With Uncertain American Presidential Election Looming, Why Should Iran Trust U.S. Commitment?

Required listening:The chairman of Iran's parliament, Ali Larijani, spoke with NPR's Steve Inskeep in New York last week -


In classic NPR fashion, they've landed a key interview exposing another perspective on the Iran deal.

While it is fairly easy to know exactly what many Americans, primarily those in Congress, feels about this Iran nuclear agreement, most Americans have little clue about the sentiment from the other side of the deal.

Sure, we get those death to America pieces of propaganda that are easy to find from Iran, but WE had that open letter to Iran from congress, and WE've got plenty of television commercials that are still running on American television, even though the numbers to dismantle the deal have never materialized, and the president is likely to push this deal through by virtue of a weak opposition force instead of strong support.

"Push" is the only accurate description for how this round deal will make it through the square hole of opposition, which is why some in Iran are just as skeptical of the U.S. as WE seem to be of them.

And why not?!

Lindsey Graham and other presidential candidates have taken the more sanctions rhetoric route to destroy Iran's courage in our commitment and encourage a better deal, or at least encourage voters to believe that a better deal remains to be had.

The quality of the deal is basically connected to the reality of Iran's future.  If they intend to cheat, any deal would free them up to get started, dismantled reactor or not.  If they intend to do as they've seemingly done for a century- work with the world to control middle eastern nukes- America has totally won this deal complete with the power to sanction for suspicion.

Historically, America has been seen as the more aggressive party between the two nations, and many Iranians with a view of this historical timeline are curious about our distrust of them.  After all, before we had to destroy Iran's sworn enemy, Saddam Hussein, we supported him against Iran and chiseled the tenor of our relationship into stone.

Follow this timeline (from the NY times) on the past century of  U.S. relationship with Iran.

Even stone crumbles, and old sentiments die away if you allow them.  Iranians feels totally on the bad side of this deal because they have shut down a nuclear reactor in order to achieve it, and pushed themselves to a place that they could not instantly snap back to even if the U.S. instantly snap backs sanctions for real or assumed violations.

Stated more clearly, Iran will never be exactly where they were, however, sanctions could put them back where they didn't want to be when they decided to make a deal in the first place.  In addition, it is the U.S. presidential candidates, some who are Senators, with the power and will to threaten congressional snap back of sanctions just to thwart the deal.

Not that opponents of the deal will listen to the details that matter, but for those who do, it might matter to know that Iran is mostly afraid of a weak deal that leaves them eerily close to the edge of sanctions again.

In other words, Iran is afraid of sanctions.

If history tells us anything valuable about this moment in time, it might be that REAL sanctions really work.

Better Deal's, Or Treaties Only Come After War.

IRAN NEGOTIATIONS REWIND AND REVIEW

Obama forged an unprecedented coalition of nations to accomplish NO NUKE negotiations. Mission Accomplished....the coalition even more so than the negotiations if you ask me. History might agree when we are soon at deeper odds with China and Russia who freely do lots of business in Iran and could soon force the U.S. to check Iran and it's enabler's long before this deal is done. 

Iran did not have to agree to peaceful nukes during the period of sanctions nor did they. RETURNING TO SANCTIONS IS A RETURN TO THE STATUS QUO = Iran does whatever they choose as America and allies (not China or Russia) fight via economic choke holds. Whichever potential status quo you find most effective (American/Allies sanctions only or G5+1 sanctions) could limit the access to nuke building money. But it instantly gives Iran more reason, more passion and more room to function UN-MONITORED; a nation that the opponents of the deal don't trust WITH monitoring would be much less trustworthy UN-MONITORED.

TO THE NATION UNDER THEM, ECONOMIC SANCTIONS ARE AN ACT OF WAR.

Un-monitored nuke behavior AND MORE SANCTIONS ARE THE SAME THING and is why war, or the serious threat of war, would be the right thing to do next if our hostile sanctions didn't create a more docile and agreeable Iran. Are those of us who support the deal suppose to assume that war would be avoided even if sanctioned Iran continued to create nukes during sanctions? (and why wouldn't they if you really think about it?)

