This should be huge news. According to Barbara Slavin, the veteran Middle East reporter, the Iranian government has issued a 10-page paper suggesting the resolution of its conflict over its nuclear program through comprehensive negotiations with the west.
A ten page document given Tuesday (July 3) to Iran experts by Iran's mission to the United Nations also calls for lifting all sanctions against Iran and a framework for "comprehensive and targeted dialogue for long term cooperation" that goes beyond the nuclear issue. It includes elements of a bigger bargain normalizing Iran's status in the international community.
The Iranians first goal is the lifting of sanctions. There is nothing new in that, nor in Iran's demand for "recognition of its right to enrich uranium...." (Full text of Iran paper here).
What is new is how the Iranian government proposes to get to that point: through "cooperation and reciprocal steps." In other words: step by step negotiations, with the goal being satisfaction of both sides.
These negotiations would not be limited to nuclear issues. Slavin writes:
A final goal, according to the document, is "a comprehensive agreement on collective commitments in the areas of economic, political, security and international cooperation" that includes Iranian inclusion in talks aimed at ending the conflict in Syria -- something the US has opposed.
The last time Iran offered the west comprehensive negotiations was in 2003 when, in the wake of the invasion of Iraq, the shaken Iranian government decided that it should seek a deal with the Bush administration to ensure that it was not the next Middle East country to face attack. At that time, an over-confident Bush administration simply ignored the offer. An opportunity was lost.
It may be back. Fearing an attack by Israel backed by the United States, the Iranians seem to be in a bargaining mood.
The United States should say "yes" and include in the list of issues to be discussed Iran's role in supporting the Syrian government's war on its own people, its threats against Israel and support for Hezbollah and other issues that have divided us from Iran since the Iranian revolution.
In other words, Iran wants recognition of its right to enrich uranium; here is what we want.
One thing we cannot do is to continue to refuse to discuss the lifting of sanctions as we have thus far. Why in God's name would Iran seriously negotiate when we say that the one thing they seek is off the table? It wouldn't.
The name of the game is diplomacy. The alternative is likely to be a war which will kill thousands of people, endanger U.S. vital interests in the region including our military and civilian personnel throughout the Muslim world, threaten the long-term survival of the State of Israel and irreparably damage American interests throughout the Middle East starting with the crashing of the world economy.
There is absolutely no reason not to accept the Iranian offer much like one would accept an offer to buy your house. Is the would-be buyer offering too little? Then cross out the figure he has penned in and put down yours. It's called a counteroffer.
Remember how President Kennedy resolved the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Soviets first made a seemingly generous offer. But then, within hours, they reconsidered and sent an offer that met none of our demands. While his Cabinet fumed, Kennedy came up with a solution: accept the first offer and ignore the second. His gambit ultimately led to a resolution of the crisis and saved the planet.
President Obama can do the same with this latest Iranian offer. He should respond by indicating eagerness to discuss all the issues dividing the U.S. and Iran, starting with the nuclear issue and sanctions, and then moving on to the rest.
Why not? The worst that can happen is not reaching a deal. But the best: Obama can earn that Nobel Peace Prize and the horrific prospect of war with Iran would finally be off the table, along with the possibility that it will develop nuclear weapons. Isn't it worth a try?
Follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mjayrosenberg
Iran's intent is to keep dragging these talks out until it has nuclear missiles. It will first engage in brinksmanship to delay talks as long as possible; just before the U.S. concludes talks have failed, Iran will agree to IAEA inspections to be scheduled a couple of weeks later (to buy a little more time); when that time comes, it will refuse the inspectors when they are at the door and, thus, buy a little more time toward getting the nuclear weapon they want. By then, it will have exhausted its stall tactics but will have a nuclear weapon. That's IRAN'S plan.
It is, however, not Obama's plan, and he is not naive. He's politically shrewd and using the time to build up for an attack on Iran that will do far more than take out Iran's nuclear facilities. Like Israel's leaders, he recognizes (and has already said as much) that taking out Iranian nuclear facilities will only set their program back a few years. He knows that, when America attacks those facilities, Iran will launch counter-attacks that will justify taking out ALL of Iran's military. So, he's building up strike forces in the region, capable of a hundred-day war that will leave Iran a crippled weakling for a couple of decades.
( http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/israel-iran-war-when-will-israel-attack-iran-2012-predictions-series/ )
--David Haggith
In United States, before the massive propaganda campaigns of past few years, a majority of the population agreed with most of world that, as signatory of Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has a right to carry out uranium enrichment. a large majority favors peaceful means for dealing with Iran. There is even strong opposition to military engagement if Iran and Israel are at war. Only a quarter regard Iran as an important concern for the U.S. altogether. But it is not unusual for there to be a gap, often a chasm, dividing public opinion and policy.
Why exactly is Iran regarded as such a colossal threat? The question is rarely discussed, but it is not hard to find a serious answer -- in the fevered pronouncements. The most authoritative answer is provided by the Pentagon and intelligence services in their regular reports to Congress on global security. They report that Iran does not pose a military threat. Its military spending is very low even by standards of the region, minuscule of course in comparison with the U.S.
