Skip to main content

View Diary: I am not Surprised by Republican Reactions to the Iran Nuclear Deal (94 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Pancake (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Tehran is told by the U.S., again and again, and over again, that for sanctions to be lifted, enrichment must stop and inspectors be allowed unfettered access to verify.

    Now, suddenly, without Iran’s agreement to the complete inspection regime the International Atomic Energy Agency has said is needed to ensure its program is peaceful, sanctions can be loosened, for little more than a promise, on a hope, a futile and foolish hope that the new president of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, speaks for a real change from the bluntly spoken, strategic ambitions of his predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, despite that the real power, the Ayatollah Khamenei, remains, with a steadfast grip upon any ambitions in his extremist, Islamic regime, a regime supporting the murderous dictatorship of Assad, in Syria, and fueling the suicidal missions of Islamic-terrorist organizations throughout the world.

    Nonetheless, the deal has been struck, to provide relief from sanctions of up to $7 billion in exchange for an initial, six-month agreement on temporarily halting uranium enrichment beyond the peaceful-use limit of five percent — continuing enrichment was an Iranian prerequisite for any agreement.  R. Nicholas Burns, shortly before the early-morning agreement was reached between Iran, the U.S. and five other nations negotiating in Geneva, said, “We’ll retain huge leverage, the leverage that comes from cutting into their oil sales.”  Burns was the Bush administration’s undersecretary of state for policy, who organized that administration’s first sanctions against Iran.

    But what part of the Bush fiasco with N. Korea’s sanctions did Burns play?  And even if he did not contribute to that blunder, he has no special insight to validate that any change in Iran’s nuclear ambitions has taken place, other than the method of its stall tactics, from Ahmadinejad’s threatening bluntness to Rouhani’s most assuredly deceptive utterances of cooperation.  The pancake has just flipped, the side facing up gone from cool to warm.

    The president, citing a “profound responsibility” to test diplomacy, has no special insights either, but only hopeful optimism, with which he also said, “Today… diplomacy opened up a new path toward a world that is more secure, a future in which we can verify that Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful and that it cannot build a nuclear weapon.”

    That very much remains to be seen, while unseen, it is more likely, deep, underground where a different hope is pressing more feverishly than ever upon those who, in a flash, would see Iran’s sands turned to glass, gaining it the “respect” that Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Zarif, after the agreement was reached, oddly made a point of saying the world owes to his country.

    •  I can't tell from the writing here why the (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      melfunction, zozie

      diarist decided to quote R. Nicholas Burns if he understood correctly that -

      he has no special insight to validate that any change in Iran’s nuclear ambitions has taken place, other than the method of its stall tactics
      It seems contradictory to me.  There's no link to a source. Google picked up just two for the quote:
      India Times and South China Morning Post. No doubt it will be repeated in other publications as the day wears on.

      The IAEA will have unprecedented access to verify compliance with the P5+1 agreement and there's no hint here about what they wanted that it won't provide.

      It's possible that R. Nicholas Burns was given attribution for the quote by India Times in error and the diarist repeated it.

      William J Burns, not R. Nicholas Burns, was one  of the US lead negotiators for the P5+1 agreement.

      Bill is the US Deputy Secretary of State, and a career dipolomat who was the Ambassador to Russia from
      2005-2008.  Iran and North Korea weren't part of his portfolio at that time.

      R. Nicholas Burns was US Undersecretary of State from 2005-2008.  He appeared before Congress in 2006 to testify at a hearing on the nuclear non-proliferation diplomatic efforts with North Korea at that time.  He has nothing to do with the new agreement with Iran and no position in the current administration.

      The quote would make more sense coming from Bill.

      There is no existence without doubt.

      by Mark Lippman on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 09:24:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Pancake (0+ / 0-)

        R. Nicholas Burns, according to the New York Times, made the statement about the, then, proposed Iranian accord.  In the writing, he was not tied to the negotiations with N. Korea in the Bush terms.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site