Is U.S. - Iranian deal doable? - Aaron David Miller

[WestCoastJoe]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/20/opinion/m ... ?hpt=hp_t1

Is U.S.-Iranian deal doable?

By Aaron David Miller, Special to CNN

updated 4:46 PM EDT, Fri September 20, 2013

Iran: We want 'constructive engagement'

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Aaron David Miller: Stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapon is a priority for Obama
Miller: A nuclear Iran would be dangerous and upset regional balance of power
He says Obama doesn't want to get involved with Syria partly to avoid complications with Iran
Miller: Not getting bogged down with Syria and working out a U.S.-Iranian deal would be wise

Editor's note: Aaron David Miller is a vice president and distinguished scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and was a Middle East negotiator in Democratic and Republican administrations. Follow him on Twitter.

(CNN) -- If you want to know the prime reason President Barack Obama didn't want to bomb Syria and why the Syrian deal on chemical weapons may actually work out, however imperfectly, think one word: Iran.

Sure the limited military option against Syria was always imperfect; it would neither have ended Syria's chemical weapons capacity nor removed its president, Bashar al-Assad. There was almost no public or congressional support for a military strike either. And one of the strategic objectives of the Obama presidency was getting America out of profitless wars, not into new ones.

But motivating the president too was the challenge and opportunity of Iran. And here's why.

Other than preventing another 9/11, there is no greater foreign policy priority for the Obama administration than stopping Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. That danger exceeds the risk and complexity of any other foreign policy challenge.

And the reason is simple. Unlike the Israeli-Palestinian issue or the so-called Arab Spring, Iran's quest for bomb or even a nuclear weapons capacity would upset the regional balance of power in a way no other single event could, trigger regional war, and in doing so create severe consequences for global financial and oil markets. In short, no other Middle Eastern regional event carries more serious domestic consequences for the United States, specifically threatening its economic recovery. And along with keeping America safe, that's the other great strategic objective of the Obama presidency Indeed, for a president whose main priority was -- and remains -- the well-being of the middle class, not the Middle East, Iran is a serious problem.

The notion of American credibility is thrown around these days with a kind of reckless abandon that tends to distort and trivialize its real importance. If Obama didn't push back against Israeli settlement activity, pundits said, his credibility would be undermined. If the president didn't act on his red line on the use of Syrian chemical weapons, his credibility would be damaged. And if Obama didn't strike Syria, his credibility would be shattered, the saying went.

All of these contingencies clearly eroded the president's prestige to a degree. Indeed, presidents should mean what they say and say what they mean. And they should try to ensure that the gap between their words and deeds is as small as possible.

But if the pursuit of credibility is handled without clear purpose, and with means that leaves presidential ends in worse shape, what's the purpose of the enterprise?

The pursuit of credibility can sometimes involve risk that makes the result worse than preservation of credibility itself. President Lyndon Johnson's focus on his personal credibility and the nation's in Vietnam was a classic example of courting risk and making an investment that was much too high and costly for an ill-defined notion of credibility. Striking Syria without public and congressional support and with no real strategy except for the purpose of protecting U.S. credibility just wasn't all that compelling. In fact, staying a threat and turning to diplomacy created the possibility of two breakthroughs that a strike could easily have eliminated.

The Iranian nuclear issue, however, represents a far greater threat to U.S. credibility and a far more serious need to protect it. Obama has repeatedly declared that he will not allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. Two of his predecessors made the same claim. So this issue cuts to the core of whether or not in the eyes of its friends, allies and enemies, the U.S. is reliable, competent and able to act through force or diplomacy to protect its own interests.

There are indeed similarities to Syria, but the foreign policy stakes are much higher. With the exception of a failure to stop another 9/11 type attack, is there any single foreign policy challenge that could damage this president more than allowing the Iranians to cross the nuclear threshold? The fact that Israel and the pro-Israeli community figure so centrally in this issue only complicates matters.

Indeed, Israel's own readiness to act unilaterally against Iran's nuclear facilities only highlights Obama's credibility problem. If Israel struck Iran, not only would Obama be accused of forcing Israel's hand by not pursuing tough enough policies toward Iran; but if the Israelis wanted to act and the U.S. president opposed them, he'd be accused of jeopardizing the security of a close ally. It is a no-win situation of galactic seriousness for this president. And as a result, finding a way to prevent Iran from weaponizing remains his highest foreign policy priority in the Middle East.

