{"id":7630,"date":"2010-08-05T17:21:34","date_gmt":"2010-08-06T01:21:34","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/?p=7630"},"modified":"2010-08-05T17:21:34","modified_gmt":"2010-08-06T01:21:34","slug":"thursdays-iran-daily-talking-points","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/2010\/08\/05\/thursdays-iran-daily-talking-points\/","title":{"rendered":"Thursday’s Iran Daily Talking Points"},"content":{"rendered":"

from LobeLog<\/a>: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for August 5th, 2010:
\n<\/em><\/p>\n

Washington Post<\/a><\/em>: Columnist David Ignatius sat in on a journalists\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 session with President Barack Obama. Obama related that he was ready to resume negotiations with Iran over the nuclear issues as well as the situation in Afghanistan, albeit on different diplomatic tracks. Background briefers from the administration who followed Obama\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s chat with reporters said the renewed U.S. enthusiasm for talks is due to an intelligence perception that, as Ignatius put it, sanctions are \u00e2\u20ac\u0153beginning to bite\u00e2\u20ac\u009d and that Iran may be having technical troubles with it\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s nuclear program, therefore buying time for diplomacy. Obama restated his policy that he is not opposed to a peaceful Iranian nuclear program so long as there are \u00e2\u20ac\u0153confidence-building measures\u00e2\u20ac\u009d that show there are no moves towards weaponization.<\/p>\n

The Atlantic<\/em><\/a>: Marc Ambinder was in the same session with Ignatius, and posted a lengthy account to his blog. Obama said that if \u00e2\u20ac\u0153national pride\u00e2\u20ac\u009d doesn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t allow Iran to give up an alleged nuclear weapons program, then there will be a \u00e2\u20ac\u0153cost.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d The use of \u00e2\u20ac\u0153all options available to us to prevent a nuclear arms race in the region and to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Ambinder reports Obama as saying, pointing out that this is a euphemism for military strikes. Obama also spoke frankly about his difficulties getting Russia and China on board for sanctions, but said that the Iranians were \u00e2\u20ac\u0153surprised by how successful\u00e2\u20ac\u009d the U.S. push for international sanctions has been. Ambinder quoted an unnamed senior official who acknowledged that Obama intends to pursue a dual track in dealings with Iran: \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Given the technical problems they\u00e2\u20ac\u2122re running into, I think we have time to play out the diplomatic strategy that the president laid out, both engagement and pressure.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

The Atlantic<\/em><\/a>: Jeffery Goldberg was also in on the surprise presidential briefing (Obama\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s presence was not announced in advance). Goldberg interprets the session as a \u00e2\u20ac\u0153victory lap\u00e2\u20ac\u009d for the U.S.\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s effectiveness in passing sanctions, but remains personally skeptical that they will work to dissuade Iran from its nuclear program. In his interpretation of Obama\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s mention of \u00e2\u20ac\u0153all options\u00e2\u20ac\u009d remaining available, Goldberg writes, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153There is no chance Obama will take the military option off the table; there is a small chance, in my opinion, that he would one day resort to the use of military force against Iran\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s nuclear facilities.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Goldberg also notes that, despite Obama\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s upbeat presentation, negotiations might not work both because, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153one of the pillars of Islamic Republic theology is anti-Americanism,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d and because the Iranian leadership has effectively suppressed the opposition Green Movement, removing a threat from within that might have caused the regime there to bend to economic pressure.<\/p>\n

Commentary<\/a><\/em>: On the Contentions blog, Max Boot<\/a> picks up on Goldberg\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s skepticism (quoting him at length) and lambastes the notion of a \u00e2\u20ac\u0153victory lap.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Boot blames Obama for the intransigence of the Iranian leadership in negotiations thus far, proclaiming that they won\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t deal \u00e2\u20ac\u0153especially because Obama continues to talk of his burning desire to strike a deal with the mullahs, which only encourages their sense of invulnerability.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Boot suggests that negotiations should be abandoned because three decades of dealing with Iran have demonstrated that \u00e2\u20ac\u0153that the mullahs aren\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t misunderstood moderates who are committed to \u00e2\u20ac\u0153peaceful co-existence.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

