Easy answer: Israel.

We all know why the US are obsessed with Iran and just can't see that it is a regional issue. Israel wants the world to believe that Iran is a global threat .... we know they are not.

I am impressed with prof. Walt restraint in not pointing this out in his "Sleepwalking with Iran".

The policy has "The Clintons" written all over it.

I still am at a loss as to why the United States is so concerned about Iran getting a nuclear weapon. Granted, more nuclear powers is not necessarily what the country (or the world) needs right now. And the time for a new nuclear power (especially in the Middle East) is directly contrary to what the Obama administration is trying to accomplish with regard to nuclear proliferation more generally (given Obama's arsenal cuts with Russia and his nuclear security conference in April, it's clear that he really does want "a world without nuclear weapons).

But even with these minor setbacks, it doesn't really warrant Washington hyperactivity on the issue. Officials in the White House and in Congress are losing a lot of hair on a problem that is not really detrimental to U.S. national security (and believe me, if you've looked at Congress nowadays, they need all the hair they can get). It's almost as if they have forgotten the whole concept of deterrence...the theory that a state's irrational behavior is kept in check by the irrationality of other states.

Contrary to popular belief, Iran is a rational actor in the international system, and one that fully understands what would happen to them if they in fact used a nuclear weapon against Israel or any other state. Any short-term benefits that a nuclear strike would achieve would quickly be suffocated by the barrage of missiles, ICBM's, and possibly nukes making their way to Iranian cities. And if the Iranian leadership's number one concern is the preservation of its status and power- which is what they have demonstrated repeatedly over the past three decades- then the use of nuclear weapons is a negligible.

It may be time for President Obama to adopt a different policy vis-a-vis Iran. Drop the demand to terminate the nuclear program (which isn't a realistic goal anyway) and start taking a defense posture in the broader Middle East. Extend the U.S. nuclear umbrella to America's Arab allies, just like we have done with South Korea and Europe. Sounds like a shallow policy prescription, but hoping that Ahmadinejad Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will change their behavior is even shallower.

http://www.depetris.wordpress.com

Thoughtful insights on the topic of sanctions against Iran can also be found in the following videos:
Diane Perlman, a clinical and political psychologist, on side effects of sanctions in general:
http://bit.ly/9QbuR0
Nick Roth, Program Director of the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, on the US 'nuclear weapons complex' and its influence on US foreign and domestic policy:
http://bit.ly/cf36oe

The videos are produced by NPT TV, a german student initiative, working right now at the 2010 NPT RevCon in New York. The homepage http://npt-tv.net provides new interviews with diplomats and NGO delegates daily!

Obama has made a big play of extending an "open-hand" to Tehran...

Professor Walt, I don't believe the policy is in any "rut". Nor is the administration pursuing its current course simply because it lacks brains or imagination. It might very well lack brains or imagination, but that's not why it is doing what it is doing.

There is no "open-hand". There is no "engagement policy". There are just some speeches and posturings along those lines. There was some short-lived furtive contact with minimal follow-up . There is rapid goalpost moving.

The administration's diplomatic posture toward Iran is obviously guaranteed not to bear fruit . That diplomatic posture, which is based on frequent barrages of supercilious hectoring, insults and humiliation to which no foreign country's government could possibly allow itself to submit if it wants to maintain a shred of domestic and international credibility, is accompanied by ridiculous protestations about open-hands, engagement and whatnot.

At the same time that this designed-for-failure diplomacy is taking place, the US government is actively engaged in a variety of covert assaults on the Iranian state. These are not rumors and conspiracy theories. They have been widely supported.

So isn't it clear that what we have is a regime change policy, and a policy of escalation? That regime change policy is accompanied by an entirely unconvincing PR program with no other end than to buy support from a few saps at home and abroad.

This should come as no surprise. The most important theme among the Democratic foreign policy think-tankers as the tankers prepared to take power - though not among actual rank and file Democrats - was that we most needed was improved "public diplomacy" ... i.e. better lies.

Elite mainstream Democratic foreign policy is dedicated to the same old bull, with mo' better bullshit.

Wow! Where has this Walt person been all my life? He should be advising the Obama administration on Iran and many other topics. (Although, they can get some of his thoughts for free on his blog...) It is most refreshing to hear a serious and open discussion of the foreign policy options here instead of the tripe the American people are happily consuming from US government spin artists. And Americans think that they have taken freedom of speech and democracy to levels the ancient Greeks never dreamed of? Give me a break!

