Now What??

[Guest]

In Baghdad today, negotiators from the U.S. and five other western countries ended their latest round of discussions with Iran in another stalemate. Iran refused any reductions whatsoever in it's nuclear enrichment operations. They continue at the same pace as before on their nuclear program, except much of it has now been moved to a super-secure underground facility. There are more meetings planned in June, but a scheduled tightening of economic sanctions by the U.S. and some other western countries against Iran will proceed. Neither China or Russia have agreed to participate, either in the negotiations or in the sanctions. Both countries continue to trade freely with Iran.

I wonder whether this important world issue will replace discussions of important issues like gay rights and whether or not Bain Capital was a job creator or job destroyer in our Presidential debates?

Now what? Neither Israel or Iran is particularly interested in what the U.S. or anyone else says. Looks like the only ball still in play is in Israel's court. Hold onto your hats.

[Guest]

Negotiators from the U.S. and five other western countries in Baghdad ended this round of discussions with Iran in another stalemate. Iran refused any reductions whatsoever in it's nuclear enrichment operations. They continue at the same pace as before on their nuclear program, except much of it has now been moved to a super-secure underground facility. There are no next steps or meetings planned other than a scheduled tightening of economic sanctions by the U.S. and some other western countries against Iran. Neither China or Russia have agreed to participate, either in the negotiations or in the sanctions. Both countries continue to trade freely with Iran.

I wonder whether this important world issue will replace discussions of important issues like gay rights and whether or not Bain Capital was a job creator or job destroyer in our Presidential debates?

Now what? Looks like the only ball still in play is in Israel's court. Hold onto your hats.

Yes, Iran officially insists it is their absolute right to continue enrichment programs, and that it is strictly for peaceful purposes, blah, blah. But it looks like all parties will meet again in June, to the surprise of some. Yes the Israelis are fuming. So be it. The hint is that Iran will allow increased inspections, and their willingness to keep talking is a clear sign that sanctions are really getting to them. The drop in oil prices helps.
Hey, it's what we've got, and better than the war posturing of last month.
Decent work by Hillary and the troops if you ask me.

[Guest]

In Baghdad today, negotiators from the U.S. and five other western countries ended their latest round of discussions with Iran in another stalemate. Iran refused any reductions whatsoever in it's nuclear enrichment operations. They continue at the same pace as before on their nuclear program, except much of it has now been moved to a super-secure underground facility. There are more meetings planned in June, but a scheduled tightening of economic sanctions by the U.S. and some other western countries against Iran will proceed. Neither China or Russia have agreed to participate, either in the negotiations or in the sanctions. Both countries continue to trade freely with Iran.

I wonder whether this important world issue will replace discussions of important issues like gay rights and whether or not Bain Capital was a job creator or job destroyer in our Presidential debates?

Now what? Neither Israel or Iran is particularly interested in what the U.S. or anyone else says. Looks like the only ball still in play is in Israel's court. Hold onto your hats.

If part of your note is sarcasm, it is well placed and I agree.

This issue has been building and ignored for some time and keep your eye on Syria, a strong ally of Iran. And of course Russia, a friend of both firing off missile's but making public stances that are embarassing to this country.

Yes, hold onto your hats !

[Guest]

Just offering the following from USA TODAY on this issue and when you consider the first paragraph or so, it makes you think....


"There's an old poker saying that if you look around the table and can't figure out who the chump is, it's you. Too often in high-stakes negotiations with rogue states such as North Korea and Iran, the U.S. has looked a lot like the chump as it tried to curtail those nations' nuclear weapons programs.

"For example, the U.S. gave more than $1 billion in aid to North Korea from 1995 to 2008 in exchange for "confidence building measures," only to have North Korea respond by testing nuclear weapons in 2006 and 2009. Iran has played rope-a-dope with U.S. and United Nations negotiators for years, stalling for time to continue what the U.S. and its allies believe is its quest to build a nuclear weapon."

