On the other hand, Hillary Clinton charges round the place espousing her hawkish line. Maybe she’s playing the bad cop, maybe she’s being lined up for a fall, maybe it is the genuine administration line. Who knows? Obama is as inscrutable as ever.

But I’m hopeful. I see in Brazil today that officials are now talking about at least 2 months before any new sanctions could be agreed, so it is looking more and more like we’re in a holding pattern while they try to sort out the TRR deal.

“Didn’t somebody mention recently that they felt perhaps a hidden initiative was underway (Obama trying to pull a Nixon, that is)? My gut tells me it isn’t so (sad to say).”

Jon,

I think your gut’s telling you right.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24075542/From-Hope-to-Audacity-Appraising-Obama-s-Foreign-Policy

The Z-man’s recent policy paper from last year, issued to public very recently stated three concerns vis-à-vis the US FP. (from memory), Concerns relating to polarization of internal politics, The excessive influence of Israeli lobby (specially US FP interests) and the knowledge level (or lack there of) of the general public relating to the world geography, politics and the geo-politics of US FP interests.

With the change of heart from the likes of Friedman, is it reasonable, to consider issue one and possible some of issue two, raised by the Z-man, may be close to resolution?

This may be a wild guess; however, the timing of Rigi’s arrest is of interest as well. This is not to undermine the capabilities of the IRI intelligent ministry. However, Rigi was small potatoes as far as US FP arsenal. His purge could be considered a building confidence measure and the means to gain support from the hard-line faction of IRI. The next phase of the confidence building step, “may be”, the recent IRI letter to IAEA outlining Iran’s interest in the swap as well as highlighting the broken promises by the west. Could the introduction of the Japanese option for the swap be the next step?

Of course, all of these wild assertions could be hogwash on my part!! :-) However, as another poster had commented earlier, in today’s world of politics you go to bed with an ally at night, only to find your throat cut in the morning. Keeping in mind, US is bleeding in more ways than one. Change is essential.

The point Fiorangela makes is of course very valid. Germany, France, Japan — or at least the business interests in these countries — want to do business with Iran. Thus, they have no interest in sanctions. The US is crazy if it thinks the important players are going to go along with a tough sanctions regime.

I would venture to say the eatbees speaks for all of us with his/her two-sentence comment.

Didn’t somebody mention recently that they felt perhaps a hidden initiative was underway (Obama trying to pull a Nixon, that is)? My gut tells me it isn’t so (sad to say). Does anyone feel that the administration, which appears to be drifting, is secretly trying to reach out to Iran in a comprehensive way? If you do believe this, is it just a feeling or can you point to some evidence or indication?

Wouldn’t it be better to start over by perceiving Iran as an “opportunity”?

The real shift that is taking place is a kindling awareness among European and American bourgeoisie that sanctioning Iran is harmful to European and American business interests. Trita Parsi pointed that out in “Treacherous Alliance,” that the first wave of sanctions on Iran, enacted by executive order in 1995, at the behest of Israel lobbyists, were harmful to at least one American oil business, Conoco, which was forced to forego an oilfield development contract in Iran (the contract was taken up by the French). Keith Weissman, AIPAC operative who helped write that executive order and much of the subsequent legislation invoking sanctions, is on take stating that, 1. AIPAC wrote the sanctions legislation; 2. it didn’t work; sanctions have never worked, except in the case of apartheid S. Africa.
http www edmaysproductions.net/webvideo/irannuke.wmv

French and German business interests are complaining that sanctions on Iran are bad for French and German business: http english dot iribnews.ir/NewsBody.aspx?ID=6791

“by imposing sanctions on Iran, France deprives itself from a market of 75 million costumers. [sic]”

German business leaders take a dim view of Angela Merkel hawkish stance for Iran sanctions: http mrzine dot monthlyreview.org/2010/shafaie070210.html

“Jens Nagel, Managing Director of the Federation of German Wholesale and Foreign Trade (BGA), believes unilateral German sanctions against Iran to be totally incomprehensible because they will open Germany’s lucrative slice of the Iranian market to Asian and European competitors. According to BGA President Anton F. Boerner, Germany could be the biggest loser of a unilateral sanction policy against Iran because it could lead to the loss of 10,000 German jobs, in mostly medium-sized German companies, many of them family-owned businesses which depend heavily on trade with Iran.”

Brazil carries on trade with Iran and hopes to increase commerce with Iran: www dot google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i6w07wzLKrukn4Ff3baGx5ZK9vrQ

“Lula, whose country has friendly ties with Iran, spoke at a summit of leaders of Latin America and the Caribbean at a joint press conference with the event host, Mexican President Felipe Calderon.

“Peace in the world does not mean isolating someone,” Lula said.

“I’m going to Iran in May to buy things from them. Brazil exports to Iran are worth one billion dollars a year and imports nothing from them,” Lula added.”

Japan and Iran are increasing its commercial ties, Japan having emerged as the latest uranium exchange partner for Iran.

Everybody’s doing it — practicing mutually beneficial global economic relations. Everybody except US, Great Britain, and Israel, the world’s three major practitioners of predatory capitalism.

“I am 99.9% sure that so long as Obama is president, the United States will not attack Iran. We don’t know the man’s character well enough yet to say that he would resist a political imperative (that is, from the point of view of electoral politics and his own political future) to strike, though my guess is he would resist that temptation. [In my opinion, however, any Republican likely to be elected in 2012 might be inclined to “solve” the Iranian “problem” by military force. Still, unless our economic and strategic position has improved substantially by 2013, I don’t think a Romney or a Gingrich or even a Palin would deliberately start a war with Iran.] I think we could drift into war; I think the Israelis might drag us into one;”

Jon,

You express considerable confidence (which I share, as I suspect most people on this board do) that Obama won’t order an attack on Iran. You then suggest one possible exception: he might succumb to a “political imperative” (i.e. the need to get re-elected). You then proceed to suggest that a Republican president elected in 2012 might be more inclined to order an attack on Iran (again, a view I share, as I suspect most people on this board do), though you suggest that this Republican president would not “deliberately start a war with Iran,” but that the “Israelis might drag us into one.”

My question is this: When you’re considering exceptions to your general belief that Obama won’t order an attack on Iran, why do you conclude that the most likely exception to that would be Obama’s “political imperative” (to get re-elected)? What about the same possibility that you explicitly consider for the hypothetical Republican president? Do you not consider it possible that we could get dragged into an Iran war while Obama is president?

While neither possibility — Obama attacking Iran to get re-elected; Obama attacking Iran to defend Israel after Israel attacks Iran — strikes me as a serious risk, if I had to rank those two risks, I’d put them in reverse order from how I just listed them.

Would you?

Anyway, we are told that Iran an attack on Iran is unlikely as it would be unsuccessful or have all sorts of other negative consequences. This line of thinking proceeds on the “reality-based” assumption that the people who want to see Iran bombed really care about whether the bombings themselves can be successful in the limited sense of taking out their intended targets and setting back Iran’s “nuclear weapons program”. However, this assumption is open to question. After all, we just invaded an entire country in order to destroy WMDs that WE KNEW didn’t exist there in the first place. We also know that there isn’t a nuclear weapons program in Iran, and yet the beaters of the war drums don’t seem to care. The actual bombings are merely incidental to their other goals.