QuoteThe stage is set for a deal with Iran
By David Ignatius, Published: April 18
The nuclear talks with Iran have just begun, but already the smart money in Tehran is betting on a deal. That piece of intelligence comes from the Tehran stock index; the day after the talks opened, it posted its largest daily rise in months and closed at a record high.
Tehran investors may be guilty of wishful thinking in their eagerness for an agreement that would ease the economic sanctions squeezing their country. My guess is that they probably have it right. So far, Iran is following the script for a gradual, face-saving exit from a nuclear program that even Russia and China have signaled is too dangerous. The Iranians will bargain up to the edge of the cliff, but they don't seem eager to jump.
The mechanics of an eventual settlement are clear enough after Saturday's first session in Istanbul: Iran would agree to stop enriching uranium to the 20 percent level and to halt work at an underground facility near Qom built for higher enrichment. Iran would export its stockpile of highly enriched uranium for final processing to 20 percent, for use in medical isotopes.
In the language of these talks, the Iranians could describe their actions not as concessions to the West but as "confidence-building" measures, aimed at demonstrating the seriousness of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's public pledge in February not to commit the "grave sin" of building a nuclear weapon. And the West would describe its easing of sanctions not as a climb down but as "reciprocity."
The basic framework was set weeks ago, in an exchange of letters between the chief negotiators. Catherine Ashton, who represents the "P5+1" group of permanent U.N. Security Council members and Germany, proposed a "confidence-building exercise aimed at facilitating a constructive dialogue on the basis of reciprocity and a step-by-step approach."
The Iranian negotiator, Saeed Jalili,responded that because the West was willing to recognize Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy, "our talks for cooperation based on step-by-step principles and reciprocity on Iran's nuclear issue could be commenced." Jalili's status as personal representative of the supreme leader was important, too.
"Step-by-step" and "reciprocity" are the two guideposts for this exercise. They mark a dignified process for making concessions, much like the formula that President Obama used in his January 2009 inaugural address when he first signaled his outreach to Iran: "We seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect."
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu played his expected role in this choreography, criticizing the negotiators for agreeing to another round of talks on May 23 in Baghdad without getting concessions in return. "My initial impression is that Iran has been given a freebie," Netanyahu said. "It has got five weeks to continue enrichment without any limitation, any inhibition." A perfect rebuff — just scornful enough to keep the Iranians (and the Americans, too) worried that the Israelis might launch a military attack this summer if no real progress is made in the talks.
The Iranians don't seem ready, for now, for a broad outreach to the United States. Jalili rejected a private bilateral meeting with U.S. Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman.
The Iranians seem to be preparing their public for a deal that limits enrichment while preserving the right to enrich. In an interview Monday with the Iranian student news agency, Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi explained that "making 20 percent fuel is our right," but that "if they guarantee that they will provide us with the different levels of enriched fuel that we need, then that would be another issue." Salehi seemed to be reviving a 2009 Turkish plan to export Iran's low-enriched uranium abroad, and receive back 20 percent fuel for its Tehran research reactor, supposedly to make the isotopes. That earlier deal collapsed because of opposition from Khamenei, who apparently is now ready to bargain.
Jalili struck the same upbeat tone in comments printed in the Tehran Times. "We witnessed progress," he said, explaining that the supreme leader's religious edict renouncing nuclear weapons "created an opportunity for concrete steps toward disarmament and nonproliferation." He said "the next talks should be based on confidence-building measures, which would build the confidence of Iranians."
Translation: The Iranians expect to be paid, in "step-by-step" increments, as they move toward a deal. At a minimum, they will want a delay of the U.S. and European sanctions that take full effect June 28 and July 1, respectively. That timetable gives the West leverage, too — to keep the threatened sanctions in place until the Iranians have made the required concessions. It's a well-prepared negotiation, in other words, and it seems likely to succeed if each side keeps to the script and doesn't muff its lines.
I thought Khamenei's line was striking and it looks like it's been followed up on. It's worth saying that according to the FT a lot of diplomats are saying Cathy Ashton's doing a superb job on this - which is surprising given the criticism she's received before. Istanbul did look to be a bit more promising than previous meetings too.
Iran, like North Korea, keeps making promises and keeps breaking those promises behind it's back as well as recinding these promises when the pressure which forced the promises is withdrawn. I don't belive that the Iranians are barganing in good faith, but hope to be proven wrong.
I think some in the Iranian government are genuinely spooked. 2009 showed that hold on power that the current government has is shaky. An air Campaign would demonstrate the impotence of the government in the face of Israeli/America/Saudi military might. War would also lead to a collapse of the already suffering Iranian economy. A government that can't protect itself and can't feed it's people is a government that doesn't have long for this world.
You Euros will fucking believe anything.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 19, 2012, 02:04:45 PM
You Euros will fucking believe anything.
Apparently the US, UK and Germany are broadly speaking as one in the P5+1, the real hardliners are the French :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 19, 2012, 02:08:31 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 19, 2012, 02:04:45 PM
You Euros will fucking believe anything.
Apparently the US, UK and Germany are broadly speaking as one in the P5+1, the real hardliners are the French :lol:
And that's goddamned right. They have been since 2003. It was their fucking intel coup that delivered the news to Dubya...but noooooo, we had to go after the guy that tried to whack mah Daddy YOU DONT MESS WIFF TEXAS GIGGITY
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2012, 01:57:34 PM
I think some in the Iranian government are genuinely spooked. 2009 showed that hold on power that the current government has is shaky. An air Campaign would demonstrate the impotence of the government in the face of Israeli/America/Saudi military might. War would also lead to a collapse of the already suffering Iranian economy. A government that can't protect itself and can't feed it's people is a government that doesn't have long for this world.
You gotta be kidding, those princes would make Saddam and Qaddafi look like Butch Casidy and the Sundance kid.
The majority of their armed forces are targeted at their own population or other factions within the kleptocracy .
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 19, 2012, 02:08:31 PM
the real hardliners are the French :lol:
Perhaps not after the election though.
Quote from: Ancient Demon on April 19, 2012, 02:27:25 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 19, 2012, 02:08:31 PM
the real hardliners are the French :lol:
Perhaps not after the election though.
That would be very disappointing.
I urge all of you Frenchmen out there to vote Sarkozy.
You know, I think I'll start a campaign where Americans will mail letters to an entire province in an attempt to convince them to vote Sarkozy. I think that would go over really, really well.
I am pretty sure I could find this exact same article about North Korea from a few years back, if I cared to google
Quote from: Tamas on April 19, 2012, 02:52:28 PM
I am pretty sure I could find this exact same article about North Korea from a few years back, if I cared to google
It would be difficult, as there would be several years' worth.
Quote from: Tamas on April 19, 2012, 02:52:28 PM
I am pretty sure I could find this exact same article about North Korea from a few years back, if I cared to google
I don't know why you would though. North Korea and Iran are very different types of regimes in very different situations.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 19, 2012, 03:06:54 PM
Quote from: Tamas on April 19, 2012, 02:52:28 PM
I am pretty sure I could find this exact same article about North Korea from a few years back, if I cared to google
I don't know why you would though. North Korea and Iran are very different types of regimes in very different situations.
Not really. Oppressive regimes hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weaponry for local hegemony, nationalist pride and targeted for specific regional enemies? The only differences are the shape of their eyes.
You know, sometimes you Euros' penchant for romanticizing the Iranians as some sort of salvageable project that could eventually embrace the west would be laughable if it wasn't so nauseating.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 19, 2012, 02:37:54 PM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on April 19, 2012, 02:27:25 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 19, 2012, 02:08:31 PM
the real hardliners are the French :lol:
Perhaps not after the election though.
That would be very disappointing.
I urge all of you Frenchmen out there to vote Sarkozy.
You know, I think I'll start a campaign where Americans will mail letters to an entire province in an attempt to convince them to vote Sarkozy. I think that would go over really, really well.
:lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 19, 2012, 03:11:25 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 19, 2012, 03:06:54 PM
Quote from: Tamas on April 19, 2012, 02:52:28 PM
I am pretty sure I could find this exact same article about North Korea from a few years back, if I cared to google
I don't know why you would though. North Korea and Iran are very different types of regimes in very different situations.
Not really. Oppressive regimes hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weaponry for local hegemony, nationalist pride and targeted for specific regional enemies? The only differences are the shape of their eyes.
You know, sometimes you Euros' penchant for romanticizing the Iranians as some sort of salvageable project that could eventually embrace the west would be laughable if it wasn't so nauseating.
I too have my doubts, but Sheilbh is right - the two regimes are very different. I can not recall Iran engaging in the same repeated broken deals that NK has engaged in over the last 20 years.
Quote from: Barrister on April 19, 2012, 03:20:32 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 19, 2012, 03:11:25 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 19, 2012, 03:06:54 PM
Quote from: Tamas on April 19, 2012, 02:52:28 PM
I am pretty sure I could find this exact same article about North Korea from a few years back, if I cared to google
I don't know why you would though. North Korea and Iran are very different types of regimes in very different situations.
Not really. Oppressive regimes hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weaponry for local hegemony, nationalist pride and targeted for specific regional enemies? The only differences are the shape of their eyes.
You know, sometimes you Euros' penchant for romanticizing the Iranians as some sort of salvageable project that could eventually embrace the west would be laughable if it wasn't so nauseating.
I too have my doubts, but Sheilbh is right - the two regimes are very different. I can not recall Iran engaging in the same repeated broken deals that NK has engaged in over the last 20 years.
That's because they never even bothered with the concept of any deals. Israel has to be wiped from the map in a sea of fire, remember? Not much of a negotiation principle there.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 19, 2012, 03:06:54 PM
Quote from: Tamas on April 19, 2012, 02:52:28 PM
I am pretty sure I could find this exact same article about North Korea from a few years back, if I cared to google
I don't know why you would though. North Korea and Iran are very different types of regimes in very different situations.
What, unstable totalitarian dictatorships which are leveraging their nuclear and missile programs for economic goods needed to avoid economic collapse by negotiating with the West/USA?
Iran isn't totalitarian. It's authoritarian and has corrupt rigged election system, but lets not go overboard here. The state doesn't control all life for people in Iran.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 19, 2012, 02:37:54 PM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on April 19, 2012, 02:27:25 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 19, 2012, 02:08:31 PM
the real hardliners are the French :lol:
Perhaps not after the election though.
That would be very disappointing.
I urge all of you Frenchmen out there to vote Sarkozy.
You know, I think I'll start a campaign where Americans will mail letters to an entire province in an attempt to convince them to vote Sarkozy. I think that would go over really, really well.
Do it for the other guy. You know, reverse psychology & whatnot. Works for my 4-year old, so it'd have to work with the French.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2012, 04:08:20 PM
Iran isn't totalitarian. It's authoritarian and has corrupt rigged election system, but lets not go overboard here. The state doesn't control all life for people in Iran.
True and in addition to not being totalitarian it's never been Stalinist. Sanctions hurt Iran far more than North Korea. Also its position in the world and foreign policy intentions are totally different from North Korea.
As Barrister points out the Iranian strategy hasn't been to make deals, get aid and then break deals. They just haven't made them, they've also not needed the aid as much. It's a different situation.
Obviously there's a lot of work to do before a deal but I'd note that the Obama administration and the EU have worked on a very comprehensive scheme of sanctions that are being applied and more are coming. No-one's taken the military option off the table and Israel's clearly ready for it. So that means there's a greater degree of pressure on Iran than before.
The key hint from the Iranian side was, I think, that Khamenei made a public statement regarding nukes. It's right that that's being followed up on by the West. Also this is the first time I've read an article that says the outlines of a deal are more or less clear - that's interesting if true.
