JCPOA [Official Thread]

[hasanhh]

post1300hrs, Friday(afternoon!) 13Oct17

The nutworks ABC and CBS have carried live reports of Pres. Trump announcing his decision not to "re-certify" the nuclear development agreement with lran.

China, Russia and the EU have announced they will continue with this agreement.

Nearly coincident with Trump's press conference, The Atlantic published online this article dated yesterday, 12Oct17:   https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/10/iran-deal-next/542379/  which explains the mechanisms involved in Trump's action.

That World Ieaders are not pleased, see: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/world-leaders-react-trump-s-move-iran-nuclear-deal-n810456 

[Haji 2003]

There are people who say that anti-semitic conspiracy theorists overplay the power that Israel has. 

In this instance, we know that Netanyahu's problems with Iran preceded those of Trump. 

We now have an instance where all the other world's powers are against Trump's actions and the only person who actively pushed for them to happen is Netanyahu.

Quote

Netanyahu, who has for years lobbied for a tougher US policy against Iran and who had clearly been briefed on the content, said he wanted to “congratulate president Trump for his courageous decision today” and for “boldly confront[ing] Iran’s terrorist regime.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/13/trump-iran-nuclear-deal-congress

[LeftCoastMom]

Does this mean that Javad and CottonMouth get to Twitter fight again?

[Akbar673]

53 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

China, Russia and the EU have announced they will continue with this agreement.

This is going to be key. The US didn't recertify it but the rest of the world is continuing with it.

Remember that point when it all hits the fan.

[Mohamed1993]

1 hour ago, Akbar673 said:

This is going to be key. The US didn't recertify it but the rest of the world is continuing with it.

 

This is what I wonder, will firms that invest in Iran face penalties from not being able to do business in Iran? The clout of the dollar is still very strong, (although it is weakening), so it may indeed be that the US will impose its own sanctions and then the other countries will have to make a choice Iran or the US, and they obviously will choose the larger economy. If this happens, the nuclear deal will be effectively useless for Iran, they will have given up their program for nothing. 

[Akbar673]

1 minute ago, Mohamed1993 said:

This is what I wonder, will firms that invest in Iran face penalties from not being able to do business in Iran? The clout of the dollar is still very strong, (although it is weakening), so it may indeed be that the US will impose its own sanctions and then the other countries will have to make a choice Iran or the US, and they obviously will choose the larger economy. If this happens, the nuclear deal will be effectively useless for Iran, they will have given up their program for nothing. 

Western European firms perhaps but I doubt that will be the case for Russian or Chinese investments in Iran.

In fact, those two are probably watering at the mouth right now because if the U.S. and Western European firms are forced to back out then that'll open the door even wider for Russia and China to dominate the Irani marketplace with their goods and services.

Remember this decertification, because this event could be the main catalyst for a further division of East and West. Everything East of Iran will be on one side vs. everything West of Iran. 

[Mohamed1993]

45 minutes ago, Akbar673 said:

Western European firms perhaps but I doubt that will be the case for Russian or Chinese investments in Iran.

In fact, those two are probably watering at the mouth right now because if the U.S. and Western European firms are forced to back out then that'll open the door even wider for Russia and China to dominate the Irani marketplace with their goods and services.

Remember this decertification, because this event could be the main catalyst for a further division of East and West. Everything East of Iran will be on one side vs. everything West of Iran. 

Yeah, I think Europe will still be limited, but they have vowed to stick to the deal, Federica Mogherini just made a statement that the deal cannot be renegotiated, it will stay as it is. Sounds like if the US manages to sway the Europeans from staying away from Iran, it will be through bullying and coercing, which hurts the US more than anything. 

[hasanhh]

3 hours ago, Mohamed1993 said:

This is what I wonder, will firms that invest in Iran face penalties from not being able to do business in Iran? The clout of the dollar is still very strong, (although it is weakening), so it may indeed be that the US will impose its own sanctions and then the other countries will have to make a choice Iran or the US, and they obviously will choose the larger economy. If this happens, the nuclear deal will be effectively useless for Iran, they will have given up their program for nothing. 

Nightly Business Report, PBS, Friday-the-13th, October 2017 : Reporter Evers said that Boeing's contract to sell 80 planes to lran is "not affected ... yet."

