Is Iran Backing Down On Nuclear Program?

Good News: Iran’s nuclear chief signaled Tehran’s envoys may bring a compromise offer to the talks this week with world powers: Promising to eventually stop producing its most highly enriched uranium, while not totally abandoning its ability to make nuclear fuel.

Bad news: the Obama administration and the West hold a lousy hand as they go into talks with Iran.

The proposal outlined late Sunday seeks to directly address one of the potential main issues in the talks scheduled to begin Friday between Iran and the five permanent Security Council members plus Germany.

In a world of dreams and miracles, the conversations, starting Saturday, would end with the mullahs renouncing their drive toward nuclear weapons, and the disappearance of a thunderhead of foreboding and grief.


The U.S. and others have raised serious concerns about Iran’s production and stockpile of uranium enriched to 20 percent, which could be turned into weapons-grade strength in a matter of months.

 Fereidoun Abbasi

But the proposal described by Iran’s nuclear chief, Fereidoun Abbasi, may not go far enough to satisfy the West because it would leave the higher enriched uranium still in Tehran’s hands rather than transferred outside the country.

Abbasi said Tehran could stop its production of 20 percent enriched uranium needed for a research reactor, and continue enriching uranium to lower levels for power generation.

It demonstrates that the Iranians are emboldened by the West's backing off in Syria. It acknowledges that some of the allies have serious concerns about Barack Obama's willingness to make concessions and stretch out the talks, playing for time, Iranian-style, until after the U.S. presidential election. And it imposes the conclusion that there is no visible way these so-called confidence building exchanges (don't call them negotiations) can produce confidence solid enough for the United States, Britain, France and Germany to believe that Iran is willing to cast aside the nuclear military program they accuse it of running.

What, Me Gone? You're Funny

As little as a month ago, the Obama administration was talking about the imminent departure of Bashar al-Assad, Syria's leader. His ouster would have been a vast blow to Iran, which regards Assad as its closest ally and buffer.

But backed by Russia and China, Tehran has little reason to offer more than a reformulation of its standard maze of denials and ambiguities in response to the West's weak diplomatic cards.

The West buckled in the face of Russian and Chinese resistance, withdrawing its U.N. Security Council draft resolution that demanded that Assad leave and that Russia halt its supply of arms to Syria. No substantive Western action followed. Assad remains. 

The enrichment issue lies at the core of the dispute between Iran and the West, which fears Tehran is seeking an atomic weapon — a charge the country denies, insisting its uranium program is for peaceful purposes only.

Enrichment Process

Uranium has to be enriched to more than 90 percent to be used for a nuclear weapon, but with Iran enriching uranium to 20 percent levels, there are concerns it has come a step closer to nuclear weapons capability.

Abbasi said production of uranium enriched up to 20 percent is not part of the nation’s long-term program — beyond amounts needed for its research reactor in Tehran — and insisted that Iran “doesn’t need” to enrich beyond the 20 percent levels.

“The job is being carried out based on need,” he said. “When the need is met, we will decrease production and it is even possible to completely reverse to only 3.5 percent” enrichment levels.

It was not immediately clear whether Abbasi’s comments reflect what will be Tehran’s official stance when the negotiations begin in Istanbul more than 14 months after the last round collapsed.

At the same time, the Obama administration has left its European counterparts with a virtual certainty: that it wants the talks to extend until Election Day, Nov. 4. This is based on the flimsy premise that Israel will be reluctant to strike Iran as long as the talks continue.

Ali Akbar Salehi 

Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi was quoted on the Iranian parliament’s website on Monday as saying he hopes for some progress in the upcoming talks but warned Iran would not accept any preconditions.

“We will honestly try to have the two sides conclude with a win-win situation in which Iran achieves its rights while removing concerns of five-plus-one group,” he said. “But imposing any conditions before the talks would be meaningless.”

Iran insists it has full rights under the NuclearNon-Proliferation treaty to enrich uranium to create nuclear fuel and says it only seeks enrichment levels to power reactors, but the U.S. and others worry that the same process can be used to make weapons-grade material.

Ahead of Istanbul, there are signs Tehran is confident it may have beaten back the toughest Western demands for a complete halt to uranium enrichment and that some bargaining room has now been opened for new proposals.

Who In The Hell Cares?

