Here’s a transcript.
The bottom line seems to be this:
Netanyahu’s argument that we can get a better deal is:
Does anyone agree?
I don’t see why we would think that we could get a better deal if only we tried harder. Even assuming the US could maintain the international pressure on Iran if we fail to reach an agreement in this round (and that seems doubtful to me), why does Iran need this more than the US or Israel?
I honestly have zero belief whatsoever that Netanyahu has any interest in any negotiated settlement that involves anything short of complete Iranian capitulation on every item. I also believe a substantial portion of Congress agrees with him.
That being said, whose side is time on? I can only think of two parties: 1) Iran, because they will in all likelihood continuing inching closer to the capability to build a bomb in a shorter and shorter period of time; and 2) those who want things to get so hairy that a military attack on Iran is justified.
I believe a mostly good, but imperfect deal sooner is way, waaaaay better for the U.S. and the rest of the world than sandbagging the issue to the benefit of groups 1 and 2.
I don’t think Iran really cares whether it gets nukes, but it doesn’t want the rest of the world to think it has given up. That said, I think Netanyahu has Israel’s interest in mind, and not the US’s. As he should. And we should remember that our interests don’t always align with those of Israel.
I’m all for better relations with Iran as I think our interests in the region are actually more closely aligned with Iran’s than to Saudi Arabia’s. We obviously have to play the game with both of them, but we don’t gain anything by sidelining Iran.
Because it would end the sanctions?
This assumes not only that we could continue the sanctions if we demand a better deal, but that there’s some reason to believe they will give us even more leverage than they are giving us now.
Is there any reason to believe either premise?
Well, from what I understand Iran is seriously hurting under the current sanction regime as well as in real trouble because of the Saudi continuation of oil production at previous levels instead of ramping down as demand dropped world wide, so I guess it’s reasonable to assume that Iran would want to do a deal to alleviate the sanctions under this pressure. I’m not saying this is what will happen, but I suppose it’s plausible.
Iran, unlike the North Koreans (to an extent) actually has to work in the wider world. They have to trade and they don’t have a large super power basically subsidizing their crazy shit like the North Koreans do, so they are more susceptible to external pressures (though the NKs aren’t immune, especially when it comes to food) and also more sensitive to how these pressures affect their own population (unlike the NKs who don’t seem to mind if a few million starve as long as they get bigger rockets). Whether backing Iran into a corner and beating them up when we can (assuming we can) is a good idea is another issue, but I guess Netanyahu isn’t totally off the wall with this.
That’s how we got to where we are today.
To buy Netanyahu’s argument, you have to have some reason to believe that our leverage will be greater in the future than it is now. (And that we will be able to keep sanctions at least as tight as they are now.)
Maybe the nature of the sanctions is that the longer they last the more desperate Iran will become. But has that ever been born out in the history of modern sanctions regimes? Cuba? Iraq? North Korea? ISTM, the usefulness of sanctions is getting Iran to the bargaining table now. The longer we wait, the higher the likelihood that the sanctions regime is weakened by other powers who lose patience for the US negotiations or Iran simply adapts to them.
The core problem as I see it is that Iran is very anxious to play a leadership role, especially in the ME and Muslim world, but also on the world stage as well. So they can’t do anything that will be perceived as capitulation. Even if they were willing to forgo the nukes, they need to be able to walk out of negotations with their heads held high. I think they would pay (more accurately: make their people pay) a very heavy price before they accepted what they think would humiliate their country.
[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
To buy Netanyahu’s argument, you have to have some reason to believe that our leverage will be greater in the future than it is now. (And that we will be able to keep sanctions at least as tight as they are now.)
[/QUOTE]
Well, I don’t see any mounting pressure to lower the sanctions, but I haven’t been really paying that much attention to Iran and the circus lately. However, due to economic pressures right now, pressure on the regime IS mounting right now and coupled with the sanctions it makes sense that this pressure could force concessions now and in the immediate future. From what (little) I understand, the price of oil isn’t likely to raise back to where it was even a year ago, though it is on the rise right now. But unless it goes up quite a bit Iran is kind of fucked (which is probably at least part of why SA is doing this, again from what I understand), so this might be a good time to wring further concessions out of them on this, assuming you think that getting concessions from Iran and preventing them from getting nuclear weapons is a good idea. Pretty obviously, Netanyahu and Israel does think this, and it’s in their best interests to push this. Whether it’s in OUR best interest is, again, another question.
