Senate Iran — now discussing the nuclear deal and Congress

This is a nice 20 minute discussion on HuffPost Live that I think is worth watching. It discusses the circumstances surrounding the "leak" about secret 1-on-1 talks and the possibility of whether they might be true, in spite of denials from both sides. Link:

Gulf of Brinkmanship


Also, the 2012 report from the UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Iran is in.

 

Pretty solid point here where the author argues, probably accurately, that the goal of Iran is to achieve what's called nuclear latency.

 

It's worth noting, though, that there was some big questions during the Green Revolution if the guardian's council was actually going to turn on Khameni because they had the power to do so. It could well be that they figured the fight wasn't worth it then, but that it would be worth it now to allow those candidates to be in the race to have a more peaceful transition than what happened with the last election. There was a lot of higher level supporters for change that were saying some very open things, so I wouldn't rule them out from doing some big stuff here.

 

I'm hearing that the current Mayor of Tehran, a moderate reformer who has been at odds with Ahmadinjead and supports dialogue with the United States, seems the most likely to be elected as the new President of Iran:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad-Bagher_Ghalibaf

 

Now if Israel can keep it in their pants long enough for that to happen.

 

Here's a nice video that summarizes the nuclear standoff and the history of the conflict between Iran and the US pretty succinctly in 5 minutes.

-------------
But that's not what I actually wanted to post. I found that in the margin of the opinion article I was reading, and thought it was useful. What I wanted to post was the article itself.

Tehran looks ready to tango

"The Iranian regime is not interested in a diplomatic solution with the United States. Sustained enmity with America is a defining, inextricable pillar of the Islamic Republic. Any shift in this paradigm will irreparably destabilise the regime." This is the argument proffered by those opposed to sustained US-Iran diplomacy. ​

​

At face value, regular chants of "Death to America" and yearly commemorations of the US embassy hostage seizure lend credence to these claims. But behind these assertions lies a deeper reality - and the latest demonstration comes from a surprising source: Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS). ​

​

As the Washington Post's correspondent in Tehran, Jason Rezaian, pointed out last week, the MOIS published a report - publicly available on its website - that assesses Israeli threats of war over Iran's nuclear programme and highlights the benefits of negotiations with the US to avert a deeper crisis. ​

​

To the surprise of many, Iran's Intelligence Ministry shares the assessment of its counterparts in the US and Israel: the potential destruction caused by military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities would set back the programme only a few years. More telling is their final conclusion: diplomacy is the preferred way forward. ​

​

This sober, pragmatic analysis is devoid of the rhetoric commonly emanating from the Islamic Republic. More importantly, it suggests three important points for policymakers in Washington to consider: ​

​

Like a tv cliffhanger, I'm gonna let you follow the link for yourselves to read what those three points are, so as to not flood this page with a wall of text visible from space.

Overall, what I take away from this is cause for cautious optimism. Also, the fact that both the Iranians and the Obama administration kept quiet about the incident regarding Iran firing at a US drone flying over the Persian Gulf until after the elections, even though the incident happened before the election, is a clear sign IMO that both sides want to avoid war.

 

Well, this was sobering. On Monday, NIAC and the Arms Control Association hosted a debate panel, the first part of which concerns the negotiation process, and the second part is a conversation with Zbigniew Bzrezinski about the preferred course of action should negotiations ultimately lead nowhere. Both parts together amount to a little over 2 hours. You can watch it on C-SPAN. I found it worthwhile.

Also, it seems the AP are guilty of some sloppy journalism. Here is the article in question. It's a "big story" no less.

Edit: 1000th post

 

Time to up this thread with some depressing news:

1. Yahoo! News: Report: Iran, Hezbollah Terror Threat Rising

Iran's elite Quds Force and Hezbollah militants are learning from a series of botched terror attacks over the past two years and pose a growing threat to the U.S. and other Western targets as well as Israel, a prominent counterterrorism expert says.​

Operating both independently and together, the militant groups are escalating their activities around the world, fueling worries in the U.S. that they increasingly have the ability and the willingness to attack the U.S., according to a report by Matthew Levitt of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. His report points to two attacks last year — one successful and one foiled by U.S. authorities — as indications that the militants are adapting and are determined to take revenge on the West for efforts to disrupt Tehran's nuclear program and other perceived offenses.​

The report's conclusions expand on comments late last year from U.S. terrorism officials who told Congress that the Quds Force and Hezbollah, which often coordinate efforts, have become "a significant source of concern" for the U.S.​

​

Whether the threat is actually rising or not is not as relevant and discouraging as the fact that it is brought up on the agenda.


2. Al-Monitor: Iran's Dangerous Escalation At Hormuz

Translated from Star (Turkey).​

Iran’s six-day military exercises are ending today. The war games, called Velayat 91, were carried out at ​

the Strait of Hormuz​

both inside Iran’s territorial waters and outside them.​

(...)​

The exercises this time were bit different than the others. The Iranian naval command defined the objective of the exercises as “defending the region against potential attacks.” Iran is saying not only that it is threatening the Western world via Hormuz, but that it will confront any possible attack against the region.​

(...)​

Iran is trying to deter Israel and other countries from intervening in Syria, but in doing so, it is preparing the ground for an even larger conflict.​

​

​

3. Al-Monitor: Three Worries About Next Iran Talks

This is not the last chance for a peaceful solution, but it may be the last best chance. From now, it will only get harder. At some point, the remaining options will solely vary from deterrence to war — both inferior to a negotiated settlement.​

The above excerpt is the closing paragraph of the article, and it was posted on December 10th, before the latest round of P5+1 talks that were held in late December. The talks are now over, meaning that we are currently in the described aftermath period where "it will only get harder". Sadly, the way things are going I am foreseeing a war by the end of the year.

