Obama launches diplomacy with Tehran after quietly accepting Iran’s current nuclear capabilities
Obama launches diplomacy with Tehran after quietly accepting Iran’s current nuclear capabilities.
Iranian President Rouhani conspicuously avoided shaking the hand President Barack Obama extended to his government at the UN Tuesday, Sept. 24, by absenting himself from the UN reception for world readers. He made this gesture under strong international spotlight to underscore the value Iran places on being respected as an equal in the negotiations ahead with the United States, Iranian sources stress.
Although his words were relatively mild for an Iranian revolutionary, Rouhani nonetheless made no concessions on Tehran’s fundamentals: “Acceptance of and respect for implementation of the right to enrichment inside Iran and enjoyment of other related nuclear rights provides “the only path to the framework to manage our differences.”
Obama knew the “handshake rebuff” was coming, yet he went through with his announcement of direct engagement with Iran earlier Tuesday. To give his rhetoric weight, he demonstratively instructed Secretary of State John Kerry to take charge of the pursuit of “face to face negotiations” with Tehran.
The link Obama made in his speech between the Iranian and Palestinians negotiating processes as the two focal issues of his Middle East policy was further embodied by his appointment of the same official, John Kerry, to take charge of both tracks. This has placed Israel at a disadvantage on both fronts.
Kerry finds the Iranian track in good shape. It has been secretly active for the past two months between president Obama and Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Rouhani, as first revealed by debkafile. Oman’s Sultan Qaboos was their go-between.
The Secretary of State wins a flying start from the four points of agreement they have already reached:
1. Iran’s nuclear capabilities will be preserved in their present state. Tehran has already pocketed respect for its right to enrich uranium and keep back in the country all accumulated stocks, including the quantities enriched to the 20 percent level (a short hop to weaponised grade).
2. Tehran accepts a cap on the number of centrifuges enriching uranium at the Natanz facility. The exact number has not been decided.
The number of machines for enriching uranium to 5 percent is still at issue. There are no restrictions on centrifuges generating a lower level of purity.
Discussions on this point have not been finalized, since Washington wants to limit the number of advanced IR2 and IR1 centrifuges in operation and Tehran is holding out against this,
3. Iran will sign the Additional Protocol of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty-NPT, which allows International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors to make unannounced visits outside declared nuclear sites, when they are suspected of carrying out banned operations.
It will also allow the IAEA to install cameras in the chambers where the centrifuges are spinning and not just the areas where the enriched uranium is deposited.
Here too, it is not clear whether Tehran will also stipulated that Israel sign the same article and permit inspections of its reputed nuclear sites.
4. The US and European Union will gradually lift all sanctions.
The linkage President Obama made between the Iranian and Palestinian negotiating tracks is puzzling:
Does it imply that the more land Israel gives up on the West Bank for a Palestinian state, the more heavily he will lean on Iran to give up its nuclear weapons program?
Was the president suggesting that if Israel is ready to evacuate settlements and reach a land swap deal with the Palestinians, he will be all the more ready to use force to preempt a nuclear-armed Iran?
If that is the president’s thinking, he is giving the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, by accepting or rejecting the extent of Israeli concessions, the power to determine the endgame of US nuclear negotiations with Iran.
Does that make sense?
Obama’s interconnection of the two issues, if that can be extrapolated from his words, is self defeating: It would allow Tehran to carry on with its nuclear weapons program while spouting more pacific slogans to the American public and Binyamin Netanyahu to refuse to pull Israel out of substantial areas in Judea and Samaria, while advising the Palestinians to be satisfied with the control they have over seven West Bank cities and their economic autonomy.
Buried under the verbal avalanche produced in two days of UN business, was a major diplomatic concession tossed by Obama at Iran’s feet: His call on the UN Security Council to enforce Syria’s compliance with the international ban on chemical weapons as a major challenge to the international community.
First he shunted the Syrian chemical issue aside by relegating to the US Congress a decision on limited US military intervention.He then put it on the table for a US-Russian deal in Geneva; and finally he has passed it on to the UN. The Russians have made it clear that they will block any Security Council measures that would hold Syria to account for non-compliance with the Chemical Weapons ban.
So the buck-passing has reached a dead end and Iran’s ally Bashar Assad is off the hook for using poison gas against his own people.
Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized
WarSclerotic 
September 25, 2013 at 2:27 PM
“White House officials say that despite President Obama’s stated willingness to discuss Iran’s nuclear program, Iranian officials said no to the possibility of a meeting between Obama and Iran leader Hassan Rowhani at the United Nations.”