[Sumerian]

3 hours ago, Akbar673 said:

Western European firms perhaps but I doubt that will be the case for Russian or Chinese investments in Iran.

In fact, those two are probably watering at the mouth right now because if the U.S. and Western European firms are forced to back out then that'll open the door even wider for Russia and China to dominate the Irani marketplace with their goods and services.

Remember this decertification, because this event could be the main catalyst for a further division of East and West. Everything East of Iran will be on one side vs. everything West of Iran. 

From the reformists point of view, simply having Russia and China invest in the Iranian economy is not enough. They want business with European banks as well.

Anyway, we'll see what congress does.

[Mohamed1993]

3 minutes ago, E.L King said:

From the reformists point of view, simply having Russia and China invest in the Iranian economy is not enough. They want business with European banks as well.

Anyway, we'll see what congress does.

I'm also confused, has the US designated the iRGC as a terrorist organisation? That was something that was discussed, and I read something about it earlier, but I'm not sure if what I read was a designation. If so, well, then does Iran treat US troops like ISIS too? 

[Sumerian]

3 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

I'm also confused, has the US designated the iRGC as a terrorist organisation? That was something that was discussed, and I read something about it earlier, but I'm not sure if what I read was a designation. If so, well, then does Iran treat US troops like ISIS too? 

I don't believe they designated them as terrorists, yet, but it's probably in review. But they did introduce new sanctions on them.

[hasanhh]

The EU+3 is not happy. This was prominently expressed this week over the last few days.

Now that Trump has declined to re-certify the deal, here are some reactions:

Russia via TASS News Agency  http://tass.com/politics/970499  "Kremlin warns US (that -ed.) quitting lranian nuclear deal may have rather negative consequences" Note: from the sub-title we can see that Tass is interpreting the Iranian MP's earlier comments as lranian gov't policy, which we see is not accurate with Rouhani's speech tonight.

China: http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1070201.shtml  "China urges all parties to preserve lran nuclear deal", quotes China's FM Yang Jieche.

China: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-10/14/c_136678239.htm "Spotlight: Trump's lran decertification announcement again rattles world" Note: lncluded in the article is the PENTAGON's announcement that it will now review its force structure to be in alinement with Trump's new policy.

lran: After Trump's press conference, President Rouhani immediately went on lranian television to announce that lran will continue to abide by the JCPOA terms.  http://en.abna24.com/news/iran/us-president’s-anti-iran-speech-insults-delusional-claims-rouhani_860202.html  "US president's anti-lran speech insults, delusional claims: Rouhani"  @2315hrs Tehran time. Rouhani also announced that lran will now "double" its defense production.  OPINE: Hopefully, electronic warfare and aero-space defense are included.

[hasanhh]

12 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

I'm also confused, has the US designated the iRGC as a terrorist organisation? That was something that was discussed, and I read something about it earlier, but I'm not sure if what I read was a designation. If so, well, then does Iran treat US troops like ISIS too? 

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/13/trump-iran-revolutionary-guards-243760 

[hasanhh]

"l hope this ain't true !"  

Washington Week, PBS.org Friday-the-13th, 0ctober 2O17

Discussion on Trump & lran begins ~15 minutes into the program.

Michael Crowley, Senior Foreign Policy Reporter for Politico, said Trump didn't re-certify the lran deal because every 90 days as required by law he has to certify or decertify that lran is in compliance and the previous two times he recertified the deal headlines were 'Trump breaks a campaign promise'. Continuing, Crowley said Trump had reached a "breaking point" about looking bad.

  [This has been self-censored -ed.]

[Mohamed1993]

23 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

"l hope this ain't true !"  

Washington Week, PBS.org Friday-the-13th, 0ctober 2O17

Discussion on Trump & lran begins ~15 minutes into the program.

Michael Crowley, Senior Foreign Policy Reporter for Politico, said Trump didn't re-certify the lran deal because every 90 days as required by law he has to certify or decertify that lran is in compliance and the previous two times he recertified the deal headlines were 'Trump breaks a campaign promise'. Continuing, Crowley said Trump had reached a "breaking point" about looking bad.