The Syrian tar baby

I've long believed but lack the empirical evidence to support it, that one of the main reasons that Obama -- wisely and willfully -- wanted to avoid getting involved in the Syrian civil war was the complications it would cause in finding a way out of the Iranian nuclear morass. The conventional wisdom in Washington has long been precisely the opposite -- That Syria offered an opportunity to weaken Iran; that undermining Assad by heavily supporting the opposition with military assistance , even the direct application of American military force, would weaken Teheran by striking at its key Syrian ally -- and Hezbollah too. This was deemed to be the new Great Game -- a smart and savvy move on the Middle East chess board.

The fact that for the past three weeks as the president debated what to do about Syrian chemical weapons capacity, he had also secretly engaged in an exchange of letters with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani that offered new flexibility with regard to a deal on the nuclear issue should give us pause as to whether Obama saw the Syrian situation the same way many analysts did. You might even make an argument that hastening al-Assad's demise might actually accelerate Iran's quest for a nuclear weapon as the mullahs felt the western-Sunni arc threatening a Shia Iran.

In fact, Obama may have well argued that hammering Damascus and engaging in a proxy war with the mullahs and likely the Russians too would have a made an Iranian deal harder to accomplish, particularly if a military strike hit Iranian assets in Syria. Indeed the president also presumably realized that he'd need the Russians on board any deal with Iran too and that a gigantic standoff with Putin over Syria wouldn't help.

It's clear that the threat of the U.S. striking Syria motivated Putin and perhaps al-Assad to an engage in a political process on chemical weapons. But how much impact that threat had in Tehran is an open question, particularly against the backdrop of so reluctant a U.S. public and Congress. Is it possible that the president's letter and his willingness to forgo force in Syria in favor of a diplomatic option might have preserved the prospects of deal with the mullahs? Can the prospect of diplomacy -- like the use of force -- work to deter, too? We'll see.

Governing is about choosing. And in seeking to stay out of militarizing the U.S. role in the Syrian civil war Obama has made a choice. He's been attacked for it and is likely to continue to be. Indeed, the U.S.-Russian deal to rid Syria of all chemicals weapons -- an iffy prospect at best -- won't rid Syria of al-Assad. In fact, it might just guarantee that he stays. Indeed, U.S. diplomacy with the mullahs on the nuclear issue -- like its diplomacy with the Russians on chemical weapons -- would tend to reinforce that status quo.

But Obama would accept an imperfect deal on Syrian chemical weapons and al-Assad in place nonetheless. To resolve one of the world's greatest challenges -- how to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon -- without a resort to America's or Israel's using force -- would be the most significant foreign policy achievement of his presidency. He'd earn his Nobel Peace Prize and in the process spare the world a major catastrophe.

It is that and not getting bogged down in Syria that the president wants to leave as a legacy. And next week in New York at the U.N. General Assembly he and his colleagues will begin to test the possibility that an U.S.-Iranian deal really is possible. It's bound to be a long movie and a wild ride, too. But luck, Iran's own calculations, and the president's willingness to use force to demonstrate prudence may well increase the chances of a success.

[WestCoastJoe]

Interesting article.

Aaron David Miller has worked in the U.S. state department for many Secretaries of State and Presidents.

He speculates that the new Iranian President Hassan Rouhani might bring a different agenda to the table than his predecessors.

[Sir Purrcival]

If it was only about the new guy, I would be more optimistic. But there is an entrenched power structure in Iran and you don't rise to that level of power by doing things that the supporters who put you there don't want. That power structure hasn't shown the least bit of interest in working with the US since the revolution and if working together would in any way threaten their authority, the rhetoric will start spewing fast and furious. If anything, the new President appears even more conservative than his predecessor at least in his style of dress. I will keep an open mind but I am not overly hopeful.

[South Pender]

I think Sir Purrcival is right. First, we have to realize that Rouhani, although superficially less thuggish-appearing than his predecessor, Ahmadinejad, is like Ahmadinejad, really little more than a puppet of the theocracy, ruled with an iron fist by the ayatollahs, with the current supreme head of state being Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He (Rouhani) is portrayed as "elected," but there's little doubt that had Ayatollah Khamenei wanted someone else as the face of the government of Iran, Rouhani would have been out. So we have to ask, what does the top ayatollah really want. My view--which could be dead wrong--is that he wants what all the ayatollahs since 1979, starting with Ayatollah Khomeini, have wanted, which is nuclear weapons. For the past 34 years, the U.S. has been the "great Satan" to the theocrats in Tehran, and, although it would be nice if their views had changed, and Rouhani's call for dialogue were sincere, it seems much more likely to me that it is a staged phenomenon, approved by Khamenei, designed to lull the U.S. and its allies into thinking that Iran really is a peace-loving country and will never pursue nuclear weapons (as Rouhani has promised). The truth, however, I suspect, is that Rouhani is singing from the same hymn-book that Ahmadinejad did (provided by the ayatollahs), albeit with a more pleasing voice.