Yet the Obama administration's approach to the conversations does not include a clear demand for complete shut-down, which intensifies the likelihood of their dawdling futility.

Abbasi’s remarks follow a bravado last week from Iranian lawmaker Gholam Reza Mesbahi Moghadam, who claimed Tehran has the know-how and the capability to produce a nuclear weapon but would never do so.

The French, in this context, are describing themselves as "guardians of the temple," meaning that they have suspicions of U.S. concessions that would bend or skirt the Security Council's requirements for the mullahs to prove their total disengagement from pursuing nukes. (Think, in the worst case, of a triangular deal with Russia and Iran reflecting Mr. Obama's on-mike appeal to Vladimir Putin for "space" in exchange for "flexibility" on missile defense.)

He could well try buying himself more "space" - and get past the election in the process - by trying to bring together American and Israeli timelines on when Iran's drive becomes irreversible. Israel believed that it had nine months in which to act before Iranian targets entered an " immunity zone," while it considered that the United States, with its wider capabilities, had 15.

GBU-31 bunker busters.

There are no guarantees Israel would lengthen its notational time frame to 15 months, but Washington could try by providing it with additional refueling aircraft and 200 GBU-31 bunker busters.

Doing so with time left on the clock for some unmistakable compliance from Tehran would at the same time draw a red line defining for the mullahs what the president meant when he said the U.S. would always "have Israel's back."

After a protracted flap over the venue for the talks, Iranian state TV reported Sunday that both sides had agreed on Istanbul. It said a second round would be held in Baghdad but that its timing would be decided during the meeting in Turkey.

Nuclear Destabilization

Does This Look Destabilized Enough?

The dangers of war erupting this year with Iran are the greatest they’ve been since the hostage rescue misadventure in 1980 that left eight soldiers dead in the Persian desert. Now goaded by war-hawks in Congress and Israel, and with emotions and political posturing unnaturally heightened by the presidential election season, the Obama administration is coming under fierce pressure to either resolve the Iranian “problem” or offer the Israelis a green light and U.S. assistance to take care of Iran on their own.

As tensions rise, Israel and Iran continue a covert war that could easily spiral beyond either nation’s intentions, while U.S. forces run dangerous navy patrols in the flashpoint of the Straits of Hormuz. 

Hillary Clinton

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that a nuclear-armed Iran or a conflict over its program would both destabilize the region as she pressed Tehran for clear commitments in upcoming talks.

While Israel voiced growing impatience over Iran, Clinton credited US sanctions with inflicting pressure on the Islamic republic but she warned of a tough road ahead as Tehran prepares to meet with six major powers.

"There is no clear path. We know that a nuclear-armed Iran would be incredibly destabilizing to the region and beyond. A conflict arising out of their program would also be very destabilizing to the entire world," Clinton said.

Having just emerged from nearly a decade of war in Iraq and still struggling to shake off what is beginning to look like a hopeless effort in Afghanistan, and with the economy still fragile and the entire region a tinderbox of political turmoil and resentment, the notion of yet another U.S. conflict in the Middle East seems absurd. Yet pundits and politicians, ably assisted by the powerful voices of the Israel lobby in Washington, are at it again, attempting to soften U.S. public opinion with fresh rationalizations for a new and, according to international laws, illegal elective war. 

Straits of Hormuz

As costly and devastating as the Iraq adventure turned out to be, a conflict with Iran offers the potential to be a thousand times worse. A U.S.-Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear facilities seems certain to cause a wider regional war. Some on the Israeli right are openly proposing the use of tactical nuclear weapons. A preemptive assault would probably provoke an explosion of terrorism against U.S. targets around the nation and the world as well as attacks on Israel from Iranian surrogates Hezbollah and Hamas. It would also likely cause a crippling spike in worldwide oil prices and an environmental catastrophe of unprecedented proportions.

The U.S. has "worked very hard with Israel on all levels from the military, intelligence, strategic, and diplomatic level to make sure we were sharing information," she said. "It's our very strong belief, as President Obama conveyed to the Israelis, that it is not in anyone’s interest for them to take unilateral action."

Clinton added that pursuing the diplomatic path is in everyone's interest. She didn't comment on the report claiming Israeli might use air bases in Azerbaijan, and refused to talk about an alternative plan case the talks with Iran fail.