------------------

The silver lining in all of this is a House resolution authored by Dennis Kucinich "calling for the unconditional release of [human rights lawyer] Nasrin Sotoudeh and all prisoners of conscience in Iran, and the utilization by the United States of direct multilateral and bilateral diplomacy with Iran to address Iran’s human rights situation."

I encourage you to read the resolution, and if you agree with it, please support it by telling your representative to sign on to it, which you can do here.

 

I think that, right now, the entire world is waiting to see what the outcome of the Iranian presidential election is (in 5 months). I doubt we'll see anything happening before June, unless Iran somehow gets drawn into the Syria conflict.

 

Brzezinski Calls Attack On Iran 'Irresponsible, Immoral'

Meanwhile:

Tehran Sends Message To Opposition

Things have sure moved into a ****storm. I guess it's easy for opponents of Brzezinski's position to point to the latter article and ask "can it get any worse"?

 

Iran news...


1. Biden says direct US-Iran talks are possible
http://news.yahoo.com/biden-raises-possibility-direct-u-iran-talks-135607063.html

Long overdue, but a good sign! I better they're waiting until Ahmadinjead is gone.


2. Ahmadinjead reveals a new Stealth Fighter/Bomber
http://news.yahoo.com/ahmadinejad-unveils-irans-newest-fighter-jet-072733644.html

3. Iran claims to have successfully shot a monkey into space for 20 minutes, and safely returned it to Earth
http://news.yahoo.com/iran-space-official-photo-shows-wrong-monkey-115559109.html

 

That's about as 'stealthy' as a B17 bomber. Good news otherwise.

 

yeah there's no point in talking with ahmedinnydingdong in there. you may as well be talking to your own testicles.

 

believing Iran is a serious threat to America is some of the biggest propaganda ever. That country doesn't even have planes...

 

That would be quite incorrect. Their Air Force isn't all that great, but "they don't have planes" is rather silly.

 

their air force is like old soup cans welded together.. Its as antiquated as using a rotary phone. Its a non factor to most modernized countries. So im not really off the money..

 

That's what you said. 'They don't have planes'.

 

yeah, I was exaggerating... their air force is such a non factor they might as well be throwing rocks at U.S. war planes....

Don't make like their air force is something talked about outside of this thread.. cause its not.

 

The wrong jet is pictured.
http://www.mehrnews.com/en/newsdetail.aspx?NewsID=1806182

 

The canards'll still wreck the stealth qualities. Plus the materials look wrong, too-stealth aircraft have a very distinctive look to them from the use of RAM; this doesn't have it.

 

The follow-up to Biden's offer of bilateral talks.

A report on the effect the sanctions are having on ordinary people, and the economy as a whole.

And here's a short commentary in The National Interest by Paul Pillar about the current sanctions policy and negotiating stance toward Iran. It's a piece with which I couldn't agree more.

Excerpts:

It would be nice if this entire matter could be handled in a low-key, straightforward way: just make the necessary trades and complete an agreement. Unfortunately that does not look as if it is possible. The sanctions have played a role in the United States that goes far beyond the manipulation of Iranian incentives in a way that involves American politics and American psychology. In particular, sanctions have been a means for members of Congress to demonstrate their anti-Iranian bona fides by voting again and again in favor of new ways to harm Iran. And as Trita Parsi argues, sanctions have been part of a hoped-for story of Americans being able to claim a triumph over a foreign adversary.​

​

What is very easy to forget in antagonistic bilateral relationships like this is that the other side has similar political and emotional needs. The Iranians certainly have such needs, although they are less triumphalist and more a matter of simple respect than the corresponding American needs. (...)​

​

So one side feels a need to crow about a victory, while the other side needs to feel that it has not been kicked in the face. To square that emotional circle, American politicians will have to get most of their triumphalist fix from what has happened already—from getting a negotiation with Iran about curtailing its nuclear program under way at all. Members of Congress can proclaim today (and when they next run for re-election) that all those votes they cast in favor of all of those sanctions were an important part of getting Iran to the negotiating table. After saying that, they should pipe down, get out of the way, and let the negotiators strike a deal.​

 

Iran's Supreme Leader seems to reject direct talks with the United States

(I'm hoping he's just bluffing, and wants to see if the US is serious about direct talks, and if they are then they offer Iran a way to negotiate without looking like they're submitting)

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/02/20132712135063966.html

 

Even if he wanted to (and that's a big if as it is), can he really backtrack away from those statements?

 

He said he doesn't want to come to the table while being threatened with war at the same time, in the article. He wants to come to the table with Iran being respected as a partner, not seen as a threat or a new country to dominate like a puppet. Can't say I blame them, after the whole business with overthrowing their democracy in 1953 to install the Shah as our puppet.

 

And that's what pisses me off about Iran. They were the ones who picked a fight with Israel when the two of them had nothing to dispute over. And then they chose to build a nuclear program, knowing full well that we had to respond. And after we do respond, they complain about being threatened and that they're not being treated with respect?