The World’s Worst Negotiators–Continued

Joe Klein:
.
The World’s Worst Negotiators…
.
I know!
.
It’s mindbogglingly frustrating, I just can’t believe…
.
….I’m just continuing to read your piece…
.
…hmmm…what’s this about China…?
.
Oh!
.
You mean Iran!
.
When you wrote “The World’s Worst Negotiators” I immediately assumed you were talking about Congressional Democrats!

I’m puzzled that the Oakland Raiders’ front office doesn’t at least get an honorable mention.

LOL

Is anybody actually really worried that Iran is going to build nuclear weapons and attack the US or Europe with them? Because I’m not.

This guy’s not:
.
Iranians don’t have a nuclear weapons program. They have never invaded another country. Their conventional forces have limited capability. Their army has never deployed more than about ten miles from its border, and that was only during the eight-year war with Iraq when Saddam Hussein invaded them. Their navy is a coast guard and their air force is a junkyard. Their defense budget is less than one percent of ours. Iran is a pismire.
.
Iran’s president says unfortunate things; most of them, one strongly suspects, are for domestic Iranian and Muslim world consumption, the equivalent of “Bring ‘em on.” But the Iranian’s are, well, paper Persians. Their growl is much worse than their bite. They are, in fact, toothless.
.
Iran is part of the multi-tined Long War strategy that the Pentagon and its supporters are cramming up our noses.
.
and concludes:
.
I don’t propose that we turn our backs on Iran. There is a possibility that they someday will develop nuclear weapons behind everybody’s backs if we don’t keep an eye on them.
.
But the sound and fury we generate every time Iran jerks our chain is silly.
.
-http://zenhuber.blogspot.com/2009/12/get-real-about-iran.html

Could this be the reason for renewed bloviations directed toward Iran? (from the “play games” link above):
.
(O)ne of the topics on the defense secretary’s agenda was how Turkey might join a NATO-wide missile defense system, which would be focused on the possibility of an attack from Iran.
.
Really, another missile defense system? Billions of US taxpayer dollars to be directed into an antagonistic project that won’t work. To “protect us” from a country that doesn’t have a nuclear weapons program, has very limited military capabilities, acts within the guidelines of the NPT and issued a religious Fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons…
.
Is the Iranian Directorate (link) still in operation under the current administration? (serious question)

What if Iran doesn’t have realistic nuclear/military capability and Ahmadinejad is just the world’s biggest troll?
.
That would be kinda funny.

A nuclear energy program that relies on imported nuclear energy is not much of a program at all. I see no reason why the Iranians would accept this.
.
But I want to address the sanctions. Surely sanctions impact regular Iranians- the ones we support as they fight and sacrifice for individual freedoms. The notion that we will leave common Iranians un-hurt seems wishful thinking (or propaganda). It is doubtful that the ruling regime will be stiff-armed into accepting restrictive conditions beyond what is stipulated by the NPT. So what will be the actual impact of stronger sanctions?
.
We traveled down this road in Iraq. Estimates are that over half-a-million Iraqi children died as a consequence of our sanctions (a figure not debated by US officials, *link bellow). These deaths were not only seen as abhorrent by moderate groups, but became a rallying cry for terrorists and anti-American extremists.
.
Bin Laden listed three causes in his declaration of jihad against the US (link): Iraqi deaths from sanctions, occupation of holy Muslin cities, and our unwavering support of Israel. We continue to employ these policies—they, no doubt, imperil US citizens. Is it impossible, or even improbable, that our belligerence toward Iran may one day birth a Shiite-based terror group or another declaration of jihad?
.
.
* link to Iraqi deaths

The Iranians are the world’s worst negotiators? They seem to be doing an awfully good job to me. They’ve strung us along this far and they’ll keep doing it until they have nuclear weapons.
.
They know what they’re doing and they’re doing a great job.

Joe,

Whereas you see poor negotiation, I see tactful mimicry of an opponent’s confusing logic consisting of carrots w/ sticks and blackmail as “bargaining” (you take this EXACT deal or we will punish you!).

The West did not accept the parameters of an Iranian counter-offer, which under any reasonable person’s scrutiny would have been considered completely fair, to enrich the uranium under Iran’s RIGHTS via the NPT to 20% for medical purposes in a manner that wouldn’t rob Iran of its rights. The entire history of the Western approach towards Iran over the last few CENTURIES (not starting from 1979!!!) consists of the following:
(1) hindering Iranian progress (technology, etc.) so that the oil could be looted or ripped off in easier fashion; and,
(2) breaching the Western end of the bargain so that Iran has given the West something and received nothing in return.
It’s not absurd, then, for Iran to have doubts about giving over its LEU and never receiving it back. Stop analyzing from the 1979 prism when you regard foreign policy from Iran. You owe us, your readers, more than that, Joe, especially as a commentator on Iranian-US relations!

There are press releases every now and then speculating about Iran’s compliance with IAEA requests. Over two dozen sets of inspections have found no deviance. Further safeguards, like unveiling Iranian secrets to the world, are being requested by countries that have followed the two pronged policy I have outlined above for more than twenty decades. You can put lipstick on a pig…

As for Iran’s “natural allies”, Russia certainly isn’t one of them. Please acquaint yourself with Iranian history, Joe and other TIME contributors, before making imprudent statements like this. Your words are read by many people and you are misinforming them. Russia has traditionally sided with only the side that would give it the most benefit. In this case, despite military and political ties to Iran, it has always chosen the position that would benefit it the most, and never offered to take a bullet for who you call its “natural ally”, Iran.

The behavior by Iran is very clear and is being confused by the media, including yourself, Joe. Iran had requested a more equitable way to enrich its uranium to 20%, but was quickly branded as a country rejecting a Western overture (as if it was fair in the first place). When this happened, Iran said, okay, we will, under our APPROPRIATE AND FULL RIGHT pursuant to the NPT, enrich the Uranium to 20% under IAEA monitoring, and began doing so this week. They have maintained that they are STILL OPEN TO A DEAL TO SEND LEU OUTSIDE OF THE BORDERS SHOULD THEY BE GUARANTEED A TIMELY AND FULL RETURN AS PER ANY AGREEMENTS MADE.

This all said, it is not coincidental that the AP and other media outlets are posting anti-nuclear Iran articles all of a sudden. I deplore any organizations that tie the nuclear issue to the human rights issue in Iran. My brothers and sisters are dying for a cause that is irrelevant to the nuclear program. The West, including the Israeli lobby at the helm, is continually working to tie the two issues so as to use the Iranian people as leverage against the Iranian people’s full right to nuclear power. Shame on them, and you, if I catch you ever doing it, Joe, shame on you, too!