After bellicose comments and over-the-top US demands seemingly put to bed any hope that next weekend’s P5+1 talks on Iran’s nuclear program would accomplish anything, new reports suggest that there is sudden talk of a compromise.
Gone is the sudden US demand that Iran abandon the entirety of its civilian program and agree to unconditionally “surrender” all of its nuclear fuel to the West. There are reports that President Obama sent a message, by way of Turkey, that the US might theoretically be able to accept a civilian program under certain conditions.
Likewise, while Iran’s politicians were ruling out any change in enrichment, nuclear officials say that they are very close to producing all the 20 percent enriched uranium they’d need for fueling their medical isotopes reactor, and would abandon that level of enrichment at any rate once they got there.
None of this suggests a deal is imminent, but it could point to progress. Between this and the cajoling from China for both sides to show some “flexibility” during the talks, the meeting might have some conceivable hope for progress after all.
For there to be "negotiations" where "consent", rather than coercion, is involved there has to be at least some sort of faith by all parties the others will fulfill their agreed upon commitments at the end of the negotiations. It's clear the US, and particularly Israel (which isn't t even part of the P5+1 "talks" mind you), want "regime change" in Iran. Say what you will about the Iranian regime, these people aren't stupid. Is it realistic to assume Iran will "negotiate" and willingly make concessions to shorten their power–which is the objective of the US and Israel? I think such an assumption would be illogical. Can Iran be "forced" to make certain "concessions"…I suppose they could hypothetically…but that 'effort' has been ongoing anyway.
So what is Iran supposed to do to make Israel happy:
Shut down Fordow? Ummmm….why was it built in the fist place? As a "bargaining chip" to shut down almost immediately after it was built because the US and Israel say so? I don't think so….
Relinquish all "stockpiles" of uranium? Why not ask the Iranian regime to dig their own grave…that would probably be more efficient.
As I've said before: there are no "talks". Just think about it.
For there to be "negotiations" where "consent", rather than coercion, is involved there has to be at least some sort of faith by all parties the others will fulfill their agreed upon commitments at the end of the negotiations. It's clear the US, and particularly Israel (which isn't t even part of the P5 1 "talks" mind you), want "regime change" in Iran. Say what you will about the Iranian regime, however, these people aren't stupid. Is it realistic to assume Iran will "negotiate" and willingly make concessions to shorten their power–which is the objective of the US and Israel? I think such an assumption would be illogical. Can Iran be "forced" to make certain "concessions"…I suppose they could hypothetically…but that 'effort' has been/is ongoing anyway.
So what is Iran supposed to do to make Israel happy:
Shut down Fordow? Ummmm….why was it built in the fist place? As a "bargaining chip" to shut down almost immediately after it was built because the US and Israel say so? I don't think so….
Relinquish all "stockpiles" of uranium? Why not ask the Iranian regime to dig their own grave…that would probably be more efficient.
As I've said before: there are no "talks". Just think about it.
The circuit breaker is for a reconvened NPT Conference to be held in Jerusalem by the end of 2012. The Helsinki proposal is a trail balloon. These talks in Istanbul are of supreme importance to the future of the Middle East and the World.
See…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/23/nuclear-weap...