yemeni refugees fleeing into Somalia.

https://news.vice.com/video/tikrit-refugees-caught-in-the-middle

the Kissinger-Schultz WSJ op-ed (may be subscriber-only):
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-iran-deal-and-its-consequences-1428447582

though strongly critical of the deal, op-ed is more even-handed than one might think. whether one thinks deal is good or not (i'm undecided, especially given contradictory narratives from us/eu/iran & so much yet to be nailed down), op-ed raises good questions about possible future implications and complications, e.g. re enforcement, proliferation, and regional order

yes, i know, it's kissinger & schultz. of course i don't rely on this perspective-- or nyt oped(s) either

oh, it's spelled "shultz"

Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, declared on Thursday that all sanctions would have to be lifted on the day any deal is signed and that military sites would be strictly off limits to foreign inspectors:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/10/world/middleeast/iran-khamenei-rouhani-nuclear-agreement.html

Kerry Says U.S. Knew of Iran’s Military Aid to Houthi Rebels
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/10/world/middleeast/kerry-us-iran-military-aid-houthi-yemen.html

lol "military sites", that's a handy distinction to make on their part ennit

from that kissinger op-ed: "Mixing shrewd diplomacy with open defiance of U.N. resolutions, Iran has gradually turned the negotiation on its head. Iran’s centrifuges have multiplied from about 100 at the beginning of the negotiation to almost 20,000 today." new facts on the ground lol

Khamenei's translated thoughts on the Lausanne declaration:
http://www.memri.org/report/en/print8520.htm#_ednref1

"The reason [for my concerns] is that the other side is a cheater and a liar; it breaks promises and contrary to the straight path. An example of such conduct by the opposite side [the U.S.] came during the recent talks [in Lausanne], when two hours after the talks ended, the White House published a declaration several pages long [i.e. the Fact Sheet] about the negotiations, most of which contradicted reality. Such a declaration cannot be written in two hours – this means that they had engaged in composing this slanderous, erroneous statement that contradicted the content of the negotiations at the very same time as they were negotiating with us.
"Another example [of their deception] is that after every round of talks, they deliver a public speech, and later tell [us] in private that this speech was aimed at maintaining [their] dignity at home, and to deal with the opponents [of the negotiations] – while these matters have nothing to do with us.

"As the well-known parable says: 'The hunchback sees only his companion's hump.'[1] They [the Americans] say that even if the Iranian leader opposed the negotiations, he is not telling the truth in order to [maintain] his dignity at home. But they do not understand the reality in Iran. The Leader's statements to his people are based on mutual trust, and just as the people believe me, I completely believe the people, and I [also] believe that the hands of God are always with the people. The people's presence in the cold of February 11 [Revolution Day] and in the heat of Ramadan and Jerusalem Day are all signs of the hand of God, and therefore I fully trust the people and my words to them are in the framework of the sentiment, integrity, and wisdom of the people.

"I am concerned about the conduct of the other side [the U.S.] as the negotiations continue. We must not go overboard or be hasty in this context, but rather wait and see what happens."

man Islamic rhetoric is always so fascinating to me, these odd poetic/religious interjections mixed with classic logic arguments.

i know! "the hunchbank sees only his companion's hump" is such a fantastic idiom.

also, ""Another example [of their deception] is that after every round of talks, they deliver a public speech, and later tell [us] in private that this speech was aimed at maintaining [their] dignity at home, and to deal with the opponents [of the negotiations] – while these matters have nothing to do with us," reminds me a lot of Obama's infamous "I'll have more flexibility after election" comment to Medvedev.

Iran pretending like it doesn't say one thing internationally and something different domestically is a laff. after all, in the parable cited, both have humps afaict