That sounds right to me. That’s why the people pressing for harsher sanctions right now are either delusional about the psychology at play or are deliberately trying to force an escalating conflict.
The Secretary of the Treasury has said that whether the sanctions would continue if this round of talks fails depends on whether the US or Iran gets blamed for the failure. If we suddenly raise our demands to accord with Netanyahu’s requests, it seems likely that we will get blamed and some combination of Russia, France, and China will walk away.
If Obama holds out for a better deal in hopes of oil prices staying low, when he had a good-enough deal in his hand, and then oil goes back to $80-100 he will have committed gross malpractice. Especially if the sanctions regime falls apart, to boot.
And what would constitute a better deal? Netanyahu’s demands* strike me as fairly maximalist and I think F-P is right that Iran will never agree to a totally face-losing deal. An inspections program combined with the threat of renewed sanctions strikes me as a good enough deal.
*From what I can tell, he wants the total eradication of any and all nuclear infrastructure from Iran.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the deal that is being discussed right now has a sunset in it. That is, in 10 years, if Iran complies, all restrictions on them go away and they can do whatever they want, including developing nuclear weapons.
I’d like it explained exactly how that deal is “good-enough” and how it squares with the promises by Obama and Rice that “We will not let Iran have a nuclear weapon. Period.”.
I think the idea is that if we have to start the process over again in 10 years, then so be it. Iran is already balking at the 10 year timeline.
Okay.
You are wrong. If you look at the actual article referenced in the Charles Krauthammer op-ed you linked to instead of just repeating Krauthammer’s oversimplified version of it, it explains why it’s not true that the agreement being sought would stipulate that Iran “can do whatever they want” if enrichment restrictions are eventually lifted. Continued constraints could include IAEA compliance monitoring, extended breakout period, and stockpile restrictions.
In 10 years, after the agreement sunsets, if Iran starts working towards a nuclear weapon and we don’t want them to do that, we can rebuild a case for sanctions and reimpose them. What am I missing?
Incidentally I don’t endorse Obama and Rice drawing that particular red line.
ETA: sorry, saw JM said the same thing.
Bottom line: Obama is deliberately creating a weak, toothless agreement, KNOWING it will be unacceptable to Israel. And Obama sees that as a feature, not a bug.
WhY do you suppose Obama aides are “privately” tellking reporters that PM Netanyahu is “chickenshit”? Why that particular adjective? They could have called him any number of ugly adjectives- why THAT one? Why an adjective that connotes cowardice?
Because the USA is playing a game of “Let’s You And HIM Fight.”
Obama doesn’t want to take any kind of hard line with Iran, but he also doesn’t want Iran to get nukes. What’s his “plan”? Try to get Israel to do his dirty work for him. Hey, Israel took out Iraq’s nuclear porgram ages ago. Obama wants them to do the same in Iran. If Obama and his cowardly anonymous aides keep needling Netanyahu, questioning his manhood, they figure Israel may take miltary action against Iran, and save Oabama the need to do anything (except get on his own high horse and proclaim what a tragedy it was that Israel resorted to violence).
IF that works, Iran loses it nukes, Israel looks like the bad guy to the rest of the Middle East, and Obama gets to pretend he disapproves of Israel’s belligerence.
So Obama’s Grand Plan is to:
And the political calculus here is…what exactly?
What a good thing that the Israeli leadership is far too intelligent and self-disciplined to fall for such a dastardly trick.
I don’t think the Iranian government particularly wants either nuclear weapons or a deal to end sanctions and ease relations. They want the strife and tension that such precarious negotiations create in order to deflect any blame the Iranian people may feel is warranted for poor economic and political conditions to Israel and the US. An attack by the US or Israel would be a godsend for the present regime – it could serve to greatly unite the Iranian people (thousands of whom would invariably be killed by any allied attack) with their government, and I think the Iranians are well aware of the fact that the US population would not allow the massive expenditure of money and servicepeople’s lives that an actual ground invasion would cost.
And I think Netanyahu is playing the same game (based on his repeated falsehoods as reported by Israeli media from Israeli intelligence sources), though to a much lesser extent – he needs the Iranian threat for his political survival.
In light of this, I think the current, very cautious and careful approach by the US and European allies is the right one – allow Iran to play along and play the bad guy as long as they don’t actually do anything to actually get close to having nuclear weapons (and they’re not at all close right now, based on the intelligence available to the public), while not actually giving way on anything substantial.