Iranian Nuclear Deal Still Alive

With less than two weeks left in November, a deal emerging from Geneva on Iran's nuclear program might be in the offing. Obama, successful in turning the page on his party's appalling performance in the midterm elections by striking a carbon-reduction understanding with China, is ready to try it again.

This time it is much more tricky, as David Sanger, Steven Erlanger and Jodi Rudoren outline this morning in "Iran Nuclear Pact Faces an Array of Opposing Forces." First off, there is the blanket opposition of the two chief U.S. allies in the region, Israel and Saudi Arabia:

Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has described Iran as an “existential threat” for so long that it is hard for American officials to imagine any deal Israel would support. For years a succession of Israeli governments have described Iran as just six months or so away from a bomb; last year the Netanyahu government opposed even the modest lifting of sanctions.

In recent weeks Mr. Netanyahu has repeated his warning that “the Islamic State of Iran is not a partner of America, it’s an enemy of America,” and said Israel would not abide by any arrangement that leaves Iran as a “threshold” nuclear state — one poised to build a weapon in a matter of months or years. 

Israeli officials play down their influence in Congress on the issue and disagree internally on the merits of a deal; some in the intelligence agencies see advantages to more intrusive inspections in Iran. “We have no formal status and no real capacity” in the talks, said Yuval Steinitz, the strategic affairs minister who has been Israel’s primary point man, apart from the prime minister himself, on Iran. “We can only convince, we can only speak and explain.” 

The Saudis have a parallel worry: that any deal with Iran would be the opening wedge to a reordering of American alliances in the region, one in which Washington would begin to work on regional issues with the Shiite Iranian state instead of with Sunni Saudi Arabia. 

No one has been more outspoken on the issue than Saudi Arabia’s former intelligence chief, Prince Turki bin Faisal, who in recent weeks has warned that the Saudis will build uranium enrichment facilities to match whatever Iran is allowed to retain — even if the kingdom has no use for them. That has raised the specter of an arms race, even if a deal is struck.

Israel and Saudi Arabia have the U.S. Congress wired. That is why last week when the lame duck session began you had the head of Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the corrupt and AIPAC-owned Bob Menendez, issue a statement demanding the administration settle only for a complete dismantling of Iran's nuclear program. Barring this as the outcome of the Geneva talks, Menendez has threatened another round of sanctions. According to Sanger et al.:

But the biggest counterweight to a negotiating success with Iran may be the new Republican majority in the Senate — including some members, like Senator Lindsey Graham, who have argued that Mr. Obama is overly eager for a deal. [I think he is.]

Obama administration officials reject the charge and say that though Mr. Obama is hopeful, he would never sign an accord that did not put Iran a year or more away from being able to produce enough fuel for a single bomb. “Whatever we negotiate we will have to sell in Congress, sooner rather than later,” said one of Mr. Obama’s senior strategists, declining to speak on the record because of diplomatic sensitivities.

“And that works to our advantage in the negotiating room, because it means we can say to Zarif,” the Iranian foreign minister, “ ‘Even if we agreed to lifting sanctions early, or letting you keep all your centrifuges in place — and we wouldn’t — Congress would rebel.’ ” 

That rebellion has started. When Congress came back into session last week Senator Robert Menendez, the New Jersey Democrat who leads the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois issued a statement saying that “as co-authors of bipartisan sanctions laws that compelled Iran to the negotiating table, we believe that a good deal will dismantle, not just stall, Iran’s illicit nuclear program and prevent Iran from ever becoming a threshold nuclear state.” They would enact new sanctions “if a potential deal does not achieve these goals.” 

It is a view the new Republican majority will back, along with many Democrats. Mr. Obama could always veto new sanctions, but the warnings themselves may make it harder, administration officials fear, to get Iran to reach a final agreement.

The nuclear talks have been focused on the number of centrifuges the Iranians will be allowed to maintain. A couple weeks back a potential breakthrough was reported. A bargain could be struck based on shipping existing Iranian stockpiles of enriched uranium out of country to Russia to be reprocessed into fuel for use in Iran's Bushehr nuclear power plant. This would satisfy U.S. demands to limit Iran's "breakout ability."

But Congress, as Israeli-occupied territory, soon to be fully in control of an even more bellicose GOP, will never approve such an agreement. That's why Sanger et al. believe that the most likely outcome over the next two weeks will be an extension of the talks, which will allow Obama to piecemeal ratchet down Iranian sanctions:

Mr. Obama has made clear that in the near term, he would act on his own authority to temporarily suspend sanctions step by step, as the Iranians complied with a deal; a vote to repeal those sanctions might not come for several years. But he confronts that problem only if there is a deal. If not, American officials hint, they will press for another extension of talks — betting that the combination of falling oil prices, the threat of new sanctions, and the possibility of more sabotage or military action will eventually lead to an accord.

There are a lot of moving pieces here: Islamic State, ISIS-sponsor Saudi Arabia, the GOP-controlled Congress, Russia, Israel, Europe. We might also add Ferguson where a situation is unfolding that could lead to martial law being declared in St. Louis County.

But one strong indication that a deal is in the works is the bluster by Western powers at the G-20 in Brisbane aimed at Russia over Ukraine, but in the end the lack of any substantive action in the form of additional sanctions.

The key to a nuclear deal with Iran is Russia. Europe wants a deal with Iran, and so does Obama. Putin knows this. That is why he flew home early saying that the annual G-20 was most productive.

I know it is fanciful to think that after six years of the most "insipid," diffident leadership we're suddenly looking at "Obama unchained." Given what we know about Obama, ever the dutiful frontman for the Deep State, Sanger and crew are probably right. The outcome of the Geneva talks over the next two weeks will most likely be a punt in the form an extension of the deadline for negotiations.

But maybe, maybe, that multi-dimensional chessmaster who liberals have been pining for since the 2008 campaign will show himself. Kobani hasn't fallen. U.S. air power has made a difference there. A Republican administration likely would have allowed it to fall and then used it as a justification for a Turkish invasion and occupation as a prelude to Assad's ouster. Maybe these glimmers of decency will sparkle again in Geneva.