It appears from all I can learn that a deal with Iran over enrighment is likely next month. What have others heard? See Ignatius' piece in Washpost today as an example. pl
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
A deal, as I have often stated, was the end game for Qom. The remaining question is whether the DC can call their friends in Tel Aviv to fall into line, and that does not necessarily mean actors inside the govt of BN, but also others (and there are others) within the Likud braintrust and elsewhere. Who can the White House call upon for this task is a question unto itself, but the ball game has left Qom and Washington and is now playing out on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea.
The most important question, however, is whether the deal Qom accepts is in the interests of the Pax Americana? Is it?
Most rats I've seen have narrower heads, with bodies that are both longer and bigger. Could just be the breed and camera angle though.
Also, I've known some very personable, pleasant, rats in my time and feel the need to come to their defence when they're being slandered by comparison to high government officials.
Domesticated rats are loyal, curious, trainable, social and quite intelligent. Even with vermin it can at least be said that while they may be a nuisance, and may even bite a human; they rarely do harm beyond a single home. In any event, it is generally possible to rid yourself of them without too great an effort. Would that any of the above were true of any nation's leaders.
"So far, Iran is following the script for a gradual, face-saving exit from a nuclear program …." - what 'program'?
"Iran would export its stockpile of highly enriched uranium for final processing to 20 percent."
20 percent is not 'highly' enriched; if the 'stockpile' were greater than 20 percent enrichment it would need reducing, not enriching. Reading further down in the piece to read the comments of Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi and reference to the 2009 Turkish plan. (left unsaid is we could have had this agreement 3 years ago?)
Colonel Lang, I have to agree with Grimgrin. That was a very disparaging thing to say about rats. I lived with four black rats in my bedroom as a kid as part of a high school science projects. My mother stayed out of my room most of that year. I'd rather live with those rats than with an equal number of Likudniks.
Some time before I was born my father apparently gave my mother a rat as a pet; a lab animal that was unsuitable for experiments due to a minor respiratory illness. I'm told that it was quite sociable -- stretching out on the arm of the sofa to watch TV with ma mere. I'm also told that it got quite chubby due to my mother's knack for feeding children and small animals (same thing really). But a good pet, all told.
Add to the above, the words of Jannati who today appeared to endorse the negotiations.
It appears a breakthrough is close at hand? The question remains, what is in the best interests of thr Pax Americana? Does a strategically autonomous Iran strengthen or weaken our position in the international system?
It is not in the interest of the US for Israel to dominate the ME. They are a foreign country replete with its own interests that are mainly not US interests. pl
If so, it's great news.
Posted by: Matthew | 18 April 2012 at 10:01 AM
Good Morning Colonel,
A deal, as I have often stated, was the end game for Qom. The remaining question is whether the DC can call their friends in Tel Aviv to fall into line, and that does not necessarily mean actors inside the govt of BN, but also others (and there are others) within the Likud braintrust and elsewhere. Who can the White House call upon for this task is a question unto itself, but the ball game has left Qom and Washington and is now playing out on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea.
The most important question, however, is whether the deal Qom accepts is in the interests of the Pax Americana? Is it?
Posted by: mac n. | 18 April 2012 at 10:08 AM
There must be something up, because the hawks are scrambling: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/04/the-iran-hawks-latest-misleading-meme/256048/
Posted by: PS | 18 April 2012 at 01:00 PM
Colonel,
Just out of curiosity, who is the rat in the picture??
Posted by: Tony | 18 April 2012 at 01:53 PM
tony
The Israeli foreign minister. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 18 April 2012 at 01:54 PM
Isn't this the deal we offered two years ago and then cancelled when Iran accepted the agreement?
Can't wait to see John Bolton on fox...lol
Posted by: Jose | 18 April 2012 at 01:56 PM
Most rats I've seen have narrower heads, with bodies that are both longer and bigger. Could just be the breed and camera angle though.
Also, I've known some very personable, pleasant, rats in my time and feel the need to come to their defence when they're being slandered by comparison to high government officials.
Domesticated rats are loyal, curious, trainable, social and quite intelligent. Even with vermin it can at least be said that while they may be a nuisance, and may even bite a human; they rarely do harm beyond a single home. In any event, it is generally possible to rid yourself of them without too great an effort. Would that any of the above were true of any nation's leaders.
Posted by: Grimgrin | 18 April 2012 at 03:14 PM
Ignatius is still misleading in his comments:
"So far, Iran is following the script for a gradual, face-saving exit from a nuclear program …." - what 'program'?
"Iran would export its stockpile of highly enriched uranium for final processing to 20 percent."
20 percent is not 'highly' enriched; if the 'stockpile' were greater than 20 percent enrichment it would need reducing, not enriching. Reading further down in the piece to read the comments of Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi and reference to the 2009 Turkish plan. (left unsaid is we could have had this agreement 3 years ago?)
Posted by: Fred | 18 April 2012 at 03:25 PM
Colonel Lang, I have to agree with Grimgrin. That was a very disparaging thing to say about rats. I lived with four black rats in my bedroom as a kid as part of a high school science projects. My mother stayed out of my room most of that year. I'd rather live with those rats than with an equal number of Likudniks.
Posted by: The Twisted Genius | 18 April 2012 at 07:55 PM
Well, if the deal does go through, let's hope the SS gets its house in order.
http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/iamges/sub12/bubba_returns.jpg
Posted by: Morocco Bama | 18 April 2012 at 08:32 PM
Some time before I was born my father apparently gave my mother a rat as a pet; a lab animal that was unsuitable for experiments due to a minor respiratory illness. I'm told that it was quite sociable -- stretching out on the arm of the sofa to watch TV with ma mere. I'm also told that it got quite chubby due to my mother's knack for feeding children and small animals (same thing really). But a good pet, all told.
Posted by: Medicine Man | 19 April 2012 at 01:07 PM
too funny
Posted by: Charles I | 19 April 2012 at 06:29 PM
Add to the above, the words of Jannati who today appeared to endorse the negotiations.
It appears a breakthrough is close at hand? The question remains, what is in the best interests of thr Pax Americana? Does a strategically autonomous Iran strengthen or weaken our position in the international system?
Posted by: Mac N. | 20 April 2012 at 12:37 PM
Mac N
It is not in the interest of the US for Israel to dominate the ME. They are a foreign country replete with its own interests that are mainly not US interests. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 20 April 2012 at 12:40 PM
Mr. Lang,
Is that your sense of what those who form policy believe...or is that merely what you believe?
I ask, because many argue that the "national interest" is an antiquated notion in the United States.
Posted by: Paul Escobar | 20 April 2012 at 04:55 PM