I don’t want to think about it that way, because I want to give this the very best effort we can," she said. "So I don’t want to go into it with the attitude of, well, it’s going to fail, and I don’t want the Iranians to go into it with the attitude of that we can just keep it open and never have to come to any outcome.

The risks seem grossly out of balance with the possible gains, especially as U.S. intelligence sources report that Iran has not committed its “research” to weapons production and remains open to a negotiated settlement and the return of nuclear inspectors. Ultimately even Israeli defense analysts allow that Iran would not be willing to come to body blows with Israel, an undeclared nuclear power.

The U.S. bishops have been distracted by a rhetorical war over religious liberty and contraception, sadly, because the clarity of their voice on this actual war with Iran is notable. In a March 2 letter from Bishop Richard E. Pates of Des Moines, Iowa, chair of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on International Justice and Peace, to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the bishops expressed their concern over “an alarming escalation in rhetoric and tensions.”

Recep Tayyip Erdogan

Ahead of international talks April 13 in Istanbul on Iran’s uranium enrichment program, Clinton talked strategy with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who visited Tehran last week with other government officials.

“They were told that the supreme leader (Ayatollah Ali Khamenei) viewed weapons of mass destruction as religiously prohibited, as against Islam,’’ Clinton said at a news conference.

In an interview Clinton added that "I want us to come together in Istanbul in a few weeks and really talk honestly about what we need to do to remove the cloud of the Iranian nuclear program, and remove all of the suspicion that could possibly lead to confrontation from the international community."

"We're going to be looking for a way to try to convey the legitimate fears that people in the region have about what comes next. Because if Iran were ever to get a nuclear weapon, the countries in the region are going to buy their way to one as well," Clinton said.

Russia said Monday that the date and venue have not been definitively set, leading the United States to say that Iran was sending mixed signals.

Clinton, who had earlier given April 13 as the date and Istanbul as the venue, said Tuesday only that the United States is "hoping that those talks will commence within the next several weeks."

"And we're hoping that there will be a path forward that gives the Iranians a reason to believe that it is in their national interest not to pursue their nuclear program," she said.

The United States has been threatening sanctions to press other countries to stop buying Iranian oil, the country's chief money-maker. Turkey said Friday that it was cutting oil imports from its neighbor by 20 percent.

Benjamin Netanyahu

But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Tuesday that Iran has not moved "even one millimeter" from its nuclear program despite its financial struggles.

"The sanctions are painful, hard," Netanyahu told reporters in Jerusalem. "But will this bring about a halt or a retreat in the Iranian nuclear program? Until now, it has not happened."

Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said Monday that the sanctions "may have caused us small problems but we will continue our path."

Iranian officials, however, say its nuclear work is for peaceful purposes. 

The latest US intelligence assessments have not concluded that the regime has given the go-ahead to develop a nuclear bomb.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in February that possession of a nuclear bomb "constitutes a major sin" for Iran, reiterating a fatwa -- or religious edict -- that he made in 2005.

Clinton revealed that she has been studying Khamenei's fatwa, saying that she has discussed it with religious scholars, other experts and with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

"If it is indeed a statement of principle, of values, then it is a starting point for being operationalized," Clinton said in Norfolk.

Iran’s bellicose statements, its failure to be transparent about its nuclear program, and its possible acquisition of nuclear weapons are serious matters, but in themselves they do not justify military action. Discussing or promoting military options at this time is unwise and may be counterproductive. ”

Opinion polls in both the United States and Israel run strongly against an attack on Iran, but if this confrontation is to be avoided, the people of both nations need to speak up to their leaders—loudly—now. Before the Iraq war the U.S. bishops and the Vatican challenged the moral legitimacy of pre-emptive war-making, charging that the concept fails both the precepts of the just war tradition and, when the many risks and hazards of such an adventure are calculated, common sense. 

The Iranian Nuclear Dilemma

Iran is poised to greatly expand uranium enrichment at a fortified underground bunker to a point that would boost how quickly it could make nuclear warheads, and is building and a missile with a range of 10,000 kilometers, right or wrong, Islamic Iran is once again being cast as a pariah within the global community by its theocratic cousin Israel. And with animus and suspicion defining their relationship, is it any wonder the nuclear expertise of either state is considered an existential threat by each to the detriment of progressive regulative authority on nuclear resources in the Middle East? Until the root cause of Israeli and Iranian animosity is addressed the nuclear technology of Iran will surely remains questionable. 