Regarding the comparison with Iraq, I cannot but imagine the possibility that the Iranian mullahs perhaps are playing the same game as did Saddam Hussein; i. e. encouraging both neighbors and countries far away that they were developing something very dangerous, trying to instill respect and fear. After all, where had Mr Hussein hidden the Iraqi WMD:s?

As far as Iran has China’s support, ‘wide awake fight with Iran’ won’t help any more than ‘sleepwalking with Iran’. And Hillary Clinton just found out that China is NOT on the same page as US as far as Iran is concerned or as far as North Korea is concerned or as far as value of yuan is concerned.

US really has to wake up to the fact that the its days of ‘sole super power of the world’ are over with the rise of China and nothing that US does or can do will reverse Iran’s or North Korea’s march to nuclear technology.

Not only that but from now on it is China who is going to dictate to the world more than US. It is China that will define what direction the world should move to more than US.

Second cold war has already begun, this time between China and US.

And creditor China is in much better position to beat debtor US than old Soviet Union was.

US has nobody to blame but itself for the rapid rise of China.

Afterall China was a pariah country in the world just like today’s North Korea until anti-Communist Nixon’s 1972 visit. All the West European and East Asian countries stayed away from China following the US lead until 1972 and embraced China after Nixon’s visit. While US would not give MFN status to Soviet Union (remember Jackson-Vanik amendment?) unless Russia shed Communism, it had no problem giving it to China’s Communist dictators with a capitalist mask. Trade with China expanded by leaps and bounds during 12 years of Republican rule beginning in 1981. Bush Senior had no problem sending his national security advisor to Beijing within two months after Tiananmen massacre. After campaigning against butchers of Beijing in 1992 elections, even Bill Clinton became enthusiastic supporter of trade with China once he took lessons in foreign policy from Nixon in early 1993 during a special Whitehouse-arranged meeting. US also promoted China to a super power status by accepting it as a permanent UNSC member.

Steve,
you may have missed Graham Fuller's recent piece is CSMonitor. He is the former vice chairman of the National Intelligence Council at the CIA. Here is his view -- hopefully someone is listening in DC: (One good thing about CIA officers, they are largely true patriots untainted with The Lobby's propaganda)

http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/print/content/view/print/303502

Former CIA officer on Iran: Brazil and Turkey are vital checks and balances

Shouldn’t the world welcome the actions of two significant, responsible, democratic, and rational states to intervene and help check the foolishnesses of decades of US policy on Iran?

By Graham E. Fuller
posted May 24, 2010 at 1:14 pm EDT
Washington —

If Washington thinks it now faces complications on getting United Nations Security Council sanctions against Iran, that’s not the half of it. A greater obstacle is the subtle change introduced into international power relationships by the actions of Brazil and Turkey that has accompanied it.

These two medium-size powers, Brazil and Turkey, have just challenged the guiding hand of Washington in determining nuclear strategy towards Iran. They undertook their own initiative to persuade Iran to accede to a deal on the handling of nuclear fuel issues. Not only was that initiative entirely independent, it moved ahead in the face of fairly crude American warnings to both states not to contemplate it – even though it closely paralleled one offered to Iran last year that fell through, mainly due to Iranian maneuvering and its fundamental distrust of Washington’s intent and blustering style.

Adding insult to injury, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan both had the temerity to actually succeed in their negotiations with Iran while Washington was publicly predicting their certain (and hoped for) failure.

Are the Iranians simply engaging in another con game, playing for time – a maneuver at which they excel? Or has something more profound taken place?

First, it is not only the terms of the deal that matter, but the messengers and atmospherics. Washington for decades has dealt with Iran – almost always indirectly – with considerable truculence and belligerence as the background music to “negotiations.” This is business as usual – the world’s sole superpower demanding others to agree to its strategy of the moment.

When Mr. Lula and Mr. Erdogan came to Tehran, the game was entirely different. It wasn’t the content so much as the negotiators, the venue, and the atmospherics. Tehran did not feel this time that it was acceding to superpower pressure, but to a reasoned and respectful request by two significant peer states in the world with no record of imperialism in Iran. In one sense, the deal was almost bound to succeed. What Iran wants as much as anything in this world is to blunt US dominance of the international order, and especially its ability to dictate terms in the Middle East.