#2016 will be an election determined by women and Hispanic and Hillary
could help herself with an Hispanic running mate on her ticket.  Did  Bob
Menendez disqualify himself by vocally opposing the Iran deal?
Is Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julian Castro someone to watch?

Maybe war is not the ONLY alternative, however, opponents of the deal hardly offer another realistic alternative outside of more sanctions and A BETTER (nondescript) DEAL. 

Why a better deal instead of the best deal in the land/world/universe/galaxy? We call them deal's because each side has to give up something to make it happen. What opponents seem to want is called a nuclear treaty- and those only happen after you win a war.

Up Next?  If Marco Rubio has moved out front before his time, who will be
the Hispanic hopeful (and maybe Hillary's running mate) to fill that void?

Bob Menendez and Chuck Schumer are playing re-election politics and have calculated that opposing helps more than it hurts politically. These men have never endeavored to describe what a better deal looks like or how sanctions alone can encourage Iran to be kinder towards its enemies?

Shouldn't Those In Congress Who Reject Iran Agreement Have To Rebuild Sanctioning Coalition?

We should all be scared to death with the reluctance of some in congress to ratify the agreement reached between the international community and the Islamic Republic of Iran.


I repeat: the INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY (Russia, China, France, Germany, England and the U.S.) and the Islamic Republic of Iran painstakingly reached this deal over the course of years, not months.  The original coalition created by president Barack Obama agreed on the original sanctioning documents which were as much a part of the negotiations as was the final documents that too many in congress still needs to review if you ask them where they stand on the issue. Essentially, a handful of congressional representatives are now attempting to slap down the efforts of this unprecedented act of collaboration by otherwise opposing nations.  In the absence many alternatives excluding war, opponents are repeating the same request that we've heard them declare as the "Better" remaining alternative.

The Benjamin Netanyahu Perspective

Keeping the coalition together took just as much effort as
crafting the agreement that the sanctions were created for.
Will those who reject the deal rebuild the coalition?

Get a better deal!

A better deal?  Why stop there?  Why not get the best deal in the entire universe and then sweeten it little so that it could be called "The Best Deal In The Universe" with a cherry on top?  Regardless of the breakout time for an actual nuclear weapon- which happens to be two months RIGHT NOW in case you were curious- no amount of breakout time would be seen as reasonable or safe from an Israeli, Netanyahu perspective that rejects the premise of negotiations with an enemy making any agreement equal to appeasement from the Netanyahu perspective.

This deal is an agreement that has Iran willingly expanding the CURRENT breakout time while also allowing 24 hour inspections on their peaceful weapons program, which they will be able to expand in 15 years so long as they follow the current agreement.  They will NEVER be allowed to have a nuclear weapon (according to the deal), and there will ALWAYS  be inspections to insure this (according to the deal). As President Obama clearly stated in his speech today, killing this deal leaves Iran on the CURRENT path that they are on, which is more accelerated than the path they've agreed to with this deal.

Since these confused folks in congress WILL NEVER rebuild the coalition of sanctions at the same time that they are offending those who created them, including Iran, we will assume that any rejection of this deal will also come along with an outline of that "Better Deal" that republicans and Netanyahu keep mentioning.  We'll see that right about the same time that we get that better health care plan we've been waiting for.

If No Iran Deal Now Netanyahu, Then When?

Regardless of what the talking heads in Washington will tell you, this Iran deal is good for America, good for the next president and good for society. The last four  countries with similar nuclear deals cheated the deal and arrived through back door maneuvers, and eventually the same thing could happen with Iran, but that is a right to bear arms debate for another blog. 

Isolation and further sanctions are options with certain outcomes because economic war or real war have anticipated results.  Economic war worked miserably in Cuba, and even Netanyahu and his republican colleagues in America are afraid of real war with Iran.

Unconditional negotiations were promised by Obama the Senator candidate for president, and unconditional negotiations; combined with strong worldwide support with sanctions, created an Iran willing to talk.