  [This has been self-censored -ed.]

Yep, i heard this too! Though Trump did say if congress did nothing, he would get the US out of the deal, so Idk, maybe he'll tweet his way out of it though, who knows?

[hasanhh]

9 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Yep, i heard this too! Though Trump did say if congress did nothing, he would get the US out of the deal, so Idk, maybe he'll tweet his way out of it though, who knows?

"...tweet his way out..."    l-D-K to click "Like" or "Cry"

[hasanhh]

Here is how JCPOA negotiated by the P5+l was passed in Congress and not as a treaty:

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/241355-senate-votes-to-approve-Iran-review-bill  in 2015

Now, without Democratic support and a 2/3rds majority required, Trump cannot get the lran Review Act repealed.

Therefore, by not re-certifying JCPOA as required every 90 days, sanctions are triggered and reportedly the US Treasury is already beginning this process. This will 'kill-the-deal' in time.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-congress/iran-deals-foes-in-u-s-congress-may-be-its-unlikely-saviors-idUSKBN1CH2K2 

Senator Corker who co-authored the law said this week that the every 90 days re-certification provision be eliminated. This likely explains why he was subject to vicious Trump-Tweets this past week. The article refers to this as a "twitter feud".

Thursday, 120ct17, the House Foreign Affairs Committee approved sanctions targeting lran's missile programs. [OPINE: this sanctions 'thing' didn't do a lot to stop the DRPK.]

The lRGC is also targeted.

[LeftCoastMom]

3 hours ago, hasanhh said:

"l hope this ain't true !"  

Washington Week, PBS.org Friday-the-13th, 0ctober 2O17

Discussion on Trump & lran begins ~15 minutes into the program.

Michael Crowley, Senior Foreign Policy Reporter for Politico, said Trump didn't re-certify the lran deal because every 90 days as required by law he has to certify or decertify that lran is in compliance and the previous two times he recertified the deal headlines were 'Trump breaks a campaign promise'. Continuing, Crowley said Trump had reached a "breaking point" about looking bad.

  [This has been self-censored -ed.]

This is what is resonating with me about all of this as well.

[hasanhh]

A 2015 Council on Foreign Relations article entitled "How Binding is the lran Deal?"

https://www.cfr.org/interview/how-binding-iran-deal   

Summation: Trump is on solid ground as far as law and the UN are concerned.

Paragraph counting includes the bold face type questions.

para. 5  UNSCResolution "does not bind the US to lift sanctions".

para. 7 Sanctions are by law AND Executive Order [so Trump can re-impose previous sanctions by EO]

para. 8 the US committed to lift sanctions --lf sanctions are re-imposed lRl can pull out of the agreement (legally) {Note: this partially explains Pres. Rouhani going on TV within an hour and included the statement that lran will stay in the agreement.}

para. 10 the "snapback" provisions allows the US to act unilaterally.

para. 16 & 17 w/20: in this 2015 article, JCPOA is not legally binding

para. 18  Article Predicts:  The US pulling out of the agreement will cause a "rift" with the other parties to this agreement.

[Haji 2003]

Interesting way that the recent breaches are being reported:

Quote

The breaches have also been viewed as a retaliation for the reimposition of sanctions by the US which had been scrapped in exchange for restrictions on the country’s nuclear activities.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-nuclear-deal-foreign-office-france-germany-uranium-metal-b1788411.html

 

The above is the standard version, but I have to hand it to the Guardian newspaper to report the situation as it really is:

Quote

It marks another clear sign that Biden wants to return to the accord under which Iran drastically slashed its nuclear programme in exchange for promises of sanctions relief.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/17/grave-military-implications-iran-making-uranium-metal-alarms-europe

 

Note the use of the word promises in that report!

[hasanhh]

As a rhetorical postulate: What is lRl suppose to think?

1] Merkel called lRI Wednesday the 18th about JCPOA; on the eve of 3 EU FMs meeting with the US 'to save the deal'; wants "positive signals" from lRL; etc.   https://www.dw.com/en/merkels-call-to-iran-sparls-new-demands-on-nuclear-deal/a-56604559 

2] While Germany's FM Heiko Maas says "lran is playing with fire"; Note: article claims lRI is "in violation of the accord" when IRl has taken every step in accordance with the deal -to include the steps outlined if the deal falters:  https://www.thedailystar.net/world/news/iran-playing-fire-2047505 

3] https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2021/02/18/645564/China-United-States-Iran-nuclear-deal-sanctions-IAEA  China said the US return to the deal is the only thing to do.

