20 thoughts on “Alex Fishman: U.S. Sees in Ahmadinejad Possible Partner for Nuclear Deal, If Not…Expect War in 2012 – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. Richard, I think you are probably right in your overall assessment but I wouldn’t underestimate Ahmadinejad chances of coming on top. He’s got lots of rat cunning. In fact he remeinds of my old unlamented Primie Minster, John Howard. Both are good at getting the numbers with seemingly none of the good cards dealt their way. I supsect the Amercian are thinking along the same way. Of course a word from the likes of Trita Parsi on this core is worth much more than my humble self here. Hope you hear from Trita or any of his colleagues.

  2. Ahmadinejad seem to have long practised the (Israeli-mastered) strategy of conducting virtually hopeless, bad-faithed negotiations-for-the-sake-of-negotiations as a means of buying time while wasting the other party’s momentum.

    The scenario you suggest would offer something (precious time) to all parties involved. The Iranians will buy time to continue (albeit in a somewhat slower pace) with their nuclear development. Obama will buy it to get through (Iraq-withdrawal and) probable re-election. Netanyahu & co. will use it to get off a war-machine that’s hard to start on a war-path that’s bound to deliver little and risk aplenty. Everyone else (Europe in particular) will use it to go on dealin with a more pressing economical crisis.

    p.s. The metaphoric “freeze”, in the context you mention, would often indicate (in Hebrew) “suspension”, rather than maintaining the status-quo.

  3. Most of the items in the so-called deal offered to Iran was already offered by Iran to the US several years ago – and the US ignored them then:


    FYI there is no “advanced nuclear research at the secret Qom facility” – there isn’t even a “secret” facility in Qom. The Fordo site is a back-up enrichment facility, not a research facility, and furthermore it isn’t “secret” – it is subject to IAEA safeguards. Finally, it was never a secret. See, Iran is only required to officially declare a facility 18-days prior to the introduction of nuclear material in it. The US “beats them to the punch” and “exposes” such facilities, prior to that date, then pretends to have exposes a “secret” facility. “Not-yet-formally-disclosed” is not the same as “secret”

  4. So, although tucked in the middle of your post and albeit in square brackets you admit the possibility of American ‘involvement’. Let’s just ignore the fact that some of your commenters here mentioned this possibility two days ago at least. And in very er…pugnacious style you dismissed them. But hey, at least your ‘scoop’ got you the headlines you wanted, and the interview with an Israeli establishment newspaper, which you perhaps craved.

    Time for an apology for maligning Debka, Richard?

    1. I never dismissed the possibility of American involvement. I dismissed the possibility of American sole authorship. You see you have trouble getting nuance. I believe the CIA did play some role in the attack, but it was a supporting role. I can’t prove it though. Not yet.

  5. “”By then, there will few U.S. troops remaining in Iraq and Iraqi airspace will no longer be controlled by the U.S.””

    We have already abrogated responsibility for Iraqi airspace. (Haaretz article last month, iirc) It only remains to finish moving our troops out and hardening out diplomatic fortress to weather the storm.

  6. Ack to Hass. Richard you are totally of your meds on this.

    The facts are simply wrong. Some of your recent “scoops” have gone to your head?

    You are Netanyahoo’s work now.

  7. I think the 15,000 ton figure for the bunker buster is wrong. The Hiroshima bomb was about 20 kT (i.e., 20,000 tons). I just don’t think it’s possible to put that much explosive energy into a conventional weapon. Now 15,000 lbs would be reasonable.

  8. As I commented on Harper’s piece, there is very little if any evidence of Iranian involvement in the 1994 AMIA bombing in Buenos Aires. The U.S. Ambassador to Argentina at the time, James Cheek, has said that as far as he knew, investigators found nothing linking Iran or Hezbollah to the attack. Interestingly, a number of eyewitness accounts claim the explosion, like in the 1992 bombing of the Israeli embassy, came from inside the builiding. In that earlier attack, the bomb exploded while the Shin Bet security staff were out to lunch.

    1. “the bomb exploded while the Shin Bet security staff were out to lunch”
      What are you implying here Maidhc,go mbeannaí Dia duit.
      There is so much circumstantial evidence of Iranian involvement and so much money has been spread around to hamper the investigation that it is clear that only a someone with the resources of a state could have been responsible,directly or indirectly.


  9. As much as I despise Ahmadinejad, I would not rule him out as someone who can deliver a nuclear compromise between Iran and the U.S. First, he has made it absolutely clear that he wants a deal with the U.S. Second, in his internal power struggle he has done exceedingly well, despite powerful forces against him. He has support among the IRGC mid rank officers, and even some who hate the regime give him credit for having the guts to stand up to Khamenei. Anyone else in his position would have been gone long time ago. Third, he and his supporters are well aware that a large majority of the population despises the clerics, and they are cleverly exploiting it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *