The United Nation's nuclear watchdog has failed to convince Iran of the need to inspect a military base suspected of housing nuclear weapons' experiments, Iranian media cited the head of country's atomic agency as saying on Saturday.Comments reportedly made by the head of Atomic Energy Agency of Iran (AEOI) Fereidoun Abbasi came despite last week's announcement of aburgeoning deal between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA), according to which the international community would have more access to the Parchin base.Iran's state-run TV and semi-official Fars news agency both cited
Abbasi as saying Saturday that Iran had not been convinced of the need to inspect the Parchin site, adding that "no documents or reason has been presented to us" to persuade Tehran otherwise.The UN agency also said satellite images showed "extensive activities" at the Parchin military complex which inspectors want to check over suspicions that research relevant to nuclear weapons was done there.
Earlier this month, an image said to come from inside the Parchin base and showing an explosives containment chamber of the type needed for nuclear arms-related tests that UN inspectors suspect Tehran has conducted at the site.
The wanton slaughter by Syrian forces of 92 confirmed victims, 32 of them children under ten, at the Homs village of Al-Houla Friday, May 25, was the most horrifying atrocity in the Middle East this week, but not the only one: In Sanaa, six days ago, al Qaeda’s suicide bombers, having penetrated Yemeni military ranks, detonated two tons of explosives at a parade rehearsal killing more than 100 soldiers and civilians and injuring 400.Yet, according to the New York Times, after 15 months of bloodshed, President Barack Obama is working on the Yemenbi model for a plan to push Bashar Assad out of office, while “leaving remnants of his government in place. The Yemeni model replaced President Ali Abdullah in Sanaa with his vice president Abdu Rabbu Mansour Hadi.Whereas US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton condemned Assad and his “cronies” for the al-Houla massacre, the “Yemen plan” would leave in place those very “cronies,” including Assad’s close relatives, who are responsible for massacres not only in al-Houla, but also in Homs, Hama, Idlib and Deraa, to name a fewThis scrap of dialogue lifted the veil from a key aspect of Obama’s broader Middle East program and the role he has assigned Moscow for carrying it through. This role was first revealed exclusively by DEBKA-Net-Weekly 542 of May 25 which reported that the US president is acting to bring the Russians into a partnership for securing deals on the Iranian nuclear program and the Syrian crisis.
So far, his venture has had two results:
1. The Iranian nuclear impasse and the outcome of the Syrian civil war have been more tightly integrated than ever before.
2. Any deal reached by the US, Russia and Iran on the two issues would have to entail a carving-up of Middle East influence among those three powers.
As for Israel’s role in the ongoing bargaining, we also disclosed in DEBKAfile of May 19 thatIsrael’s Binyamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak had agreed to stand back for Barack Obama to put his interim deal with Iran to the test.
Despite their reservations, they decided to go along with it after receiving assurances from the White House that Iranian violations would result in the immediate termination of negotiations and bring military action forward as the sole remaining option for stopping a nuclear Iran.
The US president promised to put his accord with Israel before the G-8 summit. And he did.
But for now there is no deal although Israel, in effect, gave Obama six months’ grace to explore his diplomatic initiative with Vladimir Putin and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei before turning back to the military option.But as the days pass, major hurdles are piling up in the path of what some observers hail as Obama’s “Grand Bargain,” and others his “Grand Failure:” The Six-power talks with Iran have failed to persuade the ayatollahs to give up uranium enrichment up to weapons-grade; the world wants actions not words to halt the brutal massacres in Syria; rising bloodshed in Yemen continues to cripple the country. Obama’s hopes of a crisis-free six months for electioneering in peace look more and more like pipe-dreams.The bargaining with Tehran is likely to stay stalled because Iran’s leaders take Obama’s deal with Israel as a six-month respite from a military threat. So why should they hurry in May or even June to reach a compromise with America on its demand to stop 20 percent uranium enrichment?Bashar Assad and his army chiefs likewise feel US hands are tied by Obama's hopes of a breakthrough with Iran and they can safely carry on with their “unspeakable crimes” for the next six months under the Iranian-Russian umbrella. Words however strong will not discourage him from sending tanks to crush every last opponent and their children.
No wonder the Russians are preventing the UN Security Council from slapping an arms embargo on Syria.Russia, with the support of fellow veto power China, has prevented the council from imposing any U.N. sanctions on Syria and has refused to halt arms sales to Damascus.