Iran is now calling the shots while Israel’s been kicked to the curb.
Netanyahu can huff and he can puff, but that’s all he can do!
Israel’s Churchill? What a joke. He’s not worthy to carry the mans slippers!!
September 25, 2013 at 2:54 PM
”It is written!”
September 25, 2013 at 3:03 PM
I’ve been a Netanyahu fan for decades and also bought into the Churchill thing….. No more…..
September 25, 2013 at 3:05 PM
BTW. iiw!
September 25, 2013 at 3:23 PM
To Joseph Wouk :
Lately, on this site, a certain person is making inflammatory critic on Israel and its leadership. I myself was attracted in this kind of (mud) discussion with this person some days ago and I decided not to refer to its comments regarding Israel and its PM.
However, when his comments regarding my country and its leadership were like this one above, and when we can see a method in his incendiary affirmations, we have to put this issue openly here, because this isn’t a site for trolls in disguise. Artaxes himself, a fine commentator here, found himself in an unpleasant position with this person; no explanations, even very elaborated ones, wont help this person because he isn’t interested in understanding what one is explaining to him, but to criticize non stop Israel and to throw here provocations.
The name of this ”person” on internet is ”John Prophet” and we think that he jumped over his nose here, on this site for a too long period of time. Joseph can take some time and see for our late ”discussion” and for this ”person” discussion with Artaxes, discussion which took a similar path with mine.
If Joseph – which I tried to contact by Skype – is thinking that this ”person” is doing positive things here, by provoking such reactions – troll typical attitude – than we will be the first to regret this.
Luis
September 25, 2013 at 3:42 PM
Ya know Luis, seems my honest/personal assesments are no longer wanted here by people like you and Artaxes. So I bid you all adieu
September 25, 2013 at 4:28 PM
Everyone here at one time or another has criticized the US and its leadership. I admit sometimes it gets under my skin as well, but I understand the delicate position of Israel and the lack of CURRENT leadership here in the USA. I also appreciate the understanding and respect we all have for each other.
So far, no one has really ‘flamed’ another contributor to JW’s site that I know of. Although I don’t always agree with everyone all the time, I do, however, respect everyone’s differing opinions and have found common ground with many of you guys, JP included. Without this disagreement and differing views, how can we all advance the discussion?
I, for one, hope no one leaves this forum or even feels compelled to do so.
September 25, 2013 at 4:35 PM
Its internet troll typical attitude regarding the ”person” I just spoke about.
If you have doubts, ask Artaxes. You can ask me, too.
September 25, 2013 at 4:50 PM
Thanks LS, you know you’re right! Many on this site have trashed Obama and American left and right, but god forbid opinions might flow another way. I’ve enjoyed my time here, but enough is enough. The troll tag did it for me. It was nice to meet you, and good luck with this bunch.
September 25, 2013 at 5:46 PM
I watch the comments here. I trash trolls. I don’t agree with a lot of what is said. That doesn’t make the people whom I disagree with trolls.
Luis, I do not agree that JP has been trolling. Yes, he’s anti-Netanyahu and thinks Israel’s in trouble. He can join forces with a good portion of the Israelis not only in the press but in the general public.
Artaxes and Luis are both great contributors here. John Prophet is also one of the top posters.
Here’s the breakdown of the last 1,000 comments:
Commenter Comments
Luis 211
John Prophet 148
Louisiana Steve 127
artaxes 82
defencetoday.com 70
Norm 48
josephwouk 46
As you can see, John is a MAJOR contributor here, and I for one appreciate that.
Ganging up on a commenter because you don’t like his point of view reeks of the kind of “political correctness” censorship that is ruining the free exchange of ideas in the West.
We’re not talking about racism or hate speech here. I take care of that shit. We’re talking about ideas that don’t jibe with your own.
John, if it’s up to me I’d be sad to see you go.
Please in the future appeal to me directly if you have a problem with comments here. Do not post your negative views about other commenters. Even if it’s not vicious, it is hurtful and unfair.
It’s always OK to say you disagree. Why isn’t that good enough?
Everyone who comments here on a regular basis is a brother in arms to me. We have to hang together my friends, or (you know!)
Cheers, and good wishes to all who read this!