"So while it was nice to see Iran at the negotiating table again in Baghdad on Wednesday, only a sucker could be confident that this time Iran really, really means it. The only reason Iran is negotiating now is because it desperately wants relief from increasingly tough sanctions levied by the U.S. and its allies. The sanctions are damaging Iran's economy. Inflation is well into double digits, among other problems. And they threaten even worse destruction when a European embargo on Iranian oil exports goes into effect July 1.
Talks with Iran have dragged on (and off) for years, but now both sides are running out of time. Israel considers a nuclear Iran a threat to its existence and has warned that it will attack Iran's nuclear facilities if it nears a "zone of immunity."

How the U.S. can win at nuclear poker with Iran (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2012-05-23/Iran-nuclear-negotiations-Baghdad/55177118/1)

Lets just hope that we are not the "chump" at the table this time. Iran has very dangerous allies in Syria and Russia, AND Al Q if you believe what is reported.

We cannot afford this in so many ways !!!!

[Guest]

This issue like the economy is not in Obama's best interest to have front and center as they both show repetitive failed efforts to move the ball on either subject.

Yet both have the potential to affect the future of this country and the rest of the world.

The mediocre campaign of the Bains and the gays are but two excellent examples of an amateur approach to the world stage.

I doubt Israel will sit as assistant chump at the table for much longer. What can they conclude has occurred of benefit from sitting and waiting at the so called diplomatic poker table? NOTHING except time for Iran to better position themselves. Hence more reason now than before for them to decide to pull the trigger.

Then as stated above...hold onto your hats as the world as we know it gets thrown into a tizzy....GOD help us.

btk

[Guest]

This issue like the economy is not in Obama's best interest to have front and center as they both show repetitive failed efforts to move the ball on either subject.

Yet both have the potential to affect the future of this country and the rest of the world.

The mediocre campaign of the Bains and the gays are but two excellent examples of an amateur approach to the world stage.

I doubt Israel will sit as assistant chump at the table for much longer. What can they conclude has occurred of benefit from sitting and waiting at the so called diplomatic poker table? NOTHING except time for Iran to better position themselves. Hence more reason now than before for them to decide to pull the trigger.

Then as stated above...hold onto your hats as the world as we know it gets thrown into a tizzy....GOD help us.

btk

Next month they meet in Moscow and what comes out of that is extemely important.

Iran appears to be looking for another handout !

[Guest]

The hint is that Iran will allow increased inspections, and their willingness to keep talking is a clear sign that sanctions are really getting to them. .

It's also buying them time to build a bomb.

[Guest]

If VK objects to me adding this to the thread I will take it away and begin another one but I consider Iran interwoven with Russia and Syria and think that entire area is now a tinderbox.

In that light, I read this tonight...

" A Russian cargo ship loaded with weapons is en route to Syria and due to arrive at a Syrian port this weekend, Al Arabiya television said in a report that Western diplomats in New York described on Friday as credible.

Syria is one of Russia's top weapons customers. The United States and European Union have suggested the U.N. Security Council should impose an arms embargo and other U.N. sanctions on Syria for its 14-month assault on a pro-democracy opposition determined to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad."

Russian arms shipment en route to Syria: report | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/25/us-syria-arms-russia-idUSBRE84O12F20120525)

[Guest]

If VK objects to me adding this to the thread I will take it away and begin another one but I consider Iran interwoven with Russia and Syria and think that entire area is now a tinderbox.

In that light, I read this tonight...

" A Russian cargo ship loaded with weapons is en route to Syria and due to arrive at a Syrian port this weekend, Al Arabiya television said in a report that Western diplomats in New York described on Friday as credible.

Syria is one of Russia's top weapons customers. The United States and European Union have suggested the U.N. Security Council should impose an arms embargo and other U.N. sanctions on Syria for its 14-month assault on a pro-democracy opposition determined to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad."
Russian arms shipment en route to Syria: report | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/25/us-syria-arms-russia-idUSBRE84O12F20120525)Yeah, and I think I read in the last few days that other Arab states, specifically Saudi Arabia, have asked the U.S. whether it would be OK with us if they provided weapons to the Syrian insurgents.