If Iran is to yield at all on nuclear policy, what better device than to accede to two respected and successful states that were themselves defying Washington’s wishes in even attempting negotiations? If Tehran had refused that offer, it might have torpedoed the very concept of independent alternative, non-American efforts in international strategy. It made all the sense in the world for Iran to say “yes” this time to this combination of approach.

The same goes for China and Russia. After the Lula-Erdogan success, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton immediately proclaimed her own success at garnering Russian and Chinese support for enhanced sanctions against Iran – a stunningly insulting response to the remarkable accomplishment of Brazilian and Turkish negotiation. These states are, after all, immensely important to US regional and global interests. To blow them off like that was a major blunder, not just in terms of Iran, but in broader global strategy. The rest of the world has surely taken further negative note that Washington’s game remains depressingly familiar.

But do we really believe Clinton has in fact garnered Russian and Chinese support? Just as Tehran had every incentive to accept a proposal from “equals,” offered with respect instead of bluster and threats, so too Russia and China have every reason to welcome this initiative from Brazil and Turkey. Yes, the terms of the agreement do matter somewhat, but what is far more important for them is the slow but inexorable decay of US ability to deliver international diktats and to have its way. This is what Chinese and Russian foreign-policy strategy is all about. Neither of these countries will, in the end, permit the US hard-line approach to win out over the Brazilian-Turkish one in the Security Council, even if the Brazilian-Turkish deal requires a little tweaking. Russia and China champion the emergence of multiple sources of global power and influence that chip away at dying American unipolar power.

China and Russia, of course, represent the alternative polarity in the emerging struggle to end American hegemony in international affairs. But of greater moment, they now witness the political center in international politics shifting away from Washington as well. These two countries that defied American wishes are not just some Third World rabble-rousers scoring cheap points off the US. They are two major countries that are supposedly close friends of the US This makes the affront even crueler.

These events are profound signs of the times. The problem with unipolar power is that without checks and balances it invariably becomes subject to error and foolishness. On occasion, Americans actually believe in checks and balances when it comes to our own Constitution. Microsoft may be a great corporation, but nobody wants it to have a monopoly on IT.

Similarly in the world, international checks and balances are valuable safety valves. When Washington moves into its fourth decade of paralysis and incompetence in handling Iran, still unable even to speak to it – just as it cannot bring itself to talk to Cuba after 50 years – it has exacerbated the problem, strengthened Iran and the forces of radicalism in the Middle East, polarized emotions and, worst, failed in all respects. Shouldn’t the world welcome the actions of two significant, responsible, democratic, and rational states to intervene and help check the foolishnesses of decades of US policy? That is what checks and balances are all about and why the center is shifting.

And, who knows? “Rogue states” – a term beloved in Washington in reference to recalcitrant countries that don’t toe the Washington line – may more readily come to accede to new approaches free of the old imperial techniques of interventionism and ultimatums. Meanwhile, the US is rapidly running the risk of becoming its own “failed state” in terms of being able to exercise competent and effective international leadership since the fall of the Soviet Union.

Graham E. Fuller is the former vice chairman of the National Intelligence Council at the CIA and author of numerous books on international politics, including the forthcoming “A World Without Islam” (August 2010).

The problem is Bureaucratic. A bureaucracy has its own inertia and people that have been doing certain things, like sanctioning Iran, for the last 10-20 years are still there, running things, suggesting sanctions for Iran because that's all they've ever done. Part of (a big part) Obama's entry into the President's spot was predicated on his ability to work that out of the system, providing the US with a more open diplomatic corps that is willing to compromise on some things to achieve the overall goal. Compromising is not the same as surrendering, despite what many many people say/think. It's working together to provide an adequate solution for all parties involved. It also means, if you want to take the high road, you're going to have to start it off, not wait for the intransigent member to do a complete about-face. They won't.

This is why I thought the Brazil, Turkey, Iran deal was an excellent step in the right direction. At the time, when Turkey said Obama had given the ok, it seemed like the US was finally doing something right. They knew they couldn't openly negotiate with Iran because there is no trust between the two. So, third parties step in, provide the neccessary stepping stone to greater negotiations that, yes, will take time, but will most likely provide the answer the US is looking for. Then, the very next day, BAM, more sanctions. And you wonder why Iran inserted that "we'll still make our own uranium" clause in there.

