mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
Iran Unbowed
Iran’s Supreme Leader Throws a Bag of Wrenches
Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • sacip

    The passage of time has always been in Iran’s favor. It’s time for “walkin”—no more “talkin”. Let’s ratchet up some more sanctions ASAP.

  • Gerald

    Surely it is clear that an effective “deal” is not possible. Iran is and will remain the chief sponsor of terrorism in the world, and will achieve nuclear weapons regardless of Obama and Kerry’s illusions. The only way to stop the nuclear arming of Iran is militarily and obviously the U.S. does not intend to take that step. It’s time to stop the charade, and stop worrying about “optics” and “legacies”.

  • FriendlyGoat

    I wrote this yesterday on another thread:

    “As for Iran’s Supreme Leader, he should have been told at the outset that he is a bag of wind who we do not trust at all and Islam is a crock”.

    It fits better here. We might have had a better “negotiation” if we had started from that premise in public. (I guess I understand why people with the “actual responsibilities” can’t REALLY act like we do in the comment section.)

  • jeburke

    This deal is shaping up to make Munich look good. No one should underestimate the extent to which Obama is willing to give away the store.

  • Fat_Man

    “Do the Iranians think they have such a strong hand—or such a psychological advantage over the Administration—that they might
    realistically get a large portion of this just by asking?”

    I think Iran has Obama and Kerry dead to rights. The only interesting question is whether the deal will be so embarrassing that Obama will lose his grip on the Democrats in a veto override vote.

  • Dhako

    I think Walter in here is reading too much into this. In other words, like a carpet seller at a Persian bazaar, the supreme leader is asking the moon in-terms of the price he will settle for; while all along he knows in his bones that he will come down to earth and accept a mere mountain, like Rushmore, of a price, in the final end of the deal.

    Hence, it’s the first “offer” on the table, in which like a good haggler in a Persian carpet market, he knows he must open the bidding with an outrageous offer, while all along knowing full well that this offer is merely the opening conceit and therefore the downward spiral of a negotiations will commence in earnest, whereby at the end of the day, he will go home with a decent handful of cash. But still he knows that he is unlikely to get his original offer of a price from his interlocutors. Even, as interlocutors as novices as Kerry or Obama.

    Furthermore, to put it more of a real sense, I believe that the supreme leader knows, that the US congress will lift their sanctions against Iran, just before hell freeze cold, due to the “unmentionable” political choke-hold in which certain country (i.e., Israel) and her “Amen corner”, in the US, such as AIPAC and the other paid-mouthpieces, has on that place.

    Consequently, if Obama, at the conclusion of the deal, offers to lift the executive US sanctions, and also orders his UN’s ambassador, Ms Samantha Powers, to vote with the rest of the 5 members in the United Nation’s Security Council (UNSC) in-order to lift the UN sanctions against Iran, then, the supreme leader will be happy to have that sort of deal with the current US’s government. And, in fact he will even allow Obama (once he leaves office) to become an “honorary citizen” of Iran along with the idea of seeing Obama using the IRAN-US deal as the abiding legacy of his presidency.

    So all in all, this deal is about getting the UNSC Sanctions lifted from Iran, so that Iran can have a normal trade and commerce with the rest of the world. Even, if the US companies will be barred in getting into the Iranian market due to the US’s congressional sanctions against Iran.

  • adk

    This is just in. From Obama’s latest secret communication to the Supreme Leader:

    Dearest Supreme Leader:

    It is with great disappointment I read about your new conditions re the peace deal under negotiation. If I may say so, it wasn’t easy for me, in my country, to go all the distance I have gone to close the gaps between our positions, but I did it. I wish I had the same powers in my country as you do in yours. I really do. If that were the case, I would have signed a peace and cooperation treaty with your country in my first year of Presidency, on the conditions you would have found most beneficial to you, I am totally sure of that. However, given the peculiar political realities in my country (some folks refer to them as the US Constitution), I just could not do that, so I took the long road towards the same goal.

    And now, when we are on the verge of a historical breakthrough, I urge you to go an extra half-inch towards me. If I may be so blunt, Dear Ayatollah, all I need from you is some sort of fig leaf to throw at my political opponents here. You know who I am talking about — the folks who take money from their donors and love nothing more than war.

    I remain hopeful that working together we can make this world better for the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proud people.

    Very truly yours,

  • Dale Fayda

    Can anyone recall when a US Administration had groveled as much as this regime has to sign a treaty? I can’t. And what’s worse, whatever Rat Eared Evil and Horse Face end up signing won’t even be an enforceable treaty, but a “gentlemen’s agreement” between them and the Ayatollahs.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service