Friday, May 4, 2018

Former U.S. Secretary Of State John Kerry Trying To Salvage The Iranian Nuclear Deal

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry shakes hands with Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Jawad Zarif (R) as they arrive to resume nuclear negotiations in Montreux March 2, 2015. Reuters/Evan Vucci/Pool

Boston Globe: Kerry quietly seeking to salvage Iran deal he helped craft

WASHINGTON — John Kerry’s bid to save one of his most significant accomplishments as secretary of state took him to New York on a Sunday afternoon two weeks ago, where, more than a year after he left office, he engaged in some unusual shadow diplomacy with a top-ranking Iranian official.

He sat down at the United Nations with Foreign Minister Javad Zarif to discuss ways of preserving the pact limiting Iran’s nuclear weapons program. It was the second time in about two months that the two had met to strategize over salvaging a deal they spent years negotiating during the Obama administration, according to a person briefed on the meetings.

With the Iran deal facing its gravest threat since it was signed in 2015, Kerry has been on an aggressive yet stealthy mission to preserve it, using his deep lists of contacts gleaned during his time as the top US diplomat to try to apply pressure on the Trump administration from the outside. President Trump, who has consistently criticized the pact and campaigned in 2016 on scuttling it, faces a May 12 deadline to decide whether to continue abiding by its terms.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: He is talking to the Iranians, the other signatories to the deal, and to members of Congress .... but he is not talking to the people who really count, and that is with members of the Trump administration.

12 comments:

B.Poster said...

Anon,

What's wrong with MAGA? MAGA is a beautiful message!! Americans dream of our country some day being great. As an American, I know I sure day!! The only thing the opposition offered was the status quo. Continuance of the status quo and our country would never be great. In fact it could be argued, the status quo was suicidal.

Perhaps a better statement would have been MAG as in "make America great." I can understand the choice to add "again" to the campaign theme. Such things are routinely done in marketing. It sets a forward lookkng theme such as to make something great and it imagines a time in the past when it was great as inspiration for making it great again.

An expressed desire to make America great is an awesome message!! It resonated with a large number of voters. We desire for our country to be great!! In contrast, the opposition only offered continuance of the status quo and whiney bitterness about "Russian interference" and othet ridiculousness.

fred said...

Ah Dimitri
On the vodka again?

Anonymous said...

Getting Gentleman C Lurch involved is guaranteed to produce the opposite result he intended. Lurch isn’t Sec of State anymore.

B.Poster said...

Fred,

What I post is accurate. You have no counter to it. Therefore you must try and impugn my character. If you wish to discuss the merits of the posts or point out any flaws, please do so. Otherwise STOP WASTING MY TIME!!

Perhaps you didn't read the posts or I didn't make it clear enough for you. Anon appears to mock the concept of making our country great. As I asked and now I shall ask you, what's wrong with trying to make our country great?

While America is far from being "great" at present, progress is now being made. The tax cuts and regulatory reforms have led to decreases in unemployment and increases in income, excellent progress has been made in resolving the North Korea/South Korea conflict, and people are finally beginning to talk openly about the need to reform NATO. POTUS may not deserve any of the credit but these are positively correlated and he's the only new variable in much of this.

B.Poster said...

Anon # 2,

Team Kerry could take a peanut butter sandwich and turn it ibto a toxic mess!! Seeing this in action many of us realized we simply could not continue with the status quo when it came time to vote for POTUS.

Is he still in government? Isn't it illegal for a private citizen or non government official to conduct foreign policy, "Logan Act" or something? As I recall, some got pretty worked up over the possibility of candidate Trump's team doing this sort of thing.

At best for team Kerry to do this shows questionable judgment. DJT hasn't abandoned the deal nor has he announced we are doing so. This would suggest delicate negotiations are ongoing with "allies" and with Russia and China to put pressure on Iran to alter the deal. Furthermore reports indicate Iran is less active in harassing our personnel in the Persian Gulf and Israel is bombing Iranian targets with impunity in Syria. In short, after decades of being humiliated by Iran we seem to finally being making some progress. It would seem unwise for him to insert him into this at this juncture even if it could be justified legally and ethically.

Bobs a dopey commenter said...

I agree with poster, maga is a beautiful message for Usa. And for those that disagree, my question is, why wouldn’t you want your country to thrive and prosper?, is the USA better off being raped and pillaged?

fazman said...

Fred you and Az fighting as entertaining as it is,is enough, B is ok even if you don't agree, but what American can disagree with MAGA?

fred said...

because I simply do not believe in bombastic slogans!
The Fatherland
Germany Uber Alles
etc etc etc
Poster is a Russian troll and if you do not recognize that you are very blinded...simply read every post and you will see how it supports Trump and is very pro Russian at every comment

Bob Huntley said...

Before you can determine if a country is "great" you need a definition of what "great" means and that definition, if you mean great relative to every other country, needs universal acceptance.

I would think that how a country treats its poorest, least healthy, least educated of its population would determine if that country is even in the running to qualify as great.

How it treats its neighbors in the world comes next.

At this point it is much easier to determine how not so great a country is by those things.

fred said...

All countries are great
Some are greater than others
Greatness is the mind, bank account, health, education, employment, retirement provisions, housing etc of the beholder...underline what you rank as important

Anonymous said...

This means war

B.Poster said...

What does "great" mean? Good question actually. I would define it as has having citizens who are secure, have access to ample opportunities for advancement and wealth creation, have access to affordable health care, and have generally good living conditions. By these standards Ametica is not great by any measure. From the context of his speeches and actions, this seems to be how POTUS would define it.

I agree in general that a slogan without substance is not helpful. Several examples would be "America is the greatest country in the world." "America is the exceptional and indispensable nation." I could go on. If someone were to actually formulate policy based upon such ridiculous nonesense, it wouldn't end well. Fortunately most Americans reject such nonsense. I'm getting off topic.

Fred writes: "poster is a Russian troll and if you do not recognize that you are very blinded..." Actually to take the position that I am Russian or a Russian troll one would need to be blinded perhaps by ideology. If one reads carefully, they will observe when Fred is unable to counter my position based upon merit he then resorts to trying to impugn my character in a desperate attempt to hide the fact that he has lost the argument based upon merit.

"Simply read every post and you will see how it supports Trump and is very pro-Russian at every comnent." Supporting Trump does not mean one is pro-Russian. He's been tougher on Russia than Obama or Bush were. Also, I support fracking, changes to the Iran nuclear deal as well as a tougher position on Iran and general. These could hardly be considered pro-Russian positions.

From all of my posts, my positions on these issues should be crystal clear. Had you read my posts in their entirety you would know this. Therefore the only conclusions are you didn't read or you flat out lied hoping if you could imougn my character in the eyes of those eho aren't regular readers.

Not being reflexively anti-Russian on any and all issues would hardly make on pro-Russian. For example, when Aizino pointed out recently that the world owes Russia a debt of gratitude in their actions of saving Syrian antiquities from ISIS the world owes them "a debt of gratitude." He is correct. He is hardly pro-Russian and neither am I.

I am pro-American. We simply disagree on the proper course for American foreign policy in many instances.

As I have atated elsewhere to others, I do NOT appreciate having my integrity questioned. If you are unable or unwilling to discuss the merits of a position, please don't waste my time.