4] https://news.yahoo.com/biden-withdraws-trumps-restoration-un-233300332.html  The US "withdraws" three letters of the Trump Administration; Biden says he wants to "rejoin"; US agreed Thursday the 19th to meet with the EU3 FMs.

5] From AP:  "Biden repudiates Trump on lran . . ."  https://news.yahoo.com/us-says-ready-join-talks-223228637.html 

6] From Reuters:  Khamenei 'demands' action from Biden  https://news.yahoo.com/irans-khamenei-says-tehran-wants-083312556.html  Essentially, the US reverses Trump sanctions, et alia, or the impromtu inspections by lAEA will stop.

[Mohamed1993]

On 2/18/2021 at 8:11 PM, hasanhh said:

As a rhetorical postulate: What is lRl suppose to think?

1] Merkel called lRI Wednesday the 18th about JCPOA; on the eve of 3 EU FMs meeting with the US 'to save the deal'; wants "positive signals" from lRL; etc.   https://www.dw.com/en/merkels-call-to-iran-sparls-new-demands-on-nuclear-deal/a-56604559 

2] While Germany's FM Heiko Maas says "lran is playing with fire"; Note: article claims lRI is "in violation of the accord" when IRl has taken every step in accordance with the deal -to include the steps outlined if the deal falters:  https://www.thedailystar.net/world/news/iran-playing-fire-2047505 

3] https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2021/02/18/645564/China-United-States-Iran-nuclear-deal-sanctions-IAEA  China said the US return to the deal is the only thing to do.

4] https://news.yahoo.com/biden-withdraws-trumps-restoration-un-233300332.html  The US "withdraws" three letters of the Trump Administration; Biden says he wants to "rejoin"; US agreed Thursday the 19th to meet with the EU3 FMs.

5] From AP:  "Biden repudiates Trump on lran . . ."  https://news.yahoo.com/us-says-ready-join-talks-223228637.html 

6] From Reuters:  Khamenei 'demands' action from Biden  https://news.yahoo.com/irans-khamenei-says-tehran-wants-083312556.html  Essentially, the US reverses Trump sanctions, et alia, or the impromtu inspections by lAEA will stop.

(1) the Europeans proved themselves to be completely inept and a total vassal state of the US, so it's pretty rich for them to demand Iran make positive steps when it is them that failed to deliver any benefits to Iran and remember the maximum pressure sanctions are still on. So, now that they have a sympathetic administration on NATO and the value of European alliances, they are trying to be relevant in a way that's comfortable for them, scream louder and louder about Iran's actions to show America you are loyal so you get more favours in terms of NATO support.

(2) Same as above

(3) Yeah, I think so long as Iran can keep China on its side while it continues to renege on its commitments as it sees no sanctions relief, this will continue. I believe the Iranians are thinking that the west is probably not reliable anymore given that they can just pull out of agreements and impose sanctions whenever they like, so they will move east. That said, it's not good for Iran's independence in the long-term to be so reliant on China. It defies the neither east or west pillar of the revolution.

(4) These are good steps but they are not enough. Iranians have been very clear on sanctions relief being the bottom line. I'm not sure if they will attend the meeting, their current position is they are consulting among themselves, as well as talking to China and Russia, so we will see. If they do meet, they have said it should be members of the P4+1 with the US as an observer, as it is their view that the US has left the deal, Iran has reneged on its commitments, but it is still a party to the deal since its actions were in response to a US pullout, which article 36 of the JCPOA permits.

(5) So far, they've only offered to meet, and done a few signaling moves, but there's no movement on the sanctions at all.

(6) Yes, this is precisely what I say in (4). Iran will continue with its suspension of the additional protocol on February 23rd because they've not seen sanctions relief and so far the moves are symbolic.

