Mediaboss Marketing

One way of thinking about the Israel/Iran/U.S. conundrum is to reverse the positions and see how they look to the other folks.

Except, perhaps, for Iran's professed desire to obliterate Israel, their aim of becoming a nuclear state, even including weapons, is really no different or illegitimate from the U.S. or Israel, which already have them. Therefore the basis for the U.S. and Israel seeking to prevent Iran from doing what they have already done is simply a defensive gesture, which is based not on issues of precedent or fairness but simply on our wishes and our potential power to enforce those desires.

For obvious reasons, trust based on past behavior cannot be used in this situation. There are many more reasons to distrust Iran than to trust them. Now look at that backwards. How can we ask Iran to trust us or Israel? They see what we have done in history, and deep down they probably are not only envious but also seriously afraid of the U.S. and Israel. And if the impasse cannot be broken, they do run a risk of being hit hard in various ways, which surely is why they are at the table now.

We say we abide by nonproliferation and inspections. They say: Big deal! You already have it! So what?

If Iran had ever said that obliteration of the U.S. was a prime goal, we surely would be even more stressed than we are now, and any effort to find a way out of the impasse we have now would for sure require a recant of obliteration.

Yes, that would only be words. And, yes sticks and stones can break my bones, but words? Never!

Therefore "trust and verify constantly" are the crux of any solution. That is true for all the parties to any Iranian deal.

All three parties, and their respective partners, benefit the world and themselves by toning down the rhetoric and eliminating unnecessary threats even though they may simply be noise.

See the original post here:
Iran | Frank A. Weil

LONDON Time is running out to forge an agreement on Irans nuclear program, which, though still a work in progress, is causing angst from Congress to the Knesset to many a majlis in the Middle East.

Secretary of State John F. Kerry flew to Paris on Saturday for consultations with the foreign ministers of France, Britain and Germany. Although the United States is taking the lead in negotiations, the three countries, plus China and Russia, are also involved in trying to frame a deal to constrict Irans nuclear ability, impose strict monitoring and possibly ease sanctions that began 10 years ago.

The reason that talks have come down to now-or-never is a self-imposed deadline. After limping along for most of a decade, talks picked up in earnest in 2013 after Hassan Rouhani was elected president of Iran on a promise of relief from sanctions. After two extensions in talks, negotiators are sprinting to reach a general understanding on basic principles by the end of March, leaving the complicated technical details to be worked out in the following three months.

Many in Congress have set the deadline at March24, four months to the day after a temporary agreement was extended to June30 and the United States said it wanted a general framework in place within four months. But the State Department is taking the deadline less literally, saying it is aiming for March31.

Either way, the calendar pages are flipping past rapidly, leaving time for no more than two more rounds of talks.

[Read:Kerry seeks to assure Arab states over possible Iran nuclear deal]

Kerry and his Iranian counterpart, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, met over three days in Geneva this week even as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lobbied against the deal in a speech to a joint meeting of Congress.

Kerry and Zarifs next meeting is scheduled for March15, probably in Geneva. But the Iranian new year, Nowruz, begins March22, a three-day national holiday when Kerry also has other obligations.

So unless they strike an agreement in Geneva, the talks will go down to the wire in a flurry of negotiations in the last days of the month. Then it will be up to President Obama to decide how to proceed.

If they succeed, a deal will be one of Obama and Kerrys lasting legacies. Zarif and Kerry both emerge from every round of talks saying that progress has been made but that significant gaps remain. Kerry says it is now up to Tehran to decide whether it is willing to make concessions, facing down opposition from hard-liners who oppose negotiations with their arch enemy, the United States.

Read more:
Iran nuclear talks going down to the wire

Paris (AFP) - Top US diplomat John Kerry on Saturday sought to smooth differences with France over nuclear talks with Iran, agreeing with the French that there were still gaps to overcome in the "critical weeks" ahead.

The US secretary of state said it was up to Iran to prove its peaceful intentions to the world if it wants a deal on its nuclear programme ahead of the looming March 31 deadline.

He was speaking to reporters after a 20-minute meeting with French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius in Paris where they tried to iron out their differing views on the deal.

France has privately expressed concerns that the final agreement will not include enough iron-clad guarantees to stop Iran acquiring a nuclear bomb.

"We want an agreement that's solid," Kerry said.

"We want an agreement that will guarantee that we are holding any kind of programme that continues in Iran accountable to the highest standards so that we know in fact that it is a peaceful programme."

Fabius emphasised that any deal to remove sanctions could not be thrashed out only between Iran and the US.

"These are multilateral negotiations and we are making sure our position is known," he said.

Fabius acknowledged that progress had been made in the months of talks since an interim deal reached on November 2013, but stressed "differences still remain" which had to be "overcome" and "there is still work to do."

In a show of unity, Kerry said he had "the same assessment" as Fabius.

Read more:
Iran must prove nuclear ambitions peaceful: Kerry

Kasparov: Putin is "Ultimate Danger for Everybody," Bigger Threat to U.S. than Iran
Garry Kasparov, pro-democracy leader and human rights activist, tells Yahoo News and Finance anchor Bianna Golodryga that President Putin is the threat that President Obama should be most ...

By: GLOBMAX NEWS - 2015

Originally posted here:
Kasparov: Putin is "Ultimate Danger for Everybody," Bigger Threat to U.S. than Iran - Video

Iran and Obama dismiss Netanyahu speech to US Congress
In his speech to Congress, Netanyahu said that the world must stand together to stop Iran from gaining access to a nuclear weapon. Watch the video to know further details.

By: FOCUS News

Read the original:
Iran and Obama dismiss Netanyahu speech to US Congress - Video