The premise, put forth by Miller, that by preventing a strike on Syria for its use of chemical weapons, Obama was "wisely and willfully" pursuing a more important agenda (that involving the preventing of Iran's obtaining nuclear weapons) seems pretty thin in substance (as he admits based on no empirical evidence) and hard for me to believe. I think that there are other, quite obvious, reasons for Obama backing off on a Syria strike, not the least of which is his weakness with respect to foreign policy. Although I like a lot of what Obama brings to the U.S. government, my sole reservation at the time of the election was that he'd be weak with respect to Israel and unwilling to use American muscle when it was needed abroad. In my view (undoubtedly not shared by many others), Obama should have given the Syrian people about a 48-hour warning before going in with as many cruise missiles as were necessary to knock out completely Assad's ability to poison his own people. I don't believe he should have waited for an endless debate to start (as has happened). He should IMO have acted strongly and presented the case after the fact. There was certainly precedent--not to mention international law--to support acting without the support of the U.S. Congress.

Instead, political considerations took center stage, and the U.S., as a result, has looked weak internationally. The reason I think Miller is wrong is because I can see no downside to Obama's being strong and definitive with Syria, insofar as continuing relations with Iran are concerned. Just how does looking weak and indecisive improve America's bargaining position with Iran, and is bargaining even a reasonable strategy? Thugocracies like Syria and Iran just love the fact that America is bound by rules of civil and decent behavior and a political system that thrives on internal dispute (visualize all the possibilities for House Representatives and even Senators to posture and preen before the cameras as they build their case for re-election). These thugocracies, on the other hand, are not bound by any of this civility (if that's what it is), and can commit one atrocity after another and count on the U.S. to hesitate and then back down for fear of anti-war sentiment in the heartland and fear of political reprisals.

I'd be interested in James Calhoun's view on this if he's available.

[WestCoastJoe]

(CNN) -- If you want to know the prime reason President Barack Obama didn't want to bomb Syria and why the Syrian deal on chemical weapons may actually work out, however imperfectly, think one word: Iran.

Sure the limited military option against Syria was always imperfect; it would neither have ended Syria's chemical weapons capacity nor removed its president, Bashar al-Assad. There was almost no public or congressional support for a military strike either. And one of the strategic objectives of the Obama presidency was getting America out of profitless wars, not into new ones.

My view in SP's thread was that the U.S. should only with the greatest reluctance strike at Syria's chemical weapons holds. That is still true for me.

The pursuit of credibility can sometimes involve risk that makes the result worse than preservation of credibility itself. President Lyndon Johnson's focus on his personal credibility and the nation's in Vietnam was a classic example of courting risk and making an investment that was much too high and costly for an ill-defined notion of credibility. Striking Syria without public and congressional support and with no real strategy except for the purpose of protecting U.S. credibility just wasn't all that compelling. In fact, staying a threat and turning to diplomacy created the possibility of two breakthroughs that a strike could easily have eliminated.

The other notion is acting on behalf of helpless citizens, the targets of the chemical weapons. It would have been interesting to see if Obama would have acted without the agreement of Congress. I believe he would have acted.

It's clear that the threat of the U.S. striking Syria motivated Putin and perhaps al-Assad to an engage in a political process on chemical weapons. But how much impact that threat had in Tehran is an open question, particularly against the backdrop of so reluctant a U.S. public and Congress. Is it possible that the president's letter and his willingness to forgo force in Syria in favor of a diplomatic option might have preserved the prospects of deal with the mullahs? Can the prospect of diplomacy -- like the use of force -- work to deter, too? We'll see.

Russia certainly did get itself right into the middle of the situation. They may find that the world expects them to follow through, and not show their involvement to be a sham. Who can trust Putin? Who can trust Assad? But it just may be possible that the chemical weapons attacks are at an end, as a consequence of these developments.