I think the Biden administration has a number of different voices, his Iran envoy, Rob Malley and few others favour a clean return to the JCPOA, but there are more hawkish voices in the administration that are basically keen on adopting Trump's policy, like Brett McGurk and Jake Sullivan, they want the sanctions to stay in place unless Iran not only returns to its commitments but also negotiates a longer deal and missiles, in which case you may as well kiss the deal goodbye. There are others who seem to want a JCPOA - type of deal, where Iran would halt some of the things its doing outside of its commitments and the US would provide limited sanctions relief. This step would help the US to box in Iran's nuclear program, but would prevent the Biden administration from having to take important steps like lifting terrorism sanctions on the Iranian CB, the state owned Iranian oil company, etc. which Trump imposed as a means to impose political cost on the next admin. It seems to me like the administration is too worried about Republicans in congress as well hawkish dems like Menendez in the senate. But if it keeps moving slowly on this, it will be too late eventually, because I don't see Iran after having survived Trump's maximum pressure moving to accommodate the US' demands, they will probably continue moving East and think the West is a lost cause. The only thing is with this approach, the Israelis might strike militarily and then we could have a regional war. Iran's tame response to Soleimani's assassination and its non-response to Fakhrizadeh has exposed it as weak and I think some voices probably think that even if they strike, in an attempt to avoid war, which they are wary of they will probably not respond in a way that is escalatory. But this is risky because at some point they may think they have no choice given that they will probably invite more attacks if they do so. Also, if Iran is attacked, it almost certainly would move its program further and further underground to where airstrikes couldn't damage it and then probably go for a bomb. So, this is a risky move, but I have no doubt some voices in the Biden admin think Trump's approach to Iran exposed Iran's weaknesses and think its worth going along with it or at least using the sanctions as leverage to get more concessions out of Iran.

[hasanhh]

2 hours ago, Mohamed1993 said:

(1) the Europeans proved themselves to be completely inept and a total vassal state of the US,

 

2 hours ago, Mohamed1993 said:

. Iran will continue with

the JCPOA which is not "in suspension" and lRI continues with its provisions and specifications. Suspending "spot inspections"( = as 24-hour notice) is allowable.

2 hours ago, Mohamed1993 said:

I think the Biden administration has a number of different voices

This is what 'scares' the EU.

2 hours ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Also, if Iran is attacked,

The official-in-meetings-and-testimony-before-Congress position of the Pentagon is: attack lRl and we will be in 'a real war'.  And yes, l know 'everything' the US will start with is in the starting-blocks and can 'go' in 15 minutes.

[hasanhh]

On 10/13/2017 at 5:08 PM, Mohamed1993 said:

it will be through bullying and coercing,

This matter and Nordstream 2, getting defense spending up to 2% of GDP -which is only what l can think of on-the-spur-of-the-moment -- have proved your point true.

[hasanhh]

On Friday the 26th, PBS NewsHour ran this story, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/iranians-hopeful-diplomacy-with-washington-could-stem-soaring-inflation-unrest , a somewhat misleading title for a report on the failure of the "maximum pressure campaign" by former President Trump. in the report, Reza Sayah says the lranians have little impetus for civil unrest, that inflation is bad, that sanctions have had no effect on lRl policies and nuclear (energy) program.

On Saturday the 27th, the PRC and lRl signed as 25 year agreement. 0il for investment. The financial terms are disputed in this article:  https://news.yahoo.com/why-iran-experts-skeptical-significance-200500571.html .

0PINE: The World moves on without Washington. Too bad as Washington could have done better.

[hasanhh]

Rouhani:  https://www.aljazeera.com/2021/3/31/rouhani-iran-sees-no-valid-action-from-the-us-on-nuclear-deal 

[Abu Nur]

Quote

0PINE: The World moves on without Washington. Too bad as Washington could have done better.

When Zionist control them, there is no better.

[hasanhh]

The shuffle in Vienna. lRl and the 3+2 talks.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-usa/world-powers-iran-hold-constructive-talks-on-reviving-nuclear-deal-idUSKBN2BT0UU  

OPINE: "reviving"??? lt is the US/Trump that pulled out of the deal and then mixed it with "terrorism" accusations.

