Did the WH pursue this? Can you cite that? Given the odds from the President it may have been Iran who came to us and this is just a smiley face on the inevitable increase in sanctions.
The letter itself acknowledged the softening of Iran’s position. So that was poor judgement to jump on the moderation moves with demands for tougher sanction. I am critical of that so why not?
I am even more critical of the crap that came from the same group as and after the interim deal was announced. There is nothing conducive to the diplomatic process in either case last summer or at Thanksgiving.
If you can argue that I’m wrong and you think demanding tougher sanctions is conducive to a peaceful outcome please do so.
It is silly to try to regulate what can and cannot be talked about specifically when there is no point in the letter that contradicts my viewpoint.
My point has no relationship to whether the authors of the summer letter knew about negotiations or not. That is a huge flaw in your reaction to my point.
You need to understand that simple fact.
Where did I tell you the ONLY thing that mattered was Dems agreeing with Republicans? Im saying what matters is calling for tougher sanctions AFTER Rouhani sent the world distinct signals that the Iranian people favored a more moderate stance in dealing with the West. The letter’s content has no bearing on that point and it never did. If the letter was all Democrats calling for tougher sanctions at that time last summer I would still have a major objection becsuse it is not conducive to the peaceful process being sought by the WH.
Did the White House pursue what?
Cite that the White House pursued something?
Regards,
Shodan
Third base!
The letter didn’t acknowledge a “softening” of Iran’s position. It acknowledged a pledge by Rouhani to re-engage in negotiations, but it clearly noted that “Iran’s position” is set by Khamenei, not Rouhani.
This is really funny, because I don’t have to search back to find where you said the content did not matter, because you say it in this very post. Emphasis added.
The content of the letter does not matter to the point I have made.
In what universe is this not acknowledging a softening of Iran’s position on it nuclear program?
That certainly is not a ‘hardening’ of position. It is definitely a change of position. That leaves ‘softening’ as one of the most apt position unless someone just wants to say silly things.
Is there anyone here who believes a proper response by US Senators to the above ackniwledged development is to publically implore that the President of the United States implement tougher sanctions against Rouhani as he becomes Iran’s potentially an open and moderate President?
your spelling aside… what?
Rouhani doesn’t set nuclear policy. Khamenei does. It’s no more complicated than that.
And Rouhani is not a “moderate”. He’s a hardliner who’s a little less hard line than some.
I agree with your first seven words. Khamenei obviously approved more transparency as Rouhani pledged.
So are you telling us that those 76 Senators were right in August to call for tougher sanctions before Rouhani and Khamenei had a chance to demonstrate whether their offer of transparency and cooperation could be considered genuine or not?
No, it was not clear that Khamenei approved that back in August.
I disagree with them, so no I don’t think they were right. What I think is that this is not a black and white issue and reasonable people can hold different views. I also think a lot of those Senators may know more about this issue than I do, so I’m not ready to presume they are acting out of bad faith.
The big message here is: what the fuck does it matter what the August letter said? It has been totally surpassed by events that can surely be called cautiously promising: namely, 6 countries and Iran have reached the interim agreement.
At this point, it wouldn’t matter much if the August letter asked Obama to urinate on an Iranian flag, because it didn’t happen and the situation today is far different than it was in the summer.
Exactly. I’m not supportive of Congresses efforts to “pre-approve” additional sanctions in case the preliminary deal turns out to be nonproductive 6 months down the road, but I also am not ready to believe any dire warnings from Iran about that, either. Iran has MUCH more to gain from an agreement than we do.
True enough, and you and I know this. But you and I do not believe that God Almighty is closely monitoring our behavior and will make the final decision on our fate depending on how closely we adhere to His will.
Iran’s constitution is a total mess, not a system of checks and balances but checks and checks. Absolute and final authority rests with the people, and their will is expressed by election. Absolute and final authority also rests with a council of Islamic clerics and the Supreme Leader. This was not seen to be a problem at the time, since there was no question of disagreement, its wasn’t even thinkable. These days, not so much.
We can certainly analyze Iran through the lens of reasoned analysis and base our expectations on that, but we will be wrong. Just as they can analyze our behavior in the light of our firm commitment to a War Against Islam and our willingness to see the entire Middle East go up in flames if its suits the interests of Israel. Every hard-nosed and firm approach we make underlines that narrative and offers aid and comfort to the enemies of peaceful accomodation.
Obama says the chances are 50/50 or less. I think he is being wildly optimistic, he is most likely lying, he oesn’t really believe that but is trying to offer some hope of progress. (In these instances, I find that sort of mendacity forgiveable.)
As a pessimist, I totally love being wrong. Should this peace scare blossom into fruit, I am entirely willing to come here and ruefully acknowledge my error, in the midst of bursts of giggling fits, because Goddamn! do I ever loves me some peace!
So, just to be clear, this is not a tightening of sanctions but a commitment to crack down on existing sanctions. If Iran is going to use this excuse to scuttle the talks, then I think this sends a message that they are not serious and are just looking for whatever excuse they can come up with to delay the process.
Of course, this is a negotiating tactic as old as the books. They need to return home to “consult with higher ups”. We’ll see if they come crawling back to the negotiation table or not.