But Obama would accept an imperfect deal on Syrian chemical weapons and al-Assad in place nonetheless. To resolve one of the world's greatest challenges -- how to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon -- without a resort to America's or Israel's using force -- would be the most significant foreign policy achievement of his presidency. He'd earn his Nobel Peace Prize and in the process spare the world a major catastrophe.

Is it possible that Iran is serious in its seemingly new attitude? Lots of reason for scepticism.

And next week in New York at the U.N. General Assembly he and his colleagues will begin to test the possibility that an U.S.-Iranian deal really is possible. It's bound to be a long movie and a wild ride, too. But luck, Iran's own calculations, and the president's willingness to use force to demonstrate prudence may well increase the chances of a success.

Is a deal possible? I have had many discussions with people from the region, friends and acquaintances. I think one has to pursue the possibility.

I would not have been critical of Obama if he had acted on behalf of the victims and the targets of chemical weapons. But I am also satisfied to see these recent developments, with Russia and Syria and Iran making agreeable noises. Noises only? Whatever ... Actions are still on the table. Military strikes can still happen.

[Toppy Vann]

The US just can't stay out of conflicts that they have no business in. It is apparently true that the US and CIA were high fiving Saddam for his use of gas on his people - but that was when the US was on his side in 1988.

The USA should subscribe to the world criminal court where this stuff is tried. Not act their own.

The US are wanting to attack based on the Bush - Cheney - Rumsfield doctrine - get them before they get you.

Funny how they let Saddam do this.

CIA 'helped Saddam Hussein carry out chemical weapons attack on Iran' in 1988 under Ronald Reagan

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2fb0Tk1mA
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Iraq used mustard gas and sarin in early 1988 in four major offensives which helped bring about the end of the eight-year conflict.

During the whole war, up to 20,000 Iranian troops were killed by mustard gas and nerve agents from Iraq and 100,000 were wounded.

They were able to launch the strikes after being given maps, satellite pictures and other intelligence by the U.S.

The Americans have always said that Iraq did not reveal that they would launch chemical strikes.

But documents released in the National Archives and interviews with former serviceman show that the U.S. acquiesced in the use of chemical weapons as they tried to help Saddam with the war

The pattern of these countries starting civil wars and expecting the west to take sides must end. Funny they didn't much intervene in African countries where people were/are being butchered all the time.

This potential new money waste by the USA about head over the fiscal cliff once again if they bomb Syria is ironic in that the gas has killed under 2000 (not to diminish this) while the body count is vastly higher around 100,000 and refugees are fleeinng in the 1.5 million range IIRC. But they are just looking for a reason to strike.

It is as one expert said to preserve their reputation as they drew the red line so now they have to fight.

This story is more on the gas by Saddam:

How the U.S. helped Saddam Hussein use chemical weapons against Iran
Washington is apparently ready to punish Syria for using poison gas, but a generation ago the calculus was different
By Harold Maass | August 26, 2013

http://theweek.com/article/index/248745 ... ainst-iran

The documents show that then-CIA Director William J. Casey, a close friend of then-President Ronald Reagan, had been told about Saddam's push to make enough mustard gas to keep up with demand on the front lines. "If the Iraqis produce or acquire large new supplies of mustard agent, they almost certainly would use it against Iranian troops and towns near the border," the CIA said in one top secret document.


It's worth noting that academic studies, not to mention U.S. government documents released in 2003, had long ago revealed that the U.S. knew that Iraq was deploying chemical weapons against Iran and still provided Saddam Hussein with intelligence assistance.



The new evidence suggests that the Reagan administration decided it was better to let Iraq continue with its attacks — and even point out potential targets — than let the war tip in favor of Iran's mullahs, who at the time were seen as the greater threat. The latest revelations "are tantamount to an official American admission of complicity in some of the most gruesome chemical weapons attacks ever launched," say Shane Harris and Matthew M. Aid at Foreign Policy.

One other thing. How about Iraq today? How is that working out? Violence has never been worse. Saddam was supported by Reagan as they didn't like Iran in 1988 (like pre-teens in the school yard). The US has left Iraq in a mess.

Every war in this region has a new word by the media and experts. This one is the "calculus" and how it is changed.

cal·cu·lus
/ˈkalkyələs/
Noun

The branch of mathematics that deals with the finding and properties of derivatives and integrals of functions, by methods originally...
A particular method or system of calculation or reasoning.