Apparently, things are believed to be hopeful: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-oil/oil-down-5-as-rising-opec-iranian-output-weighs-idUSKBN@BS007  

Meanwhile, an Iranian cargo ship has been "attacked" -NYT et alia says it was lsraeI- by "a limpet mine".

[Ashvazdanghe]

JCPOA Joint Commission first round ends in Vienna

Quote

 

April 6, 2021/in All News, Featured 3, Other News /

SHAFAQNA- IRNA : The first round of the 18th session of the Joint Commission of the Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) meeting held at the Grand Hotel in Vienna ended with an agreement to continue consultations at the level of experts.

Araghchi stressed at the commission meeting that lifting US sanctions is the first and most necessary measure to revive the JCPOA and that the Islamic Republic of Iran is fully prepared to cease its nuclear countermeasures and return to full implementation of the JCPOA as soon as sanctions are lifted and it will happen after verification.

The Iranian delegation is headed by Araghchi and representatives of the Central Bank of Iran, Petroleum Ministry and Atomic Energy Organization of Iran accompany him.

 

Quote

No representative from the US will attend the JCPOA joint commission meeting or expert meetings. The Iranian delegation will hold no direct or indirect talks with the US in the framework of JCPOA.

https://en.shafaqna.com/206021/jcpoa-joint-commission-first-round-ends-in-vienna/

[Zainuu]

Leaked tapes of Iranian FM Zarif:

https://www.dw.com/en/tape-of-foreign-minister-zarif-reveals-regime-rift-in-iran/a-57392575

https://iranintl.com/en/zarif-tapes

https://en.irna.ir/news/84311845/Leaking-Zarif-s-tape-aimed-at-sabotaging-Vienna-talks-says-President

A brilliant analysis of the event, causes and consequences:

https://ejmagnier.com/2021/04/29/why-zarif-blames-soleimani-for-the-governments-failure/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

[Haji 2003]

'Nice' problem for Iran to have?

On the other hand FT readers commenting on this article are suggesting the West offer Iran inducements to break with Russia and 'get-rich-quick'. The latter sounds shortsighted to me.

Quote

Sergei Lavrov, Russian foreign minister, told reporters on Saturday that Moscow wanted the US guarantees to ensure sanctions on Russia did not damage “our right to free and full trade, economic and investment co-operation and military-technical co-operation with the Islamic republic”.

https://www.ft.com/content/d101bd66-da72-4432-abc5-da2f7362bedb#comments-anchor

[Haji 2003]

Russian and Iranian interests diverging?

Quote

 

According to another former Iranian diplomat, reviving the JCPOA nuclear deal is not now in Russia’s interest.

“Because if the sanctions are lifted and Iranian oil returns to the oil market, the pressure on the market will be decreased and the demand for Russian oil will be reduced to a certain extent,” he said.

 

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/iran-nuclear-deal-russia-sanctions-demand-leaves-fretting?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign&utm_content=ap_qy9x2uolwy

[Haji 2003]

Little hope
 

Quote

These Senate actions [prohibting Biden from removing IRGC from list of terror organisation & terrorism sanctions against Iran central bank] signal clearly to Tehran that any JCPOA revival will probably be shortlived. The US congressional election is only six months away and the Republicans — who look likely to win the majority — have stated they will do everything they can to block the JCPOA; some have said they would tear it up. This leaves little realistic hope for the agreement in the long term.

https://www.ft.com/content/c878b763-f0ae-4bc0-bb38-0e0a95fb4d3d

[Mediterranean Alawite]

Possible solution?

Iran has received a response from the United States on its comments to the European Union's draft proposal aimed at salvaging the 2015 nuclear deal and lifting draconian US sanctions, the foreign ministry spokesman said on Wednesday.

https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2022/08/24/687966/Iran-receives-US-response-to-EU-proposal-on-JCPOA-revival,-will-announce-position-after-assessment--FM-spokesman

[Haji 2003]

The hell of good intentions

Extract from book by Stephen Walt, professor at Harvard Kennedy school

Quote

More than a decade of U.S. intransigence left Iran considerably closer to a nuclear bomb than it would have been had Washington engaged in genuine diplomacy sooner.

Walt, Stephen M.. The Hell of Good Intentions (p. 78). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.