Washington Post<\/a><\/em>: The Washington Post<\/em> published an unsigned editorial which appears to echo the recent White House talking points which were also mentioned by Geoffrey Goldberg<\/a>, Marc Ambinder <\/a>and Max Boot<\/a>. Obama is eager to show that the multilateral sanctions for which he finally gained Chinese and Russian support in June are bearing fruit. But the Post\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s editorial was quick to mention that \u00e2\u20ac\u0153all options\u00e2\u20ac\u009d are still on the table. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Yet, as Mr. Obama acknowledged, Iran is still pursuing nuclear weapons,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d and \u00e2\u20ac\u0153changing their calculations is very difficult. . . . It may be that their ideological commitment to nuclear weapons is such that they are not making a cost-benefit analysis,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d the president said. That, he added, is why the administration continues to say that \u00e2\u20ac\u0153all options\u00e2\u20ac\u009d for stopping an Iranian bomb are on the table,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d the editorial reported.<\/p>\n

National Review Online<\/a><\/em>: Cliff May<\/a>, at NRO, reviews a new report from the hawkish neocon-associated American Foreign Policy Council<\/a> (AFPC). A task force there, which includes two staffers from May\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s own Foundation for the Defense of Democracies<\/a>, among other neoconservatives, recently came out with a report that calls for \u00e2\u20ac\u0153An Economic Warfare Strategy Against Iran\u00e2\u20ac\u009d (PDF<\/a>). May calls the program \u00e2\u20ac\u0153sanctions plus.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d While the report was being drafted, May says task force participants briefed members of Congress, resulting in some of the report\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s recommendations already being codified in the latest round of U.S. sanctions signed into law last month. May concludes that the Iranian leadership is \u00e2\u20ac\u0153no more eager to attend diplomatic soirees than Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d and therefore the report\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s path of \u00e2\u20ac\u0153economic warfare\u00e2\u20ac\u009d is \u00e2\u20ac\u0153the only chance we have to avoid more \u00e2\u20ac\u02dckinetic\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 and lethal forms of conflict later.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d (Ed.\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s note: Expect more from LobeLog on the AFPC report in the coming days.)<\/em><\/p>\n

Weekly Standard<\/a><\/em>: Gabriel Schoenfeld gets all his facts wrong. He blames Hamas for a late July rocket strike on Askhelon in southern Israel, then blames Hezbollah for the latest clash at the Lebanese border between the IDF and Lebanese Army troops. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Hamas and Hezbollah are Iranian proxies. […] Are the ayatollahs preparing preemptive action of their own, taking the battle to the borders of the Zionist enemy?\u00e2\u20ac\u009d he asks tendentiously.<\/p>\n

Associated Press (via WaPo)<\/a><\/em>: George Jahn of the AP, writing from Vienna, gets an exclusive look at two letters that Iran sent out to diplomats. Iran\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s head nuclear negotiator wrote the EU foreign policy chief, saying that the imposition of a fourth round of UN sanctions during diplomatic talks on Iran\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s nuclear program was \u00e2\u20ac\u0153astonishing,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d U.S. and EU sanctions \u00e2\u20ac\u0153even more astonishing,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d and the whole situation \u00e2\u20ac\u0153absolutely unacceptable.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Iran\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s International Atomic Energy Agency representative wrote a second letter to the IAEA demanding, among other things, that Israel\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s covert nuclear arsenal be publicly discussed.<\/p>\n

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy<\/a><\/em>: Patrick Clawson<\/a> reports on claims that both Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his chief of staff have publicly mentioned plans to pursue 100-percent enrichment \u00e2\u20ac\u201d the level required for a nuclear weapon. According to Clawson, the lack of a western response to these remarks has reinforced the Iranian leadership\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s belief that they are changing \u00e2\u20ac\u0153world management.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Clawson then goes on to report on unsubstantiated reports that Ahmadinejad intends to usurp the Supreme Leader with his hardliner movement. Clawson suggests that now is the time for the U.S. to encourage Green Movement leaders to debate Ahmadinejad and show that his hardline policies have only brought greater isolation for the Islamic Republic. While the WINEP <\/a>scholar makes a good point that Iran\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s domestic politics are more complex than many westerners understand, he fails to consider that Ahmadinejad\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s boastful remarks may have exaggerated Iranian enrichment capabilities in order to mobilize domestic political support. On a day when reports are suggesting<\/a> that Iran \u00e2\u20ac\u201d partly due to technical difficulties with their nuclear program \u00e2\u20ac\u201d is interested in restarting negotiations with the U.S., it\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s unclear how Clawson\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s claim that Iran can enrich to 100-percent can be explained.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for August 5th, 2010: Washington Post: Columnist David Ignatius sat in on a journalists\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 session with President Barack Obama. Obama related that he was ready to resume negotiations with Iran over the nuclear issues as well as the situation in Afghanistan, albeit on different diplomatic tracks. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":71,"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":[3],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-7630","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"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\/7630","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\/71"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7630"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7630\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7631,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7630\/revisions\/7631"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7630"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7630"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7630"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=7630"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}