If you follow history's script, Iran's hate for Israel and America has created a segment of the population in Iran that publicly preach US hate.  If you turn history back a few pages, you will find state sponsorship of the Confederate flag in America and white hooded men who were allowed to burn crosses and speak hate towards blacks, Jews, gays and even America by waving the flag of the losing army.

Actually, that segment of America just created Dylann Roof so no need to flip the page at all. It also pushed the South Carolina legislature to get their Confederate flag down quickly because the white hooded guys still ride, still speak hate, and had a date to rally around that South Carolina flag one more time.

Hate groups in America have risen during the Obama years but Iran never used it as a reason to not negotiate; though it could be impacting those hate rallies we see televised from Iran. The entire world community stands at the ready for war with Russia over Ukraine, yet no one imagined accomplishing the sanctions or these negotiations without Russia- no pre-conditions on Putin.

China is China. The fact that we do business in China given the nature of the Cold War rhetoric that I grew up hearing is remarkable, although capitalism made the marriage of these nations inevitable. The Iran deal included China's involvement........China!!

Iran has American hostages, we have Guantanamo Bay and nobody loves Russia or China except China and Russia. There will always be elements of perception that each of the six nations negatively hold towards one another- but business is business.

Capitalism now demands that Iran not only get involved in the suppression of ISIS and nuclear weapons, but get involved with the proliferation of the TPP since Iran, and Cuba by the way, fall along the pathway of TPP commerce.  Normalized relationships might look like legacy points for Obama, but they need to go in the column of economic successes before they will ever be accepted as the diplomatic achievements that are mostly debatable right now, especially if Iran cheats like all the others have.

The bigger question for the Iran deal is still Netanyahu. What will he do given the fact that Congress needs too many Democrats to avoid the veto strength of the president? When pressed hard during a recent NPR interview (Morning Edition), Netanyahu admitted that this deal or no deal actually changes nothing. Israel will have to protect themselves from any perception of aggression from Iran whether we have access to monitor their nuclear program or not.

Which makes any opposition to monitoring downright idiotic. A nation that can never be trusted does not become more trustworthy after anger and frustration persist through sanctions. In fact, a nation that gets pulled deeply into the proliferation of capitalism cannot be trusted either. Iran will soon be seeking to kill US with trade deals instead of car bombs.

Just ask Donald.

Postscript: My brother Obama is late...again, to the announcement of the historic nuclear deal with Iran.

Keep it real my ninja...keep it real.

Iranian Nuclear Negotiations Might Be Littered By Trail Of TPP Money

A close look at the map explains why Iran could be a TPP player.

Opponents of the Iranian nuclear negotiation will tell you that Obama wants this deal no matter what the cost.  My natural tendency to question blind critics gave me pause to this claim. Today I am reconsidering.

We all know that the alternatives are limited (2).  Either we maintain sanctions for the hope of a future negotiation or we wage war to force a nuclear treaty. Our bombs might destroy some parts of Iran's  nuclear technology, but it will never remove their knowledge of creating nukes, thus the war option only increases Iran's incentive to escalate nuclear protection.  To avoid war, negotiations need to be firm, but fairness is an assumption assigned to the word negotiation, which means no one ever leaves them feeling like they totally won. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu believes that Iran can be sanctioned into submission similar to the way Syria was convinced to let go of its chemical weapons.  What Netanyahu seems to forget is that airstrikes lead the brainstormed suggestions of what to do about Syrian violations against humanity.

Netanyahu also seems not to recognize that two of the actors seated at the Iranian nuclear negotiation table are Russia and China.  Despite our significant differences with these nations, especially Russia over Ukraine, Russia and China joined this coalition to establish a nuclear deal that is good for the world but fair to Iran.  The fact that Iran is a perfect geographical trade partner for Russia and China didn't hurt their motivation any.  While these nations continue to describe themselves as communist, they behave as capitalism demands.  Most of Americas issue with China remains over their humanitarian record and their record of sticking it to America relative to trade. Russia, on the other hand, is at odds with Europe and the world over their invasion of Ukraine.  Our differences are not worthy of war, yet just to see these powerful communist regimes seated at this table feels peculiar and somewhat confusing.


