A conversation about Iran nuke negotiations

I recently resumed having my Tweets automatically posted to Facebook, to broaden the conversation, and was quickly reminded of two reasons why I don’t like that:

  1. I lose control of how it posts. For instance, Facebook randomly grabs a header image that has nothing to do with the post, instead of the image that I deliberately included as part of the post. Which is maddening.
  2. My friends and readers launch conversations about the posts over there, instead of here on the blog. Which is even more maddening, because the whole reason I let the items post on FB is to bring more people here.

Anyway, here’s a conversation from today on FB. It all started with an editorial from this morning’s Wall Street Journal praising France for hitting the brakes on a pending deal with Iran:

4 thoughts on “A conversation about Iran nuke negotiations

  1. Mark Stewart

    Kerry is an impediment to successful international negotiations. It feels as though – from my vantage far, far away – that either his desire to be relevant gets the best of him, or else the opposing parties have figured out how to use his vanity against him.

    The Iran situation is the one of primary importance here. The Palestinian question won’t ever be solved before Iran is brought back into the league of nations (from their current rogue state wanderings). Israel also has to stop believing that the Palestinian question will be resolved on terms unilaterally acceptable to it; which seems to be what Netanyahu believes he can pull off by stalling and stalling. That said, Iran has to understand that it is crying “uncle” here; even if superficially it is given a face-saving path forward.

  2. Phillip

    Re smell: Israel (or, rather, the current right-wing government) is opposed to ANY deal whatsoever with Iran. Saudi Arabia? really?

    But derailing the negotiations at this point (and by the way, I don’t really think France is doing that, there’s a bit of theater and posturing going on here, and indications are that talks and negotiations, at some level, will continue) is penny-wise but pound-foolish. If we want Rouhani and the Rouhani-ists (not to mention the “Green” and other reform-minded younger generations) to prevail in Iran, we are in a strong enough position to make a small-enough deal not to threaten the region but to in fact strengthen Rouhani’s hand within Iran. (Now, it turns out, Iran’s balking was part of what stalled the talks at this point, which also probably has a lot to do with Iran’s internal politics…Rouhani can not be seen as being too eager for a deal, relative to his hardliners, just as Obama/Kerry are criticized here by our hardliners if they seem too eager for a deal themselves.)

    In any case, as long as they keep talking, it is a good thing. Considering how long it has been since there has been any high-level discussions between Iran and the major world powers, it’s unrealistic to think that agreements could be reached without some snags, some bumps in the road. As we remember from our dealings with the former Soviet Union, diplomacy is a difficult process which will require patience and persistence.

    1. Brad Warthen Post author

      I agree that we should keep talking. I just want us to be extremely wary about any deal that Iran is currently ready to strike…

      And I THINK you’re right that whatever we do, we want to strengthen Rouhani’s hand internally. But I don’t know enough to be positive about that.

    2. Brad Warthen Post author

      My point about the smell thing is that we have a LOT more interests in common with those three diverse allies Israel, Saudia Arabia and France than we have with Iran.

      So if Iran likes it, and those three don’t, we need to think twice. Or thrice…

Comments are closed.