Next-generation centrifuges

They said Tehran has put finishing touches on an installation that houses thousands of new next-generation centrifuges at the cavernous facility, machines that can produce enriched uranium much more quickly and efficiently than its present machines.

While saying that the electrical circuitry, piping and supporting equipment for the new centrifuges was now in place, sources emphasized that Tehran had not started installing the new machines at its Fordo facility and could not say whether it was planning to.

Still, the senior diplomats who asked for anonymity because their information was privileged suggested that Tehran would have little reason to prepare the ground for the better centrifuges unless it planned to operate them.

Fordo nuclear facility

The reported work at Fordo appeared to reflect Iran's determination to forge ahead with nuclear activity that could be used to make atomic arms despite rapidly escalating international sanctions and the latent threat of an Israeli military strike on its nuclear facilities.

Fordo could be used to make fissile warhead material even without such an upgrade. Although older than Iran's new generation machines, the centrifuges now operating there can be reconfigured within days to make such material because they already are enriching to 20 percent a level that can be boosted quickly to weapons-grade quality.

Inspector Herman Nackaerts

United Nation's IAEA inspector Herman Nackaerts says Iran is committed to resolving all outstanding issues and wants to continue with constructive dialogue and progressive regulative authority, offering access to all Iranian nuclear sites. 

For too long destroying the Iranian nuclear industry has been seen by Israel as the only solution, apparently. Yet bombing Iran does not rectify the problematic relationship between Israel and Iran. An attack on Iran would not necessarily prevent subsequent strategic nuclear development by Iran for the basic sake of future state security. It could lead to a greater resolve by Israel to develop still greater weapons of mass destruction to handle the possibility. And so it goes Uranium enrichment U.N. inspections may well prove Iranian proclamations on their peacefu nuclear intentions, but they do nothing about the political divisions between the theocracies of Iran and Israel.

They don't change the basic fact that uranium enrichment can produce both nuclear weapons and energy. And if animus and mistrust remain between Israel and Iran, so might the desire for greater defense systems. 

IAEA chief Yukiya Amano

Iranian officials deny nuclear weapons aspirations, saying the claims are based on bogus intelligence from the US and Israel. But IAEA chief Yukiya Amano has said there are increasing indications of such activity.

His concerns were outlined in 13-page summary late last year listing clandestine activities that either can be used in civilian or military nuclear programs, or "are specific to nuclear weapons."Among these were indications that Iran has conducted high explosives testing and detonator development to set off a nuclear charge, as well as computer modeling of a core of a nuclear warhead.

Iran's Shahab 3 missile

The report also cited preparatory work for a nuclear weapons test and development of a nuclear payload for Iran's Shahab 3 intermediate range missile a weapon that could reach Israel.

Iran says it is enriching only to make nuclear fuel. But because enrichment can also create fissile warhead material, the UN Security Council has imposed sanctions on Tehran in a failed attempt to force it to stop.

More recently, the US, the European Union and other Western allies have either tightened up their own sanctions or rapidly put new penalties in place striking at the heart of Iran's oil exports lifeline and its financial system.

The most recent squeeze on Iran was announced Friday, when SWIFT, a financial clearinghouse used by virtually every country and major corporation in the world, agreed to shut out the Islamic Republic from its network.

The choke-holds are being applied in part to persuade Israel to hold off on potential military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities among them Fordo, a main Israeli concern because it is dug deep into a mountain and could be impervious to the most powerful bunker busting bombs.

If Obama continues on his current path, he could well have a conflict. For this reason alone, he should change course. There are two possible outcomes of the barrage of words being launched here: a war that starts inadvertently (what, one wonders, would be the reaction today if a British naval patrol in the Gulf were captured by the Iranians, as happened four years ago?); or a war that starts after an attack by Israel. A negotiated climb-down by both sides is the least likely option, although the venue for one still exists. The next round of talks between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany will be held in Istanbul. Failing any breakthrough there, western policy is caught in a cleft stick.

The British foreign secretary, William Hague, warned on successive days that the Iranian nuclear programme could trigger a Middle East cold war and that Israeli military action to forestall it would be unwise. And yet, if you do not believe that sanctions will deter Tehran from its alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons (and this newspaper talked to senior US officials who do not), one judgment inexorably leads to the other.