Those bits together point more towards a deal than anything I can think of in the last decade.
Iran does deals to avoid sanctions, NK does deals to get food. Fundamentally the same motivation.
Yes, deal with Iran... right after the one with North Korea. <_<
Quote from: Viking on April 19, 2012, 05:14:55 PM
Iran does deals to avoid sanctions, NK does deals to get food. Fundamentally the same motivation.
Not at all.
If Iran backslides, the sanctions can be reactivated. When NK backslides, the food can't be taken back. The basic mechanics of the give and take are different.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 19, 2012, 02:37:54 PM
That would be very disappointing.
I urge all of you Frenchmen out there to vote Sarkozy.
You know, I think I'll start a campaign where Americans will mail letters to an entire province in an attempt to convince them to vote Sarkozy. I think that would go over really, really well.
You want the left to win in France. :huh:
:P
Quote from: Jacob on April 19, 2012, 05:38:31 PM
Not at all.
If Iran backslides, the sanctions can be reactivated. When NK backslides, the food can't be taken back. The basic mechanics of the give and take are different.
Not that different. The world can't take back the trade it conducted with Iran if Iran backslides.
Quote from: Jacob on April 19, 2012, 05:38:31 PM
Quote from: Viking on April 19, 2012, 05:14:55 PM
Iran does deals to avoid sanctions, NK does deals to get food. Fundamentally the same motivation.
Not at all.
If Iran backslides, the sanctions can be reactivated. When NK backslides, the food can't be taken back. The basic mechanics of the give and take are different.
Right, what ever. And neither has worked yet.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 19, 2012, 05:51:06 PMNot that different. The world can't take back the trade it conducted with Iran if Iran backslides.
So you agree with Viking that there's no significant difference in the dynamics in the negotiations with Iran and North Korea respectively?
Quote from: Jacob on April 19, 2012, 06:04:28 PM
So you agree with Viking that there's no significant difference in the dynamics in the negotiations with Iran and North Korea respectively?
There are a number of differences. The moral hazard of North Koreans starving to death. North Korea's history of repeated backsliding. North Korea's closeness to their superpower patron China.
Iran has a huge minority of people (the well-educated, the would-be upwardly mobile, the internet-connected, the entrepreneurs) - in short, children of the current leadership and the future leadership of the country, which is absolutely ready for a deal that will end their isolation from the world. North Korea has nothing like this.
Authoritarian regimes don't last. They may recur, but they don't last, unless accompanied by NK-level repression.
This potential deal is absolutely a good thing for the West. Once the Iranian educated class gets accustomed to trade with the West, they won't allow their leadership to risk that. Since these guys and gals will be the government bureaucrats, the drivers of the economy, and the junior officers in the army, they won't be a force the government can afford to get all "then let them eat cake" with.
Read Children of Jihad to get a better feel for this.
Quote from: grumbler on April 19, 2012, 06:40:58 PM
Iran has a huge minority of people (the well-educated, the would-be upwardly mobile, the internet-connected, the entrepreneurs) - in short, children of the current leadership and the future leadership of the country, which is absolutely ready for a deal that will end their isolation from the world.
They don't need a deal; they have life already made. They come and go as they please, to their educations in Europe and the US, to their ski lodges and retreats on the Caspian, and the Ayatollahs of Rocknrolla look the other way. As long as nobody makes waves, they get to live their little bourgeois lives.
QuoteOnce the Iranian educated class gets accustomed to trade with the West, they won't allow their leadership to risk that.
The Iranian educated class don't need to give a shit about trade with the West, because they do what any other class of value do from shitty countries; they go to learn, shop, work and live in the West.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 19, 2012, 06:36:50 PMThere are a number of differences. The moral hazard of North Koreans starving to death. North Korea's history of repeated backsliding. North Korea's closeness to their superpower patron China.
Would you say that this difference in dynamics is fundamental?
Quote from: Jacob on April 19, 2012, 06:55:52 PM
Would you say that this difference in dynamics is fundamental?
To what?