Because they didn't trust the US to stand by anything. They actually made a move toward (tiny, but still a move) what the US was looking for and the US slapped them in the face for it.

So, in the end, Iran hedged its bets and the US proved that hedging bets was the right move for Iran, in their minds. And we're back on the Spiral again. Intransigence vs. Asking too much at once.

Maybe if they do this fast enough, they'll both get dizzy and ask to stop for a bit and some rational thought will kick in.

ex-CIA officer on how the power of the lobby dicks us over

http://non-intervention.com/288/america-first-never-for-u-s-media-or-politicians/

America first? – Never for U.S. media or politicians?
By mike | Published: May 18, 2010

I keep getting e-mail from a man named David Horowitz who wants me to give money to his movement to stop what he calls “President Obama’s war on Israel.” The notes are much like the earlier one I wrote about here from the Republicans’ congressional leader John Boehner asking for money to help his party protect Israel against Obama.

Now what in the world could these two men be talking about?

Obama is completely owned by the Israelis, just as his predecessors were. U.S. taxpayers continue to see their money channeled to the war-wanting Israeli theocracy, even as the number of jobless and homeless increase domestically. Our soldier-children are still on the hook to die for Israel — without a declaration of war — if Netanyahu divines that his holy book tells him that Israel’s God-given deed for all of Palestine needs protecting by attacking Iran. (NB: Odd isn’t it, how Washington routinely uses the separation-of-church-and-state tenet to attack U.S. Christians, but believes it is inapplicable when the U.S. federal government financially supports or militarily defends overseas theocracies like Israel and Saudi Arabia?)

In addition, Obama has an Israeli military veteran as his chief of staff, and almost certainly as a conduit for making sure his friends in that military are up-to-date on U.S.-collected intelligence. And 76 U.S. senators sent a letter to Secretary of State Clinton in April, 2010 — after Netanyahu publicly humiliated Obama and Biden — urging unqualified support for Israel because it is a “reliable ally and friend and has helped advance American interests.” This explains a lot about America’s problems if 76 senators believe Israel’s suborning U.S. citizens to spy on their country; selling U.S. high-technology to U.S. enemies; and corrupting the U.S. political system — at least to the extent of 76 AIPAC-owned U.S. senators – are the traits of a “reliable ally and friend.”

“Obama’s war on Israel” must meet a new-age definition of war that I have yet to learn. For all intents and purposes, Obama is an Israeli operative, as were his predecessors. Indeed, in this one area of policy U.S. presidents are very close to being agents of a foreign power, more interested in protecting Israel’s interests and territorial ambitions than in defending America.

Anyway, the war that more concerns me at the moment is the looming “Obama/McCain, Democratic/Republican war on the lives of America’s soldier-children and economy in the name of helping Israel destroy Iran.” That’s a long name for a war, and even an acronym would be too big a mouthful. If the war occurs, maybe we can just call it by its proper name: “TREASON.”

Iran will do.Iran will do. Iran will.

Isarel has doen. israel has done. Isarel will again

Re-South Africa 1970s
Re- Georgia .2008

With all due respect, Professor Walt, but you seem to be analyzing the Middle East and US foreign policy as if each relationship were taking place inside a tightly sealed vacuum. That is almost certainly not the case. In the 21at century of the Information Age, the global village we populate should be understood as a continuum. For example, US policy vis a vis Iran could - and in my humble opinion it should be considered as part of a larger strategy to bring peace to the Middle East. Now, you might well ask, Just how might that work? Well, possibly like this: to cajole Israel into signing onto a peace treaty with the Palestinians, the US must satisfy their security concerns vis a vis Iran. So, the US must drive a hard bargain with Iran to capture the Israelis confidence for a peace settlement with the Arabs. When that deal is done - ie. signed and sealed in a Rose Garden ceremony sometime circa spring or summer 2012 - there will be time for a more articulately robust opening with Iran. This solution is predicated on the premise that the glitches, stops and starts you are witnessing are not taking place in a vacuum as you prefer to presuppose. These intermittent flashes of momentum and inertia are part of a much larger strategy than you apparently believe to be possible. Of course, this theory has its problems - like the adamantine intransigence of the Israel Lobby locked in its eternal struggle with the adamantine intransigence of some Arab states such as Saudi Arabia. But, this theory is a far better, tighter and more elegant explanation - if only a partial one - than what you have set before the readers of your learned blog - that random fits of madness interspersed with fits of stupidity are driving US foreign policy.