[South Pender]

I have to disagree with you Toppy on your point about the U.S. just wanting to strike Syria and looking for a reason to do so. I would say that events of the past month have shown just the opposite: the American public are overwhelmingly against such an attack, Congress seem to be against it, and it looks to me as if Obama is doing everything he can to save face while avoiding an attack. The motivation you describe may have been (likely was) true of the Bush-Neo-Con approach to Iraq, but Obama is not Bush, and, in fact, is an anti-war president. Frankly, I think the last thing he wants now is to strike Syria.

You're right, however, on the inconsistency in the U.S. approach to atrocities abroad, and the example of Rwanda is a good one.

How is Iraq today? You're right in noting the uptick in sectarian and terrorist violence in the country, but a larger question might be whether the average Iraqi is happier, freer, and more optimistic today than when living under Saddam. I don't know the answer to that question, but it might well be the case that the general population feels better now that they're out from under a heavy, repressive, and dangerous regime.

My concern is that we not be hoodwinked by Iran slicking back its hair and looking pretty--promising to act like responsible world citizens. The change from Ahmadinejad to Rouhani is cosmetic only; the ayatollahs are still fully and completely in control, and I can't see a reason for them to all of a sudden become peaceful when their history, since 1979, is just the opposite. Although we all want to be hopeful that the Middle East won't explode into region-wide violence, we can't just take the new Iranian president's word for their intentions. To do so, and let down our guard (and to reduce our continuing insistence that no further uranium enrichment to weapons-grade levels take place) would be naive in the extreme, and very likely lethal. It's fine to dialogue with the Iranians, but all inspection protocols and on-the-ground intelligence must be kept at a high state. Nothing must change in this regard.

Oh BTW, use of the term "calculus" is not at all new. It's a typical pseudo-techno term for "thinking," as in "the new calculus in the Middle East is...." So it corresponds roughly to "calculation" in this sense, but is just another example of politicians and pundits trying to dress up their often-vacuous utterances by bringing in scientific-sounding words to give their bumf more gravitas and sound more grounded in science. My favorite example of this is "parameter."

[WestCoastJoe]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/20/politics/ ... =allsearch

No Iran meeting yet, but Obama's U.N. visit will center on region

By Kevin Liptak, CNN White House Producer

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
The U.N. General Assembly begins Monday in New York
President Obama will speak on Tuesday
He is not slated to meet with Iran's new president but the White House has not ruled it out
A meeting would take place amid signs Iran may be willing to halt its nuclear program

Washington (CNN) -- With a potential diplomatic solution at hand in Syria and new signs emerging that Iran may be willing to halt its nuclear program, President Barack Obama will provide an updated assessment of the American approach to the Middle East during the annual United Nations General Assembly that begins Monday in New York.

Obama currently is not slated to meet with Iran's new president, Hassan Rouhani, though the White House has not ruled out face-to-face diplomacy between the two leaders. Obama and Rouhani exchanged letters in the months since the Iranian president was elected in June, and on Friday Rouhani wrote in an opinion piece he was open to "a constructive approach" toward areas of contention with the United States, including its nuclear program.

"The fact of the matter is, we don't have a meeting scheduled with President Rouhani, but again, we're always open to diplomacy if we believe it can advance our objectives," Obama's deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, told reporters during a conference call Friday, adding that Obama has said since 2007 that he'd be willing to negotiate directly with Iran without preconditions.

In addition to the letters with Obama and an op-ed piece in Friday's Washington Post, Rouhani has granted interviews to western news outlets, including one with CNN next week.

"We must work together to end the unhealthy rivalries and interferences that fuel violence and drive us apart," Rouhani wrote in the Post Friday.

Publicly, the White House has viewed Rouhani's latest outreach attempts skeptically, saying U.S. officials will look for actions, not words, on halting nuclear enrichment. Rhodes said Friday that Rouhani's actions to date were "clearly not sufficient to meet the concerns of the international community with regards to the nuclear program."

But the charm offensive, apparently sprung from tough economic sanctions currently in place in Iran, prompted speculation that Obama and Rouhani would meet at next week's U.N. general assembly. If they did, it would be the first meeting between an American president and Iranian counterpart since Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution.

"I can't predict every interaction that might take place at different levels at the U.N.; it's possible that there could be some interaction at different levels, but there's just simply none planned at this moment," Rhodes said later when asked if there were any scheduled meetings between members of the American and Iranian delegations.