Joseph Wouk
September 25, 2013 at 6:04 PM
I respectfully disagree with your lines, Joseph. Its clear that you didn’t look deep into my last ”discussion” with the ”person” called John, after you personally criticized me for being too harsh on him, and after my response you didn’t react.
Artaxes also was served with the same ”style”, but it appears that nobody here is really paying attention to the ”comments” of this person, non constructive criticism in Israel direction, mocking its prime minister in a difficult period.
”John Prophet”, if he is a really person, can enter here 200 times a day; its the quality of the comment that is important.
But, Joseph, you are the moderator here. You think that everything is all right with that person. I think is not.
Always with respect, as it was first time, Luis.
September 25, 2013 at 6:12 PM
Luis…
It’s possible I missed something, I suppose. If there’s something specific you feel I should look at, just email it to me.
My respect right back at ‘ya!
Just remember, I have to keep this site open and interesting to all those of good will. My own opinions get inflamed sometimes, but it’s my obligation to the openness of the site that makes me control my reaction.
It’s also what makes me feel the need to keep the level of discourse here on an even keel.
September 25, 2013 at 11:49 PM
WTF is going on here?
I’m coming back from a day of hard work only to see this stuff here going on and my name thrown around.
What is this talk about ganging up?
First of all, and you can read through all my comments here or on my blog, I never called for the banning of everyone or for deleting of comments not even our ‘friend’ renbe or our very special ‘friend’ tony.
I value free speech and as of now I am very pleased with the freedom of speech that I have here and the way you handle the comments here.
In the case of ‘friends’ like tony what you did was totally justified and I have no problem with that.
Also I don’t care how I rank in the comments and it shouldn’t really matter if someone made 10 or 1000 comments.
I care only about the truth.
In the case of John Prophet, I’ve made no secret that I dislike his behaviour and his kind of ‘discussion’ but talking about ganging up, that’s too much.
I have made very harsh towards Obavez but I’ve always made it clear that my comments are not directed toward the American people or toward America as a country.
Everyone who read my comments should know that I admire America and the ideals for which it stands or for which it stood up to now.
If anything, I’m so harsh against Obavez because I’m worried about America.
I believe that the west has a common interest and common enemies.
Even in my criticism about Iran I make the distinction between the regime and the Iranian people.
I also have to put up with sometimes very harsh criticism about Europe.
If justified I have to accept it, whether I like it or not.
But there are sometimes totally unjustified criticisms of Europe or blatant untruths.
It is only in the most blatant cases that I intervene.
The same should apply to criticism of Bibi.
BUT.
When someone like John Prophet reacts to Luis’ criticism of Obavez like this
“Sir, I will cross swords with you now. I did not vote for the man but he is my President. Stop whinning about being deserted, strap on a set and act like a man. You’re embarrising yourself!!!”
and then he goes on to trash Bibi, not only does he stoop to ad hominem attacks but also he displays double standard and hypocrisy.
That is why I can understand that Luis was pissed off.
I’ve nothing against a tough, sharp argument but the toughness should always be directed against the argument and not against the person who makes the argument.
He used the same tactic on me but that’s another story …
Now, there is one more thing.
There are opinions that I don’t share, but at least I can understand them.
John constantly, like a broken record, tells us that America is energy independent.
Therefore America can retreat from the world and leave the world to care for itself. I don’t agree with this, but I can understand it.
The US has long enough carried the weight for the world. I don’t agree but I can understand it.
To hell with America’s allies and friends. Dump them. We don’t need them. What do we care. We are doing just fine. I don’t agree but I can understand it.
He is fine with obavez throwing ally after ally of the US under the bus. I don’t agree but I can understand it.
He also seems to be ok with the fact that Obavez is doing everything he can to make it as hard as possible Israel defending itself against the Iranian threat. I don’t agree but even that I can understand.
He defends obavez, by stating that the president is just doing what he thinks is in America’s interest. I don’t agree but I can understand it.
But for the life of me, I cannot understand that then he goes on to tell us that he cares abut Israel and her survival and his criticism, hard as it may be, is only about his care for Israel because this is inconsistent with all of the above.
It is this blatant inconsistency combined with his more aggressive comments lately that, I’m sure, lead Luis to call him a troll.
And for the record, No I’m not calling for banning anyone or for censorship.
I’m just stating the obvious.
September 25, 2013 at 8:36 PM
President Obama’s abysmal leadership – yet nobody cares
http://www.madisdead.blogspot.co.il/2013/09/president-obamas-abysmal-leadership-yet.html