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?

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.