Six world powers and Iran are in the final stage of pursuing a final settlement on Tehran's disputed nuclear program despite caveats from both sides that a breakthrough deal may prove impossible. This hesitancy is clearly understandable.
Notwithstanding the obvious, the American delegation in Geneva, led by Secretary of State John Kerry, is seemingly upbeat in its negotiations with Iranian leaders. But the Panglossian smiles that emerge from the meetings are deceptive.
How can one assume any substantive roll back of Iran's nuclear program will occur when the Iranian leadership states unequivocally that a red line has been drawn on the plutonium production reactor, further uranium enrichment and ballistic missile development? What could possibly emerge from these talks when the essential bones of contention are off limits? It strains the limits of credulity to believe the Obama administration thinks there is a "carrot" that will encourage Iranian flexibility.
At the outset of these negotiations -- in order to bring Iran to the negotiating table in the first place -- the U.S. and its Security Council partners eased certain sanctions thereby improving Iran's weak economy. In fact, in January, due to a round of oil deals with China and others, oil production spiked by 1.3 million barrels a day which translates into $4 billion a month and $48 billion a year. Ironically this improving economic picture is likely to harden the Iranian negotiating stance.
While the U.S. is obsessed with these Iranian negotiations, the Russians have inserted themselves into Middle East affairs in a nefarious way. The brokered settlement with Assad for the destruction of his poison gas arsenal has put Putin in a position of protecting the Assad regime and insinuating Russian interests into Syria. But that is only part of Putin's agenda.
Since the U.S. has frozen the sale of Apaches to the al-Sisi regime in Egypt, the Putin charm campaign could lead to another Russian beachhead in the Middle East. It has weapons on sale that the Egyptian government believes it needs to counter internal challenges such as the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda's affiliates in the Sinai. After successfully contesting Soviet influence in the Mideast, a bungling U.S. foreign policy has given Putin the opportunity to reestablish Russia in Middle East affairs.
Notwithstanding President Obama's contention that regional tension has been reduced, Iran has supplied Hezbollah and Hamas with about 100,000 rockets capable of reaching every Israeli population center. Israel's anti-missile systems -- including the Iron Dome and David's Sling -- would be stretched to the limit with a saturation bombing of these missiles.
Complicating matters further, the Iranian government boasted that it is sending two warships to patrol the east coast of the United States. The latest reports indicate these ships are near the southern tip of Africa soon to be rounding the Cape of Good Hope. This isn't the first time Iran has shadowed the U.S. shoreline, but the timing of this foray is revealing.
This flotilla does not pose the slightest threat to the U.S., but suppose it was nuclear capable? Clearly Iran wants to flex some muscle to counter the presence of the U.S. fleet in the Persian Gulf, giving the U.S. "a taste of its own medicine." However, this sideshow seems to foreshadow Iran's global intentions. It explains why restraining Iranian nuclear ambitions is critical. It also explains why Iran's intention is transparent; nuclear weapons give Iran enormous political influence in the region -- an influence no amount of U.S. assurance can negate.
Here is the stalemate: A United States' position based on good will and fear of nuclear proliferation versus an Iran hell-bent on pursing its imperial agenda with nuclear weapons as the instrument for doing so. One side is flexible and the other uncompromising. It isn't hard to see which side has the advantage.