N.Chomsky/articles
The vote, passed 401-11, effectively calls for a military attack on Iran when it obtains a “nuclear weapons capability” – an undefined term that, by some interpretations, could already apply to Iran, not to mention Brazil, Japan, the Netherlands, and any other country with a civilian nuclear program.
“
The shifting of the so-called “red-line” is instructive. Hawkish rhetoric for some time now has been that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and this provides a pretext for war unless we can reverse their course. The problem is that this rhetoric is not true: the U.S. military and intelligence community are in consensus that Iran has no nuclear weapons program.
And so the red-line shifted to include something Iran is doing, namely enriching uranium for peaceful purposes. Some argue that the Iranian government simply having the know-how for building nukes is enough to attack it,
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell, warned “This resolution reads like the same sheet of music that got us into the Iraq war, and could be the precursor for a war with Iran….it’s effectively a thinly-disguised effort to bless war.”
" calls for lifting all sanctions against Iran and a framework for “comprehensive and targeted dialogue for long term cooperation” "
So even if this unsigned, plain paper "document" really exists (click on pdf link to see it), Iran's upfront, primary condition is an end to all sanctions. And then they would agree talk.
How can any "political commentator" take this seriously?
The Iranian regime always backtracks even on SPECIFIC agreements, such as its repeated agreement to allow Parchin to be inspected by the IAEA. Three separate times, I believe.
The Iranian regime point blank refuses to even consider ceasing the enrichment of uranium to 20% plus.
If I may paraphrase a well-known expression:
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 30+ times over 10+ years, and nobody will believe your vague assurances, except MJ Rosenberg.
Typically, a done deal is signified with a token announcement of talks. There is really nothing to be negotiated beyond the obvious,Iran might give up nukes in return for economic concessions and perhaps money.
When one side asks for talks in public, that typically means that there is no meeting of minds.
Therefore, if a 'principles' outline can not be produced in about one month, I say its 110% stall by Iran.
Inside the Bizarre Cabal of Secretive Donors, Demagogic Bloggers, Pseudo-Scholars, European Neo-Fascists, Violent Israeli Settlers, and Republican Presidential Hopefuls Behind the Crusade
By Max Blumenthal
http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175334/tomgram:_max_blumenthal,_the_great_fear_/
Keep the resting place of Daniel free of destruction.
And get RID of the Ayatollahs.
They make the MB look like folks I'd take out to dinner! Halal of course.
Wow! Iran appears to have made very poor choices, and it appears to be standing alone, in the world at large, and in the ME as well.
This article is about nothing at all of value. First thing to do for Iran is turn its back on Assad and his slaughter machine. Now that Syrian military personnel are starting to defect, they might as well join the crowds.
Do the people of Iran support their government?
So unfortunately for pro-israel war-obsessives like you, the answer is yes. It unites them
On June 27, 2012, the FBI partially declassified and released seven additional pages [.pdf] from a 1985–2002 investigation into how a network of front companies connected to the Israeli Ministry of Defense illegally smuggled nuclear triggers out of the U.S.* The newly released FBI files detail how Richard Kelly Smyth — who was convicted of running a U.S. front company — met with Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel during the smuggling operation. At that time, Netanyahu worked at the Israeli node of the smuggling network, Heli Trading Company. Netanyahu, who currently serves as Israel’s prime minister, recently issued a gag order that the smuggling network’s unindicted ringleader refrain from discussing “Project Pinto.”
There's nothing new that Iran is offering other than adding the words "toward a comprehensive agreement".
THAT'S the heart of the deal. Lift the sanctions in exchange .....
THIS is the 10-page document that Iran is pushing and that Rosenberg is puffing up as something more than many more months of continued bullspit ....in exchange for no sanctions.....
http://backchannel.al-monitor.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/IranNuclearTalks.pdf
Anyone even bothering to read the link to Laura Rozen quoting Barbara Slavin can see that it's not taken seriously by Rozen.
Rosenberg is also not to be taken seriously.
What's the point of the NPT if the west is going to renege on it when some country they don't like wants to produce nuclear energy for themselves?
That's, actually, a qualified right, humbye, and Iran has been found to have been in breach of the conditions about eleventy-six times.
they're in breach still, but more interestingly, Iran was not only continued to enrich uranium to ~20% purity, but is increasing the rate at which it is enriching the stuff despite already having stockpiled enough ~20% to last more than a dozen years for any and all civilian use.
Iran can't really explain why it continues to enrich while it hasn't any civilian use for all it already has and, some months bach, the head of Iran's atomic energy commission, when faced with the question, could only say that Iran was thinking of becoming an exporter of enriched uranium.....
but of course there's really no one to export it to........ for civilian use.
Russia went so far as to cancel delivery of the S-300 advanced air defense system that it contracted to sell the Iranians, the one that was to protect Iran against air attacks by the Israeli air force..........because of the sanctions.
http://english.pravda.ru/russia/kremlin/22-09-2010/115034-russia_iran_s300-0/
that Russia would stand with Iran is nothing other than Iranian propaganda. you're parroting hot air.
"MOSCOW — Russia may scrap its ban on S-300 anti-aircraft missile sales to Iran if Syrian President Bashar Assad is replaced, said Ruslan Pukhov, who heads a Russian defense think tank."
Things are changing at an interesting rate in the middle East and Russia may be in need of a new ally.
TALENT!