{"id":20767,"date":"2013-07-22T10:27:49","date_gmt":"2013-07-22T18:27:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/antiwar.com\/blog\/?p=20767"},"modified":"2013-07-22T10:27:49","modified_gmt":"2013-07-22T18:27:49","slug":"iran-war-weekly-july-22-2013","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/2013\/07\/22\/iran-war-weekly-july-22-2013\/","title":{"rendered":"Iran War Weekly | July 22, 2013"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>[Reprinted with the author&#8217;s permission. Reformatted for Antiwar.com.]<\/p>\n<p>Iran\u2019s newly elected president will take office on August 3, and negotiations about Iran\u2019s nuclear program are expected to begin in early September.  In the interim, intense and possibly important debates are taking place within the US policy-making elite about whether developments in Syria and Iran should prompt the United States to make more positive and creative diplomatic approaches toward Tehran.<\/p>\n<p>Among the most important efforts for a more positive diplomatic effort by the United States is a statement urging such an approach signed by (as of today) 131 members of the House of Representatives, the largest number of signatories ever received by a \u201cpro-Iran-negotiations\u201d congressional effort.  Among the 131 signers were a majority of the House Democrats.  Also, on July 15 a letter signed by 29 \u201cformer policymakers, diplomats, military officials, and experts\u201d called on President Obama to recognize the opportunities for diplomacy signaled by Rouhani\u2019s victory in Iran\u2019s presidential election.  Both of these documents, along with some discussion, are linked below.<\/p>\n<p>Needless to say, the \u201cbomb Iran\u201d crowd hasn\u2019t taken this lying down.  Their most significant effort came in an appearance by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu on the CBS program \u201cFace the Nation,\u201d which the New York Times echo chamber immediately characterized as \u201cIsrael Increases Pressure on U.S. to Act on Iran\u201d (the statement by a majority of the governing party was not characterized by The Times as putting pressure on anybody).  I\u2019ve linked several good\/useful analyses of Israel\u2019s post-(Iran) election dilemmas below.<br \/>\n<!--more--><br \/>\nI\u2019ve also linked several good\/useful articles on essays on Iran\u2019s election (free and fair?); the significance of the election for Iranian politics, and what we might expect\/hope for from a Rouhani presidency in terms of relations with the United States.<\/p>\n<p>Along with Iran\u2019s president election, the other event that may pressure the United States and its allies toward a nuclear accommodation with Iran is the apparently unstoppable disaster in Syria.  Again this week we learned of further disarray among the Syrian armed opposition, with the United States and the United Kingdom now hesitating to act on their stated intentions to send arms to the opposition, uncertain how to navigate among the more than 1,000 armed groups now active in Syria.<\/p>\n<p>Once again I would like to thank those who you who have forwarded this newsletter or linked it on your sites.  This \u201cissue\u201d and previous issues of the Iran War Weekly are posted at <a href=\"http:\/\/warisacrime.org\/blog\/46383\">War is A Crime<\/a>.  If you would like to receive the IWW mailings, please send me an email at fbrodhead@aol.com<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/warisacrime.org\/content\/iran-war-weekly-july-21-2013\">Please read the rest of this week&#8217;s report at WarIsACrime.org<\/a>. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>[Reprinted with the author&#8217;s permission. Reformatted for Antiwar.com.] Iran\u2019s newly elected president will take office on August 3, and negotiations about Iran\u2019s nuclear program are expected to begin in early September. In the interim, intense and possibly important debates are taking place within the US policy-making elite about whether developments in Syria and Iran should [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":61,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[17],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-20767","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-iran"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"meta_box":{"disable_donate_message":"","custom_donate_message":"","subtitle":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20767","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/61"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=20767"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20767\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":20780,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20767\/revisions\/20780"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20767"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20767"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20767"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=20767"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}