Obama's reelection and signs of Iranian willingness to end the nuclear standoff might offer some hope towards a compromise.
Having won reelection, President Obama now has greater diplomatic freedom and the political space to offer significant concessions to Iran, including the lifting of some of the economic sanctions that have been in place for more than half a decade as a response to Iran’s nuclear program, in exchange for concessions by Iran. As of yet, there is little evidence that he is willing to do so.
Although the usual coalition of hawks, neoconservatives, Republican lawmakers, and members of Washington pro-Likud Israel lobby are stepping up pressure for a more confrontational stance vis-à-vis Iran, there are also growing calls from moderates, centrists and Nixonian realists to make an offer to Tehran that goes well beyond what has been offered in past talks, most recently the sessions held between April and June in Istanbul, Baghdad and Moscow, which made no headway.
In early December, a high-powered coalition of two dozen former U.S. diplomats, military and intelligence officials and other Iran experts released a letter to Obama that suggested a new path. At its core, the letter insisted that an initial accord could succeed in achieving a “verifiable halt to Iran’s accumulation of 20-percent enriched uranium,” though not necessarily a complete halt to enrichment entirely, if the product were to be exported or converted to metallic form. But, they added, such a deal must also include a “reciprocal relaxing [of] some of the international and financial sanctions imposed on Iran.” The letter was signed by, among others, James Dobbins, a former assistant secretary of state; Thomas Pickering, a former under secretary of state; and Paul Pillar, a CIA officer for the Near East and South Asia. The signatories added that the administration’s goal should be to restrict, not suspend, Iran's “enrichment to normal reactor-grade levels,” i.e., 3-5 percent enrichment.
So far, no administration official has publicly acknowledged that an interim deal might involve the lifting of key economic sanctions. For some time now, Obama administration officials have hinted that they’d be willing to accept Iran’s continuing enrichment to reactor-grade uranium, though none have been willing to say so explicitly and unequivocally. Yet most Iran watchers in Washington believe that no agreement can take place without both an acknowledgment of Iran’s right to enrich and the lifting of some, if not all, sanctions.
Photo Credit: Office of the President: Iran
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Michael Guy
Ahmadienajad seems to be the Kaiser Wilhelm of the 21st Century, with a re-anactment of the American foreign policy of the progressive Wilson , urged on by the Zionist plutocrats and owners of the federal Reserve bank. IN 1917 the wealthy disciples of Herzl instigated the shedding of copious gentile Blood so that the balfor Agreement would be implemented, the wresting of Palestine from Turkey. Since 9-11 it has been the Sunni-wahabi-jihadist have attacked America yet we wage war on every Shia rival to Riyadh. Pakistan, which sends terrorist to attack India, is nuclear and none raises any concern,. Why is it acceptable for a Sunni nation rife with terrorists to be nuclear armed but not for a Shia nation? Al qaeda, the Talibam , Muslim brotherhood et all are Saudi financed and controlled. But becaise of Tel, Aviv, AIPAC and the fed Owners we are to go further into debt becuase Israel and Riyadh demand this of their vassal, America?
Matt
The incentive is that WMD's specifically nuclear weapons offer no protection from a country eating itself from the inside out like Syria. You can spend billions of dollars on development of nuclear weapons and the defense infrastructure to surround that development. Yet your country can be destroyed by a box of matches.
Bankotsu
I really don't see what the big deal about Iran having nuclear weapons is all about. Many countries have nuclear weapons in this world, there's no need to make a big fuss about Iran.
Iran being the regional hegemon is natural, there's no big deal on that.
Paul
In one comment you say Iran has the right to nuclear weapons. If Iran has the right, then surely Vietnam, Japan, South Korea, the Philipines, Indonesia (list goes on..) should get some.
I bet you are against that though.
You are against US global hegemony which has seen a relatively peaceful period since WW2. What you promote is the breaking up of the world into a multipolar world where regional hegemons dominate their 'sphere of influence'.
Why not say the truth? You are against US hegemony because you want to replace it with Chinese hegemony. You want to replace US imperialism with Chinese imperialism.
The corrupt (and moral bankrupt) communist party wish to export their will and repression onto the region. You are for Iran exporting it's will in the middle east, a theocratic extremist regime. I assume Russia will get Europe when America hands in it's badge? A virtual mafia state run by the FSB.
A future where people determine their own destiny, or a future of repression, exploitation and subjugation?
At least when liberal Europeans attack America, although I generally disagree I can respect their opinion.
Andrew Nutra
Why would Iran not build nuclear weapons? Countries that don't have them get beaten: Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan. Those who do get left alone: North Korea, Pakistan. Besides having nukes is very popular with the massess and will further solidify the mullah's power.
Admiring dah warmongers
The U.S. will attack Iran in 2013. The itch to launch some kind of attack against Iran definitely increases (exponentially) with the rise in the U.S. national debt. When the latter gets out of control the itch for war will also get out of control. Can't help but admire them warmongers as they go about their business. 2013 will be another great year for them. Let the actions unfold Panetta !
Bankotsu
Only in a multipolar world can there be true peace and harmony. Endless imperialist and hegemonic wars is what you get in a U.S unipolar world. That is why the U.S hegemony must be completely destroyed. There is no other way.
Paul
There is another way, the last few remaining dictators get on their bike.
That is a far more acceptable and rational outcome.
Bankotsu
Iran has the right to use of nuclear technology. I support Iran.
Schminner
The United States is God. They make world laws, the Ten commandments, etc… They don't ever want to be dethroned and detest competition. If they decided to declare war and invade any country, the world can only sit around and watch.
Bankotsu
"If they decided to declare war and invade any country, the world can only sit around and watch."
That is why we must have a multipolar world and why U.S unipolar system must be destroyed. This is a just cause that everyone must support. The U.S unipolar system must be exterminated.
SanMan
Last time we had a multipolar world it led to ww1 and ww2, and then finally the cold war. Yeah a multipolar does not seem very good because you are going to have aggressive regional powers going to war with each other.
Bankotsu
Not if there is a clear division of spheres of influence. There was no war between U.S and the Soviet because of the division of europe at Yalta.
Mohsin Syedain
Why any sanctions? Why should there be sanction in the first place? Just because it is able to arm twist? What need do we have for the UN? Iran has a right to enrichment and it will exercise its right, Let there be no doubts about that. It is the US that needs to put a stop to its criminal sanctions. What about Bahrain and compare that with the situation in Syria, why have the so called free thinkers not told the US administration to stop their meddling in the internal affairs of a sovereign country?
2old2ride
Mr. Censor, please put the 'u' in delusional for me.
2old2ride
Iran WILL build a nuclear weapon. The wishes of Israel hating Socialists will not change that. Those who refuse to see the single minded drive by Iran for a nuclear weapon for what it is are in for a shock. They think Iran will nuke Israel. They are wrong. Muslims want to overrun Israel, not turn it into a radioactive wasteland.
Iran will nuke New York, thinking that will cut American support for Israel.
The Mullahs are delsional about lots of things.