I should qualify that: from an Iranian government perspective. Mr.Walt -- I agree with the earlier commentor -- you are indeed treating Iran in a vaccuum, as if it were "Country X" or "Country Y" in regard to US policy. You speak of Iran's perspective only in regards to what it might perceive from reported US actions (in this case, reports of infiltration). Do you really think that the Iranian regime's perceptions and actions are only driven by US actions???? How can readers swallow your assumption that Iran feels threatened when Ayatollah Khamenei regularly leads chants in the Iranian Parliament against the world's sole super power of "Death to America, Death to Israel" (and this practice extends back throughout the Iranian regime, to periods of US appeasement of Iran)? If Iran really felt "threatened," why would they do this? Why would Iran sponsor terrorist organizations like Hezbollah or fund Hamas if they really were quivering in fear. Starting up Hezbollah had nothing to do with defense -- it was the beginning of exporting the Iranian "Islamic Revolution," which became a great inspiration to even Sunni organizations like Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and later Hamas, primarily because of its radicalism, it's refusal to bend it's extremist ideology to the circumstances of realpolitik. The mullah Iranian regime has ALWAYS been a risk-taking regime. How can you discount this Why do you not address this in your analysis?? It seems you're either trying to artificially sway an argument that the US is picking on the Iranian regime (why you would do this, I don't know -- they're pretty much the anti-hero domestically and internationally) or you just doubt that anything an Iranian could believe, say, think or do pales in comparison to the mighty thoughts and acts of the United States (which, in my opinion, is TERRIBLY culturally biased -- I think the Iranians are a great people; the problem is this regime's just ridden with nut bag ideologues bent on destroying their own people or anyone else to achieve their objectives while enhancing their own status within the country and the world). The US SHOULD be taking proactive actions to spin down this threat before there's a smoking radioactive hole somewhere. The Obama administration came in with hat in hand to "negotitate" with this regime, and the regime has ridiculed President Obama's gestures at every turn. Get with it: what threatens the Iranian regime is American freedom. It isn't fundamentalist Christianity from the US that is swaying their young and old people away from the silliness of the mullah regime -- it is our freedom. If Iran gets a nuclear weapon, their most likely course of action will be to use it for detente against any superpower actions against them subverting or overthrowing other middle eastern regimes (they most likely won't be able to range the US for a while with missiles -- the detente will be based on the threat of annihilating another middle eastern country, which they know we can't countenance due to our relatively collosal respect for human rights and the preciousness of each individual -- hey! -- check it out [i..e. read what the Iranian regime says about human rights -- they say it is a "western concept" and trying to impose it on Iran is "cultural imperialism" -- that is a laughable con! But the bottom line is, no, they don't mind smoking a country out of existence for Allah.].

Also: how the heck can the US look hypocritical relative to Iran in regard to human rights??? The US isn't perfect, but, from a relative human perspective, it is black and white. Did you miss the executions of peaceful protestors following the elections (did that happen in recent US election history???). Do you think the rights given to women between the US and Iran are relatively similar -- if so, how do you define 'relative' -- do you include some ancient fabled extraterrestrials??? Did the US President, even in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when the Taliban govt was harboring the mastermind of the atrocity, talk about "wiping Afghanistan off the map," as the Iranian President does about Israel, solely out of some whacky religious and racist hatred???? How the heck can the US look hypocritical relative to Iran in regard to human rights -- what is your measure???

I still don't understand why you wrote this article this way. :(

I should qualify that: from an Iranian government perspective. Mr.Walt -- I agree with the earlier commentor -- you are indeed treating Iran in a vaccuum, as if it were "Country X" or "Country Y" in regard to US policy. You speak of Iran's perspective only in regards to what it might perceive from reported US actions (in this case, reports of infiltration). Do you really think that the Iranian regime's perceptions and actions are only driven by US actions???? How can readers swallow your assumption that Iran feels threatened when Ayatollah Khamenei regularly leads chants in the Iranian Parliament against the world's sole super power of "Death to America, Death to Israel" (and this practice extends back throughout the Iranian regime, to periods of US appeasement of Iran)? If Iran really felt "threatened," why would they do this? Why would Iran sponsor terrorist organizations like Hezbollah or fund Hamas if they really were quivering in fear. Starting up Hezbollah had nothing to do with defense -- it was the beginning of exporting the Iranian "Islamic Revolution," which became a great inspiration to even Sunni organizations like Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and later Hamas, primarily because of its radicalism, it's refusal to bend it's extremist ideology to the circumstances of realpolitik. The mullah Iranian regime has ALWAYS been a risk-taking regime. How can you discount this Why do you not address this in your analysis?? It seems you're either trying to artificially sway an argument that the US is picking on the Iranian regime (why you would do this, I don't know -- they're pretty much the anti-hero domestically and internationally) or you just doubt that anything an Iranian could believe, say, think or do pales in comparison to the mighty thoughts and acts of the United States (which, in my opinion, is TERRIBLY culturally biased -- I think the Iranians are a great people; the problem is this regime's just ridden with nut bag ideologues bent on destroying their own people or anyone else to achieve their objectives while enhancing their own status within the country and the world). The US SHOULD be taking proactive actions to spin down this threat before there's a smoking radioactive hole somewhere. The Obama administration came in with hat in hand to "negotitate" with this regime, and the regime has ridiculed President Obama's gestures at every turn. Get with it: what threatens the Iranian regime is American freedom. It isn't fundamentalist Christianity from the US that is swaying their young and old people away from the silliness of the mullah regime -- it is our freedom. If Iran gets a nuclear weapon, their most likely course of action will be to use it for detente against any superpower actions against them subverting or overthrowing other middle eastern regimes (they most likely won't be able to range the US for a while with missiles -- the detente will be based on the threat of annihilating another middle eastern country, which they know we can't countenance due to our relatively collosal respect for human rights and the preciousness of each individual -- hey! -- check it out [i..e. read what the Iranian regime says about human rights -- they say it is a "western concept" and trying to impose it on Iran is "cultural imperialism" -- that is a laughable con! But the bottom line is, no, they don't mind smoking a country out of existence for Allah.].

Also: how the heck can the US look hypocritical relative to Iran in regard to human rights??? The US isn't perfect, but, from a relative human perspective, it is black and white. Did you miss the executions of peaceful protestors following the elections (did that happen in recent US election history???). Do you think the rights given to women between the US and Iran are relatively similar -- if so, how do you define 'relative' -- do you include some ancient fabled extraterrestrials??? Did the US President, even in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when the Taliban govt was harboring the mastermind of the atrocity, talk about "wiping Afghanistan off the map," as the Iranian President does about Israel, solely out of some whacky religious and racist hatred???? How the heck can the US look hypocritical relative to Iran in regard to human rights -- what is your measure???

I still don't understand why you wrote this article this way. :(

They want to sentence generations to an intolerant caliphate of veliat e faquih, and we, as the world's superpower, representing everything this nation is suppose to represent, are supposed to throw our hands up in the aire and say, "Okay, if this brings 'peace'!" -- peace for whom? Have we really sunken this far -- no wonder we have trouble crawling on the world's stage anymore. And who's fault is this -- the US administration/adiministrations -- or a US culture that has lost the guts to fight? Of course, nothing's right, when you're comfy at home.

And of course, tons of campaign money from the willingly-hoodwinked American Jewish community is channeled and focused through aipac to congressmen and women who prove their loyalty to Israel each year by making their pilgrimage to the the yearly aipac confab where they current political news pledge undying loyalty to the "special relationship", and pledge as well to defend Israel to the last American dollar and drop of American blood.

An interesting article to go through. As commented on the post " The first is the mindset that seems to have taken hold in the Obama administration. As near as I can tell, they believe Iran is dead set on acquiring nuclear weapons and that Iran will lie and cheat and prevaricate long enough to get across the nuclear threshold. Given that assumption, there isn't much point in world top news stories trying to negotiate any sort of "grand bargain" between Iran and the West, and especially not one that left them with an enrichment capability (even one under strict IAEA safeguards). "