-McConnell prevents Rubio and Cotton from attaching "poison pill" amendments to the bill that would give Congress some say over any deal if one is reached.
-The Ayatollah said in a speech today that it is unacceptable for Iran to negotiate under threat of military force and said two unnamed American officials had threatened military action if Iran didn't sign.
-This is a very complex thing with seven countries negotiating. "Is the P5+1 negotiating in place of the United Nations?," a question I asked a few weeks ago, is now "Are the P5+1 negotiating..?" There are now disagreements among the six. The disagreements are over (1) If and how sanctions "snap back" for an Iranian violation, (2) Sale to Iran of nuclear-related stuff while they are complying. A report today has it that the U.S. is trying to maneuver to prevent a Russian or Chinese veto of a future sanctions snap back at the U.N. Which means in some meaningful sense that the P5+1 are not negotiating in place of the U.N., the individual members of the Security Council can still veto it.
The Russians are convinced that there is going to be an agreement because the U.S. wants one so badly and are now debating among their Rooski selves whether it's in their interest to help the U.S. The Russians reflexively see anything that benefits U.S. interests to be against Russia's interests. The Rooskis are further convinced that if in the unlikely event a P5+1+Iran agreement is not reached the U.S. will simply cut a separate peace with Iran which is further indication, maybe confirmation, that the P5+1 are not negotiating in place of the U.N.
So what is the point?
-The Ayatollah said in a speech today that it is unacceptable for Iran to negotiate under threat of military force and said two unnamed American officials had threatened military action if Iran didn't sign.
-This is a very complex thing with seven countries negotiating. "Is the P5+1 negotiating in place of the United Nations?," a question I asked a few weeks ago, is now "Are the P5+1 negotiating..?" There are now disagreements among the six. The disagreements are over (1) If and how sanctions "snap back" for an Iranian violation, (2) Sale to Iran of nuclear-related stuff while they are complying. A report today has it that the U.S. is trying to maneuver to prevent a Russian or Chinese veto of a future sanctions snap back at the U.N. Which means in some meaningful sense that the P5+1 are not negotiating in place of the U.N., the individual members of the Security Council can still veto it.
The Russians are convinced that there is going to be an agreement because the U.S. wants one so badly and are now debating among their Rooski selves whether it's in their interest to help the U.S. The Russians reflexively see anything that benefits U.S. interests to be against Russia's interests. The Rooskis are further convinced that if in the unlikely event a P5+1+Iran agreement is not reached the U.S. will simply cut a separate peace with Iran which is further indication, maybe confirmation, that the P5+1 are not negotiating in place of the U.N.
So what is the point?