In a letter to the U.N. Security Council, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he had seen reports of countries supplying arms to the government and rebels. He urged states not to arm either side in the Syrian conflict.
"Those who may contemplate supporting any side with weapons, military training or other military assistance, must reconsider such options to enable a sustained cessation of violence," he said.
Russia has defended its weapons deliveries to Syria in the face of Western criticism, saying government forces need to defend themselves against rebels receiving arms from abroad. Damascus says Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Libya are among the countries helping the rebels.
Surprise! Talks between the six powers - the US, EU, UK, France, Germany, Russia and China - and Iran have ended in total, complete, embarrassing failure.
Those familiar with the iconic Peanuts gambit with Lucy assuring Charlie Brown that she will hold the football so he can kick it - only to yank it away at the last moment - will recognize Iran's nuclear negotiating strategy.But after often fraught bargaining in Baghdad, diplomats left declaring they had made no progress at all. "It's been a difficult few days," said a European diplomat in Baghdad. "After our first meeting in Istanbul with Iran a few weeks ago, we were euphoric. Now we're a lot more realistic about just how difficult this negotiation is."Incredible. A "semi brush-by" is seen as a "softening" toward the US? That's not hope - it's fantasy. In fact, it's pathetic to imbue a chance meeting where a few pleasantries were exchanged with any significance whatsoever. It's not even grasping at straws - it's grasping at thin air.
But the question arises; why do we keep getting fooled by Iran in nuclear negotiations? The talks always start out with "optimism" and quickly devolve into "disappointment." At some point, you'd think the striped pants geniuses would realize the game the Iranians are playing and refuse to take part.
But diplomats care more about process than results. They think that engaging in "dialogue" as a process will eventually turn into "progress" on substance. This kind of myopia is seen yearly in how the US approaches the Israel-Palestinian conflict. It doesn't matter that the Palestinians have sworn to destory Israel. What matters is the "process" of negotiations. The focus may change - settlements, two state solution, etc. - but the process stays the same.
So we and the West will continue to play Iran's game because there literally isn't anything else the diplomats can think of doing.
It's a sorry state of affairs.
We Israelis are oppressed by everyone, including the U.N., the State Department, the EU, and the Muslims, including the Palestinians. We are oppressed by 60,000-plus rockets aimed at us by our immediate neighbors and by threats of annihilation. And for what? It's either because we exist, which the left and the Arabs think is a crime, or because we are "occupiers," which much of the world finds unconscionable. They forget that UNSC Res. 242 authorized Israel to remain in occupation until she had recognized and secure borders. They argue that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies, even though Israel is not occupying the land of another signatory to the treaty as provided therein.The condemnation of Israel is based on the belief that the disputed territories are Palestinian. How so? They have never exercised sovereignty over said lands. The Arabs rejected the Partition Plan in 1948 that would have led to their sovereignty and invaded Israel instead. For the next nineteen years the West Bank was under Jordanian control, and no one ever called for a Palestinian state. In 1967, the Arabs were utterly defeated in a war they began. As a result, the UNSC passed Res. 242, which does not require Israel to withdraw from all the territories. At the Khartoum Conference, the Arabs rejected Res. 242 and agreed on the three nos: no recognition, no negotiations, and no peace. Arafat accepted Res. 242 because such acceptance was a precondition to entering the Oslo Accords, but he never agreed to its terms. And now they reject negotiations.Israel, on the other hand, can claim sovereignty over these lands, pursuant to the San Remo Resolution of 1919 and the Palestine Mandate of 1922 which granted the Jews the right to reconstitute their homeland in Palestine and the right to close of the land. She can also claim sovereignty over these lands by virtue of a continuous presence in the land for 3,000 years, by virtue of 1,000 years of sovereignty, by virtue of acquiring the land in a defensive war, or by insisting that only the Jordan River would constitute secure borders.
The Jewish left prefer to ignore the reality. The Arabs are dedicated to destroying the Jewish state, in phases if necessary. The charters of both Hamas and Fatah say so. Sharia says so. The incessant preaching of hatred says so. The support for terrorism says so. The unwillingness to compromise their maximalist demands says so. Yet the left blame Israel for the lack of peace.In the end, it's not about old and new Zionism, but rather about survival. The left wants Israel to give in to the demands of the Arabs and the international community in order to survive, though history does not support this belief. The right believes that doing so would lead to Israel's destruction. The right prefers peace through strength.