[Peace-discuss] U.S. Media Censors U.S. Support of Iran Fuel Swap

Tue May 25 18:56:52 CDT 2010

Thanks for yr perspective. It's reassuring that it may not be a giant and irreversible step backwards after all. --Jenifer

--- On Tue, 5/25/10, Robert Naiman <naiman.uiuc at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Robert Naiman <naiman.uiuc at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] U.S. Media Censors U.S. Support of Iran Fuel Swap
To: "Jenifer Cartwright" <jencart13 at yahoo.com>
Cc: "Peace-discuss List" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Date: Tuesday, May 25, 2010, 10:12 AM

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Jenifer Cartwright
<jencart13 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Beyond depressing -- this pretty much puts paid to hope.

Puts paid to hope? Surely you jest. Hope is just getting its boots on.
No-one has been killed yet, at least not directly. It's still "early
days," as the Brits say.

>
> BOB: Tell us again WHY the US did a 180 on this?

There is multiple causality. Cohen and others cite Congressional
pressure. Congress has legislation pending - with overwhelming support
- that includes third-party sanctions that would be awkward for the
U.S. diplomatically. The Obama Administration has been holding
Congress at bay with the UN sanctions track. The Obama
Administration's Congressional game plan doesn't include negotiations
with Iran right now. They are trying to make nice with Republicans in
the Senate to get the START treaty passed.

Others have noted that the Obama Administration has invested a lot of
capital in the push for sanctions - esp. buying Russian and Chinese
support.

Then you have the very strong Washington belief that the US must be in
charge. Brazil and Turkey can't be allowed to play any significant
role in shaping the flow of events.

Of course, underlying all this is that it's a proxy for the US-Iran
struggle for influence in the region. While there's little prospect in
the forseeable future of resolving that struggle, the US and Iran have
choices about how to manage their struggle for influence - they could
threaten each other militarily, for example, or they could choose not
to do that. They could choose to reach an interim deal on Iran's
nuclear program - as President Obama told President Lula in his letter
2 weeks ago, that would "generate confidence and reduce regional
tensions."

>  --Jenifer
>
> --- On Tue, 5/25/10, Robert Naiman <naiman.uiuc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Robert Naiman <naiman.uiuc at gmail.com>
> Subject: [Peace-discuss] U.S. Media Censors U.S. Support of Iran Fuel Swap
> To: "Peace-discuss List" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> Date: Tuesday, May 25, 2010, 8:55 AM
>
> Sao Paulo - If you get your information from major U.S. media, and you follow U.S. foreign policy, then you know that last week Iran, Brazil, and Turkey signed an agreement for Iran to ship about half of its stockpile of low-enriched uranium to Turkey, in exchange for subsequent Western supply of higher-enriched uranium to fuel Iran's medical research reactor - fuel Iran needs in order to treat Iranian medical patients, fuel to which Iran is entitled as a signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
>
> If you were paying close attention, you might know that the deal is quite similar to one proposed a few months ago by the United States. An initial AP story on the Washington Post's website last Monday - which I cited at the time - said the agreement was "nearly identical" to the deal the U.S. was pressing for, although by the end of the day the AP article on the Post's website had been revised to downgrade this comparison to "mirrors." [The original AP story is still visible here.] U.S. officials have dismissed the deal brokered by Brazil and Turkey, even though the deal is "nearly identical" to the one proposed by the U.S. Indeed, according to the Washington Post, U.S. officials are "thoroughly irritated" with Turkey for its role in mediating the agreement.
>
> But if you get your information from major U.S. media, here's something that you almost certainly don't know: Brazil and Turkey say that before they reached the deal, they understood that they had the backing of the Obama Administration for their efforts. The available evidence suggests that Brazil and Turkey had good reason to believe that they had U.S. support, and that the Obama Administration has taken a 180 degree turn in its position in the last few weeks, and is now trying to cover its tracks, with the active collaboration of major U.S. media.
>
> (continued:)
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/us-media-censors-us-suppo_b_588470.html
>
> --
> Robert Naiman
> Policy Director
> Just Foreign Policy
> www.justforeignpolicy.org
> naiman at justforeignpolicy..org
>
> Urge Congress to Support a Timetable for Military Withdrawal from Afghanistan
> http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/feingold-mcgovern
>
>
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>

--
Robert Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org

Urge Congress to Support a Timetable for Military Withdrawal from Afghanistan
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/feingold-mcgovern

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20100525/a0f2ae4e/attachment-0001.html>