What, the Saudis asking us if they can send weapons into Syria? Why ask us? I wonder how long it will take for our administration to make up its mind on how to answer? In the meantime the Russian weapons for the Syrian army have already arrived.

No, Bucco, it's all tied together. If Israel attacks Iran there will be a major regional war in the Middle East. A major interruption of the flow of oil to the U.S. and western Europe will almost certainly result. The effect on the U.S. and the world economy will be devastating. It will be very difficult for the U.S. to simply stand by and do nothing--even though that's what the public would desire I think, and even though we really can't afford to finance the blood and treasure required to get involved in another war. If we think that an Israeli attack won't result in retaliation against the U.S., both on our own shores as well as elsewhere in the world, we're more delusional than I thought.

Our elected officials aren't saying or doing anything because they're clueless as to what to say. I guess all we will do is keep talking, wait to see what happens and then react.

To be honest, if I was faced with the same set of problems, I'm not sure I'd be doing anything different.

[Guest]

the bad guys can only succeed when the good guys do nothing.....and we are becoming an easy mark for the bad guys....at some point a stand has to be taken.

An "event" of some kind will no doubt occur in the middle east some day. When it happens we should put every effort in the protection of the USA, it's people and it's assets.

Yes there will be a disruption of oil supply.....such a big surprise!!!
Knowing that will be the result, just what is it we as a country are doing to make sure the impact of a permanent oil supply disruption does not affect us?
NOTHING last time I checked!!

I say pull out our troops and let that part of the world sort itself out while we get our affairs here at home attended to.

We are no more than a knat pushing on an elephant to go in a different direction in the middle east.

If we pulled out and embarked on energy self sufficiency that would send a much stronger signal to the bad guys in the middle east. With a more positive result than us pushing on the elephant.

btk

[Guest]

the bad guys can only succeed when the good guys do nothing.....and we are becoming an easy mark for the bad guys....at some point a stand has to be taken.

An "event" of some kind will no doubt occur in the middle east some day. When it happens we should put every effort in the protection of the USA, it's people and it's assets.

Yes there will be a disruption of oil supply.....such a big surprise!!!
Knowing that will be the result, just what is it we as a country are doing to make sure the impact of a permanent oil supply disruption does not affect us?
NOTHING last time I checked!!

I say pull out our troops and let that part of the world sort itself out while we get our affairs here at home attended to.

We are no more than a knat pushing on an elephant to go in a different direction in the middle east.

If we pulled out and embarked on energy self sufficiency that would send a much stronger signal to the bad guys in the middle east. With a more positive result than us pushing on the elephant.

btkBut what you suggest is a little bit more than 'doing nothing', I think.

The other thing to consider is that if the U.S. assumes an attitude of more self-interest as you suggest we do, that maybe Europe and other countries in the Middle East, and maybe even China, will suddenly see their way clear to step into the situation and take a more active role.

If Israel bombs Iran and then Iran begins retaliation against those that they see as responsible, mainly us, by constricting or stopping the shipment of oil through the Straight of Hormuz, the whole world will quickly find itself without enough oil. That would include heating oil for Europe and oil headed to refineries that provide gas for everyone, from China to Europe to North America. And the Saudis wouldn't be selling oil any more as almost all their production gets shipped thru the straight. They too would definitely have a dog in the fight.

There should be a whole lot of people very interested, very quickly in re-opening that 21-mile wide piece of ocean. About 20% of the world's oil, about 35% of oil shipped by sea, goes thru that body of water.

Now, I wonder whether such a sequence of events might change the debate between our presidential candidates? It might be interesting to hear where Mitt Romney might stand on such a situation. His foreign affairs advisors, particularly John Bolton who is rumored to be Romney's choice for Secretary of State, are all particularly hawkish and openly willing to commit the U.S. to more military involvement. And I wonder whether our government might take another look at that pipeline from Canada to the Texas refineries?

I guess we're still back at my initial question--now what?