Those
TV commercials emphasizing the word “and” rather than
“or” are the
key to understanding the basic proposition in the current P5+1 negotiations with
Iran.
In
the commercials, ecstatic consumers prefer to get x and y, as opposed to getting x or y. If it costs the same, who wouldn’t? Certainly, it’s what Iran would prefer,
in the current series of humorously named “negotiations”: relief from sanctions,
and the opportunity to continue
preparing for a nuclear breakout, with as few concessions to the P5+1 or a UN
monitoring program as possible.
Ideally, there would be another “and” in the mix: a lower, as opposed to
higher, probability of an attack by Israel on Iran’s nuclear weapons-related
facilities.
The
sequence of events in the last few days tells the tale. The negotiators met in Geneva. The potential for a deal
was disclosed by the Iranians. The
terms of the deal, wildly unfavorable for the Western nations’ putative goals,
got a chorus of boos from Western defense hawks, as well as from Saudi Arabia and Israel. The Obama
administration uttered perfunctory disclaimers about there being no actual deal in prospect. Now the most recent
reports suggest the current round of talks will end without a
deal.
To
say the “negotiations” have an Alice in
Wonderland quality to them would be to stand that allusion on its head. It’s Alice in Wonderland that can take
lessons from the Iran-nuclear negotiations. Nothing makes sense, but there’s a
chorus proclaiming that it does, and the chroniclers chronicle industriously as
if the set-piece gestures and official fanfare are all leading
somewhere.
The
golden thread of truth is that Iran continues to simply withstand the gestures
and official fanfare. And it
appears that she’ll come out of this round with all the “and” she
wants.
First, readers, disabuse your minds of the false premise
that Iran wants a deal. That
premise is a figment of the Western media consumer’s imagination, created by the
diplomatic vehicle of negotiations – which implies a mutual search for agreement
– and the existence of a sanctions regime.
But
Iran doesn’t need a deal. In the absence of a deal, the Iranians
will just keep performing the uranium enrichment and other nuclear activities
they’ve been engaged in throughout the past decade. In fact, a deal could create the
inconvenient appearance of a change in the situation: a warning klaxon going
off, at a time when Iran prefers things to remain on autopilot. If an actual deal looked unfavorable
enough for Western objectives, it might impel Israel to do something
drastic. Avoiding a deal may very
well be Iran’s best option for now.
So it’s not Iran; it’s the other side
that wants a deal – and it’s not even all of them. ... [See rest at
links]UPDATE: France has vetoed any possible deal-it is over for now-will try again in a few weeks
CDR, USN (Ret.)
Hemet, CA
No comments:
Post a Comment