By Dan Calabrese ——Bio and Archives--April 2, 2015
American Politics, News | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
But Iran has pushed back not only on the substance of the commitments the sides must make but to the form in which they will make them, demanding that it be a general statement with few specifics. That is politically unpalatable for the Obama administration which must convince a hostile Congress that it has made progress in the talks so lawmakers do not enact new sanctions that could destroy the negotiations. Zarif said the result of this round of talks "will not be more than a statement." A senior Western official pushed back on that, saying that nothing about a statement had been decided and that Iran's negotiating partners would not accept a document that contained no details. The official was not authorized to speak to the negotiations by name and spoke on condition of anonymity. Deputy Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi named differences on sanctions relief as one dispute — but also suggested some softening of Tehran's long-term insistence that all sanctions on his country be lifted immediately once a final deal takes effect. He told Iranian TV that economic, financial, oil and bank sanctions imposed by the U.S., the European Union and others should be done away with as "the first step of the deal." Alluding to separate U.N. sanctions he said a separate "framework" was needed for them. Araghchi has spoken of a similar arrangement before. But both Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani have since demanded full and total sanctions lifting, and the floating of the approach now suggested an Iranian shift. Araghchi also rejected U.S. demands of strict controls on Iran's uranium enrichment-related research and development, saying such activities "should continue."So let me see if I have this straight. All the sanctions have to come off before they'll ever consider a deal. They won't accept controls on their uranium enrichment. Oh, and all there's going to be is a "statement," not a binding deal. Why are we talking to them again? By the way, do note the passage I've bolded from the AP's story. Who says new sanctions would "destroy the negotiations"? You could argue, and we did this morning, that passing Kirk-Menendez would help the negotiations by putting the U.S. in a stronger negotiating position and creating a new motivation for Iran to make concessions they would not otherwise want to make. It's certainly not beyond dispute that new sanctions "destroy the negotiations." But that's what Obama thinks, so that's what the AP says. Just so you understand who you're relying on for information.
Support Canada Free Press
View Comments
Dan Calabrese’s column is distributed by HermanCain.com, which can be found at HermanCain
Follow all of Dan’s work, including his series of Christian spiritual warfare novels, by liking his page on Facebook.