So competing voices in the US administration are both upping the ante and scurrying every month to Jerusalem to restrain Ehud Barak and Binyamin Netanyahu from doing what they have long promised to do. The latest visitor to Israel is Tom Donilon, Barack Obama's national security adviser. Long before coming to power, Netanyahu said that Israel's date with destiny lay with Iran, not the Palestinians. And there is no reason to disbelieve his intention to attack Iran.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

One does not have to doubt the sincerity of Obama's extended hand to Iran at the start of his presidency, or the two personal letters he wrote to its supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to worry about the direction in which his administration's policies are leading him now.

Obama is no George W Bush. This president has not pulled out of Iraq, and started the drawdown in Afghanistan, only to start a conflict with a country with the power to mess up both Iraq and Afghanistan if attacked. But if he continues on this path, he could well have a conflict. For this reason alone, he should change course.

So competing voices in the US administration are both upping the ante and scurrying every month to Jerusalem to restrain Ehud Barak and Binyamin Netanyahu from doing what they have long promised to do. The latest visitor to Israel is Tom Donilon, Barack Obama's national security adviser. Long before coming to power, Netanyahu said that Israel's date with destiny lay with Iran, not the Palestinians. And there is no reason to disbelieve his intention to attack Iran.

A way out still exists: it means allowing Iran the ability to produce civilian nuclear energy as it is entitled to do under the non-proliferation treaty. To date, Iran has not broken the provisions of the NPT. The IAEA has a list of unanswered questions about suspected research into warhead miniaturization and nuclear triggers, but nothing has been proved. The gap between suspicion and proof creates the space for negotiation which would cap the amount of low-enriched uranium hexafluoride that Iran could produce, limit the sites in which such enrichment could take place, and prevent enrichment to military-grade levels. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose "deviant current" is battling Khamenei for candidates in the forthcoming parliamentary elections, has offered to stop higher enrichment in exchange for fuel rods. At the moment Iran, Israel and US are watching who will blink first. In the Middle East, that is a dangerous activity.

Published with Blogger-droid v2.0.4

A Stealth Engagement of Iran

The past few weeks have made me scratch my head about the dramatically dissonant signals coming out of Washington about Iran. One possible conclusion is pure chaos and incompetence in the White House, with no one in control of the message.

But there is an alternative explanation that intrigues me. Perhaps messages are being delivered to multiple audiences more or less simultaneously, in a complicated effort to have your cake and eat it too. Or as I would like to believe, undertaking a new initiative with Iran while trying to disarm the political opposition.

Leon Panetta

In December, the action was entirely with Leon Panetta, the Secretary of Defense and former director of the CIA. On December 2, he gave a devastating appraisal of the negative consequences of a war with Iran. The Washington Post grumbled editorially that he should keep his opinions to himself, since he risked giving aid and comfort to Iran.  

Almost as if to apologize for his off-script remark, on Panetta’s next public outing to CBS Evening News on December 19, he speculated that Iran could hypothetically have a nuclear weapon in about a year. Then, on January 8, on “Face the Nation,”  Panetta declared: “Are they [Iran] trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No.” He quickly added, “our red line to Iran is do not develop a nuclear weapon. That’s a red line for us.” The first comment got remarkably little attention, while the “red line” comment predictably became the headline.

Was this amazing zig-zag performance? or just incompetence? which is not a Panetta trademark. Or was it evidence of two alternative policies fighting for position in the administration?

Hillary Clinton

On January 10, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton condemned Iran’s shift of enrichment activities to the deep underground Fordo facility outside Qom. But she coupled her statement with a strong pitch for a return to negotiations: “We reaffirm that our overall goal remains a comprehensive, negotiated solution that restores confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program while respecting Iran’s right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy consistent with its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).” As usual, the condemnation was the lamest use of breathable air I've ever witnessed.

Secretary Bill Burns In Turkey

At almost exactly the same time, the Obama administration dispatched Deputy Secretary Bill Burns to Istanbul to discuss issues relating to Iran. Although his visit was billed as an effort to persuade Turkey to join in the next round of sanctions against Iran, there was widespread speculation that he was actually laying the groundwork for a new round of negotiation with Iran.