Obama will hold bilateral meetings next week with the leaders of Nigeria and Lebanon, as well as with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas -- the first time the two have met since direct Mideast peace negotiations restarted earlier this year. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is scheduled to visit the White House at the end of September.

During his address to the U.N. on Tuesday, Obama will use events in the Middle East and Africa to explain the evolving role of the United States in that area of the world, Rhodes said Friday.

"Given the complexity and breadth of challenge that we face in the region, the president will lay out an update of America's approach, how we see our interests, how we're going to be pursuing and prioritizing our policies going forward," he said.

That address will include a section on Syria, and the use of chemical weapons there. The United States and Russia recently agreed on a diplomatic plan that would force Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to forfeit his chemical weapons stockpile to international control.

And Obama will reiterate his stance on Iran's nuclear program, while conveying his "openness to diplomacy and the prospect for a peaceful resolution of this issue," Rhodes said.

[WestCoastJoe]

Washington (CNN) -- With a potential diplomatic solution at hand in Syria and new signs emerging that Iran may be willing to halt its nuclear program, President Barack Obama will provide an updated assessment of the American approach to the Middle East during the annual United Nations General Assembly that begins Monday in New York.

I think another chemical weapons attack by the Syrian regime is extremely unlikely. If it were to happen, I expect Obama would strike at the chemical weapons holds.

Prolonging the discussion prior to acting, bringing in Congress (without resolution), letting Assad contemplate a strike, Russia getting involved, may have moved Syria closer to an end to its chemical weapons.

"The fact of the matter is, we don't have a meeting scheduled with President Rouhani, but again, we're always open to diplomacy if we believe it can advance our objectives," Obama's deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, told reporters during a conference call Friday, adding that Obama has said since 2007 that he'd be willing to negotiate directly with Iran without preconditions.

That would be something, a meeting between Iran and "the Great Satan." Great Satan? The land of McDonald's and Disneyland?

Publicly, the White House has viewed Rouhani's latest outreach attempts skeptically, saying U.S. officials will look for actions, not words, on halting nuclear enrichment. Rhodes said Friday that Rouhani's actions to date were "clearly not sufficient to meet the concerns of the international community with regards to the nuclear program."

Scepticism, of course. Even agreements can mean little to some people, and to some countries.

But the charm offensive, apparently sprung from tough economic sanctions currently in place in Iran, prompted speculation that Obama and Rouhani would meet at next week's U.N. general assembly. If they did, it would be the first meeting between an American president and Iranian counterpart since Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Those old enough at the time, recall those events, including the involvement of the Canadian embassy.

During his address to the U.N. on Tuesday, Obama will use events in the Middle East and Africa to explain the evolving role of the United States in that area of the world, Rhodes said Friday.

That address will include a section on Syria, and the use of chemical weapons there. The United States and Russia recently agreed on a diplomatic plan that would force Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to forfeit his chemical weapons stockpile to international control.

And Obama will reiterate his stance on Iran's nuclear program, while conveying his "openness to diplomacy and the prospect for a peaceful resolution of this issue," Rhodes said.

The developments initiated by Obama may result in the end of Syria's chemical weapons. May result.

Iran just may decide to not pursue the acquisition of nuclear weapons. Israel will certainly act on its own to prevent it. And the U.S. shares that same goal as Israel.

Having followed events in the region seemingly forever, I see all these developments as hopeful.

Can diplomacy save the day? Possible. One step at a time. Keep the big stick handy, though, as in Teddy Roosevelt's diplomatic policy.

[South Pender]

The only thing that would cause a true change of course regarding acquisition of nuclear weapons in Iran is if the economic sanctions are cutting more deeply than the Iranian administration can continue to tolerate. If that's not the case, the offer IMO is just more duplicity on the part of a thuggish Middle East government, and the U.S. would be wise to be very very skeptical about it. Iran can sign an agreement or treaty in a heartbeat, but why would we expect them to honour it? Well, perhaps if their economy is either in, or close to being in, the dumpster, I guess. Ahmadinejad was fond of saying that the sanctions (which have steadily increased over the past 30 years) would never deter Iran in its pursuit of nuclear development (for peaceful purposes, he said!); Rouhani seems to be whistling a different tune, but are his intentions (or, to be more precise, those of the ayatollahs) really any different from his predecessor's?

Here's a piece from The Guardian arguing that a failure to negotiate now will likely lead to even more severe sanctions on Iran:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/s ... clear-iran