Confusing that is until it was reported that Apple is working on a move into Iran (along with other western companies).  If you did not already know it, Apple inc. had revenues last year that rank it as the #20 nation in the world.  Let me repeat. Apple has a GDP smaller than only 19 countries in the world.  Apple ranks closely to Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates in GDP, two Persian Gulf countries that will also be vital to the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) that Barack Obama's is using to take his NAFTA like walk off swing.  The GDP growth that American companies experienced as a result of raping Mexico and other North American businesses of their place in the market made Bill Clinton deity in the hierarchy of  former presidents.  While Obama might be altruistic in many of his presidential dreams, he's pursuing a "show me the money" memory like Bill's because he knows that America judges its presidents primarily by the economy that they leave behind- something that history books can't easily dispute.

The nation of Iran could not be better geographically located for becoming a  TPP go between, and if the news of Apple setting up a few corner carts in Iran is true, I would wager that Obama and Iran are willing to negotiate because of the easing of sanctions against Iran's vast oil market and a dangling Apple as well.

Will America's Next President Be Forced To Uphold Iranian Nuke Deal?

In America, talks of the finalized negotiations with Iran have been treated like a scorching hot jacuzzi.  For some, the benefit is well worth the pain while others find it a bit too hot to trust and occasionally risky for your health.  In Iran on the other hand, you might think it was a national holiday as citizens are parading the streets celebrating the anticipated relief of removed sanctions.

Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei

 Leaders don't feel the pain of  sanctions until the commoners make them feel it. For Iranians, the incentive for change has primarily come from the bottom up as sanctions against Iran have fully reached the citizens they were designed to impact the most. Ten years ago, these sanctions began under President Bush for the hopes of forcing negotiations.  Actual sanctions against Iran began during the 70's. This time around we were negotiating with a sanction softened Supreme Leader in Ali Khamenei; sanctions that will remain if the deal is not finalized in June.

Despite our negative view of the nation of Iran, Iran is structured democratically enough for some hope of reasonable behavior.  They are called a nation of terror, but their most hostile leaders are still forced to win elections and deal with term limitations.

Remember me?
Former Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

 Former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad played a significant role in developing the despotic image that many people have of Iran, but his term ran out, and most people who are fearful of Iran don't realize that Hassan Rouhani replaced Ahmadinejad in 2013.

Fear of Iran has also caused most peripheral viewers to think that only America is negotiating this historic deal with Iran.  In fact, the sanctions that forced Iran to the table came from the world community, as did the negotiations.  In the final hours of the deal, negotiators from every county, except America, worked frantically to iron out the bumps.  Whether we finally sign a deal or pursue the war option, this issue is a matter of international diplomacy and not of domestic politics as MANY in America keep trying to make it.





Many- like several of the so-called presidential candidates for 2016.  Usually we wait until the first televised debate before we invoke the word GRAVITAS upon the people of choosing for our next president, but that litmus test begins now.  In essence, Americans are not only looking for a good president but we are looking for a president who looks and sounds good while doing it.  Being presidential is mostly undefinable because it's one of those things you simply recognize when you see it.  Whether they like it or not, as a direct result of these vital negotiations with Iran, the gravitas analysis now begins for every person who considers themselves a genuine candidate for president of the United States of America.

Our next president will be the person most responsible for nurturing or burning and rebuilding the bridges of diplomacy that were built or missed under Barack Obama.  Already, talks are beginning on the subject of awarding a Nobel Peace Prize to Secretary of State John Kerry for engineering this deal.  It will hardly appear presidential if America's next president unravels peace prize worthy efforts. More importantly, the litmus test for each candidate will be to explain their view of the deal and their plans for upholding or destroying it as president, and to do so without scaring the hell out of would be voters.  Because of this deal and this deal alone, every extreme presidential hopeful should immediately consider themselves disqualified from the task of maintaining the path of peace that the world is building with the Iran nuke deal.