On the following day, an Iranian scientist was murdered in Tehran. By accident or design, it seemed timed to interfere with the Istanbul initiative. Secretary Clinton responded personally in the strongest terms, asserting unequivocally that the United States had nothing to do with any “violent acts inside Iran” and condemning such actions. The U.S. government had made no such intervention in previous assassination cases. If the perpetrator was, as widely suspected, Israel, this was a serious warning not to interfere in U.S. diplomatic efforts. And, of course, it was a reassurance to Iran, whose top negotiator, Ali Larjani, a close adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, was just arriving in Istanbul.

Three days later, Larijani announced that Iran was willing to return to serious negotiations. That suggests that U.S. messages to Iran via the Turks had been fairly constructive and even persuasive. However, the headline in the New York Times the day before Larijani’s announcement was that the United States had delivered a stern warning to Iran not to close the Strait of Hormuz. This, it was reported, was delivered via a special channel (some might suspect the Turkish intermediaries), yet this careful leak completely washed out any mention of the Turkish initiative.

Since that time, there has been a leak to the effect that Israeli intelligence has been recruiting Iranian dissidents while pretending to be CIA agents, what is known in the trade as a “false flag” operation. Is it entirely by chance that this information, which has been languishing in the files of the CIA since the days of George Bush and which casts doubt on the reliability of Israel as a strategic ally, suddenly appears in the midst of the current crisis? Subsequently, as reported by blogger Jim Lobe, a scheduled exercise between Israeli and U.S. missile forces has been cancelled, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has been dispatched to Israel. If nothing else, the past month or so provides an extraordinary example of tergiversations in U.S. policy pronouncements. Why?

The Obama administration has three problems with the Iran issue.

First, it is an election year, and the Congress is determined to impose total sanctions against Iran’s petroleum sector. In a sense, this is the ultimate stage of the sanctions process. For 16 years, the United States and its allies have piled more and more sanctions on Iran for the avowed purpose of getting Iran to change course on its nuclear program. It hasn't worked. When the sanctions started, Iran had zero centrifuges. Sixteen years and many sanctions later, Iran has about 8,000 operational centrifuges and a substantial stock of low enriched uranium.

In this process of ever-accelerating sanctions, we have arrived at a point where sanctions begin to blur into actual warfare. If the sanctions succeed in their purpose of cutting off nearly all oil exports from Iran, that is the equivalent of a blockade of Iran’s oil ports, an act of war.

It was always said that the failure of sanctions would leave nothing but war as an option. It was not always appreciated that, at a certain level, sanctions and warfare would converge. With the latest sanctions rider on the Defense Authorization Bill, signed into law by President Obama, the Congress has maneuvered the executive branch into a tacit declaration of war.

Second, it is my judgment that the Obama administration has looked hard at the potential effects of getting dragged into a war with Iran and has decided that a return to the negotiating track is essential.

But third, the Netanyahu government distrusts the diplomatic track. Israel signals as strongly as possible that it is prepared to strike unilaterally if necessary; and it uses those threats as leverage to keep the situation at a constant crisis pitch, while pressing for the most extreme sanctions. Israel’s influence is not to be underestimated, particularly in an election year and with an Israeli prime minister who makes no attempt to conceal his disdain for President Obama. Israel in fact may be more isolated on the Iran war issue than might be evident at first glance. Ron Paul has been outspoken in his opposition to war with Iran, and he has been pulling 11 percent or more of the Republican primary vote.

So what does the U.S. administration do in those circumstances? If this analysis is correct, it opens lines of communication with Iran; it pairs every negotiating move with a tough statement on Iran, keeping the public focus on the unyielding opposition to Iranian nuclear advances and threats; and it tells Israel in no uncertain terms to back off, but, they won't, for it is they that stand the to loose. 

That kind of three-dimensional chess is not only complicated; it is not normally regarded as a U.S. strong suit. Naturally, you cannot conduct major negotiations with Iran without attracting public attention, whether in the United States, in Israel, in the Arab Middle East states, or elsewhere. But if you throw enough anti-Iran dust in the air, you may defuse any concerted attack—figuratively or otherwise.

The new sanctions go into effect in six months, just before the political nominating conventions. President Obama should have something positive to show before that time if he is to justify putting the sanctions on hold. This is the diplomatic equivalent of a two-minute drill in football. It is a thing a beauty when it works, but it is not for the faint of heart.