Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Iran demands more concessions

Iran demands more concessions

Surprise, surprise, surprise…

The arbitrary deadline to come to a nuclear agreement is less than a week away. Yet again, Iran’s Supreme leader took to Twitter to make his demands — demands not congruent with previous agreements.

The New York Times reported Tuesday:

In a speech broadcast live on Iran state television, the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, demanded that most sanctions be lifted before Tehran has dismantled part of its nuclear infrastructure and before international inspectors verify that the country is beginning to meet its commitments. He also ruled out any freeze on Iran’s sensitive nuclear enrichment for as long as a decade, as a preliminary understanding announced in April stipulates, and he repeated his refusal to allow inspections of Iranian military sites.

American officials said they would not be baited into a public debate with the ayatollah, who has the final word on nuclear matters. But with Western foreign ministers already hinting that the negotiations may go past the June 30 deadline, both American and European officials have said in recent weeks that they are increasingly concerned about the possible effects of the ayatollah’s statements.

But the grandstanding didn’t stop there. They Ayatollah went to his favorite platform to clarify his demands.

Will the Ayatollah’s comments have any impact on the negotiations?

The NYT offered two possible scenarios:

1) “if the remarks were made chiefly to mollify hard-liners and military leaders, they say, they could sharply limit the flexibility of Iran’s chief negotiator, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, as he heads into the week when the most difficult concessions are likely on both sides,” and,

2) “outside experts say, that the ayatollah’s series of statements over the past two months, seemingly stepping back from major commitments made by Mr. Zarif’s team, are carefully choreographed to bolster Iran’s negotiators, who can argue that they cannot deviate from the supreme leader’s strictures.”

White House defenders were quick to mount a defense. The Washington Free Beacon explains:

On the heels of Khamenei’s speech, prominent White House defenders fired off a series of tweets expressing shock.

“Was Khamenei’s speech designed to drive a stake in the #IranDeal?” asked Mark Fitzpatrick, director of the International Institute for Strategic Studies’ (IISS) Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Program. “His demands are unacceptable.”

Daryl G. Kimball, director of Arms Control Association, referred to Khamenei’s speech as “supremely unhelpful” and claimed it “backtracks on earlier Iranian commitments, jeopardizing win-win deal” with Tehran.

The speech was a “clumsy attempt at gaining leverage that jeopardizes a win-win deal,” Kimball tweeted.

Follow Kemberlee Kaye on Twitter

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

They’re the scorpions, we’re the frogs. This story has been told before.

We are blessed to have a wise, Nobel prize winning “black messiah”.
Bonus! A “wise Latina”.

God help us all …

Will the Ayatollah’s comments have any impact on the negotiations?

They’re not just comments, they’re Tweets!

This is getting out of control. If @khamenei’s not careful, @Obotheclown is gonna get pissed, and start throwing golf clubs.

    Valerie in reply to rinardman. | June 24, 2015 at 9:16 pm

    Yeah, but if he throws golf clubs because he is pissed at Iran, he will throw them at the Tea Partiers for their obstructionism.

      Rick the Curmudgeon in reply to Valerie. | June 24, 2015 at 9:38 pm

      That’s the Tea Partiers that have had absolutely no input to the negotiation process, right?

When you’re up against two bicycle-riding pansies like Obama and Kerry: demand, baby, demand!

Sammy Finkelman | June 25, 2015 at 12:20 am

It looks a lot like Iran wants war. You would think maybe they would think such an outcome would not be successful for them.

Sammy Finkelman | June 25, 2015 at 12:21 am

As for Obama, TOO BIG TO FAIL can only get you tolerate so much.

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to Sammy Finkelman. | June 25, 2015 at 12:25 am

    That is, to Obama, these negotiations may be TOO BIG TO FAIL but even so, there’s a limit.

    What’s Khamenei’s ace in the hole?

    Yes, of course, the US seeks dismantling of Iran’s nuclear industry, leaving a caricature of it behind. Iran, on the other hand, seeks a lifting of sanctions, at the least possible cost, and they are not going to get it!

Sammy Finkelman | June 25, 2015 at 12:42 am

I have to feel that Ali Khamenei’s motives have to be something greater than merely making Barack Obama look like a fool.

And it’s gone way too farm, and it’s much too close to the accepted deadline if the idea is to get Obama to accept a bad deal because it will feel like it’s a miracle Iran agreed to what it did.

    He doesn’t have to make Obama look like a fool, they have already done that. Participation in this farce is foolishness. Only a naive president would still be there.

Sammy Finkelman | June 25, 2015 at 12:47 am

“Was Khamenei’s speech designed to drive a stake in the #IranDeal?”

Yes.

He even wants the U.S. Congress to lift the sanctions on the first day.

He knows that’s not going to happen, and that no groundwork has been laid for it. (if that is what he wanted, he needed to make that very clear from the start.)

Sammy Finkelman | June 25, 2015 at 1:04 am

Khamenei.ir @khamenei_ir

During previous govt. Americans sent a dignitary from region to ask for direct talks and said they intended to resolve issues with #Iran.1/2

2:52 PM – 23 Jun 2015

Khamenei.ir
‏@khamenei_ir

US said it’d recognize #Iran as nuclear power&gradually lift sanctions in 6 months.We restated our distrust,but gave them another chance.2/2

2:59 PM – 23 Jun 2015

According to this, during the Bush administration, some dignitary from the region, (Who? from where? Qatar??) told Iran that the United States would recognize Iran as a nuclear power!

I don’t think the Bush Administration ever sent such a message, but did somebody make a message like that up? I mean, this statement actually could be true.

And even so, why is Khamenei trying to hold Obama to some secret statement of intention made by George W. Bush?

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to Sammy Finkelman. | June 25, 2015 at 1:15 am

    Maybe it was not a foreign country. Maybe some people in the Iranian government of Mohammad Khatami made it up. Or did some people in the CIA, acting alone, try this?

Someone should ask Tyrant Obama the Liar why he lied to us about this arrests. The Ayatollah is more believable than our Aruler.

And why are we still negotiating with un-negotiable mad men ?

Henry Hawkins | June 25, 2015 at 8:40 am

As an older white Southern male conservative, I accept full responsibility for the failure of Obama’s negotiations with Iran.

    ’bout time we heard from you “older white Southern male conservative(s)”. Now that you have confessed your PC shortcomings go have some biscuits and gravy and grits with those eggs.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to jennifer a johnson. | June 25, 2015 at 2:31 pm

      Wait before we serve up the vittles. There’s more – I’m also a heterosexual, the rural southern sort referred to as jethrosexual.

        Just wondering: Are you “older white Southern male conservative heterosexuals” also the cause of AGW? (I’m asking for the Pope. He’s concerned about cause and effect.)

        If not and you are filthy rich like Jethro Bodine then meet me at Cracker Barrel tomorrow morning at 6:30 AM. And, Do Not tell anyone.

Iran demands more concessions.

Obama demands more recessions.

SCOTUS demands more regressions.

Congress demands more obsessions.

Socialism demands more possessions.

There are some people you cannot negotiate with because they see negotiations as a means for them to take things they want without giving anything back or giving only things they do not intend to honor. Neville Chamberlain was duped that way by Hitler. Another term for this type of negotiation is “Stalinist”. That is a type of negotiation in which one side gives essentially nothing, just tiny crumbs they don’t care about, then makes major demands and is intransigent about them. The best way to handle this type of “negotiation” is to walk away from it entirely. The Iranians need to be reminded of what the old Soviets once clearly understood, in any nuclear conflict they might engage in (even with israel which doesn’t admit to having nuclear weapons), the principle of MAD (mutually assured destruction) applies. If Iran uses nuclear weapons, there will be no Iran left afterwards. The real danger to the world is a group of suicidal fanatics is willing to obliterate their country, a kind of mass suicide.

Henry Hawkins | June 25, 2015 at 11:18 am

At what point did (or will) Obama realize he’s being played for a chump?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend