My hot take on the Iran nuclear proliferation deal — and #oilprices

Well, it looks like the US and partners have finally gotten Iran to sign off on a nuclear energy non-proliferation deal.

Among the good news is that the non-enrichment period is now 15 years, not 10. That's long enough for Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamanei, to have died, and hopefully, the whole Supreme Guardian Council system to start crumbling. (Khamenei turns 76 this week.)

Verification procedures are supposed to remain in place forever.

That said, there are issues of concern.

One the story notes is what access the International Atomic Energy Agency will have to dissident-type scientists inside Iran.

Another, which is more guesstimate than anything else, is to what degree leading world powers would restore sanctions if Iran got intransigent? The US and EU would likely act strongly. China and Russia, not.

It's not a treaty, so President Obama can veto any no vote in either house of Congress. Will that happen? I'd say about 50-50.

And, for the neocon foreign policy division of wingnuts, this becomes a new 2016 electoral issue. Let's see what an über-warhawk like Lindsey Graham does; he's already, er, gone ballistic about the deal.

Beyond that, there's one neocon foreigner to worry about: Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu. I'd venture there's about a 5 percent chance that — without consulting with all his cabinet — he engages in some sort of major covert action against Iran. Not just "any" but "major." Short of that, he's going to try to get a veto-proof no in at least one house.

(Unfortunately, some hawkish Dems, like Sen. Bob Menendez, D-Corruption, are leaning no as well.)

Was this the best we could have gotten? Short of bombing Iran, it's at least in the 80th percentile, if not 85 or better, in my opinion. And, our European allies seem to agree. They note that sanctions were likely to erode in the future, and the odds of getting even tougher sanctions to push Iran into a "better" deal were almost nil.

Other "winners" include:
1. President Obama's reputation
2. World peace
3. Middle East stability

Other "losers" include
1. Wingnuts
2. Texas oil producers; this will already get factored into world oil prices, and even more so, once more Iranian oil starts getting exported

I'd venture now that not only does West Texas Intermediate stay below $65 for the rest of this quarter, it might stay below $60 for all of the fourth quarter.

And, if Tom Kloza of OPIS is right about the return of $2 gas by the end of the year, oil will indeed be at or below $60. So, add the Texas budget to the list of "losers," even as this is yet another argument for an every-year legislature in the Pointy Abandoned Object State. (And, I'll give at least 2-1 odds he's right.)

That said, probably not a lot of Iranian oil is going to come online immediately. However, the deal also provides Middle East stability.

And, more oil from Iran WILL come online in 2016 and beyond. Yet one more reason Texas needs an every-year legislature.

Iran punks Dear Leader on nuke deal

Couldn't you see this one coming from a mile away, after Iran said a couple of weeks ago that it wouldn't sign any written deal immediately, but only a couple of months later?

Iran now says that it won't sign off on any plan to send nuclear fuel outside its borders for enrichment.

And, the “meta” angle is the big one:

If an accord allowing Iran to retain the fuel is reached, the Obama administration is expected to argue that it would not constitute a serious risk, particularly if it is regularly inspected. So far under an interim agreement negotiated in 2013, Iran has complied fully with a rigorous inspection process for the stockpiles of its fuel, the International Atomic Energy Agency has said.

That is really of no surprise, that Dear Leader's going to argue for this treaty no matter what.

This Foreign Policy piece has noted that, through all twists and turns, President Obama has slavered after this deal like Pavlov's dog hearing a CD of bell ringing. It's very much worth a read in looking at the big picture in the Middle East, as is the first, NYT piece to show just how skeptical we should be about Dear Leader's salivating trust in Iran.

Frankly, no deal in which a direct representative of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as well as the "secular" government, is not participating, isn't worth anything anyway.

Besides, as the Washington Post shows, sanctions are having their bite. The ball's in our court to wait out Iran as they bite further; no blind salivating needed. More proof they're having their bite? To the degree he, and the mullahs of the Guardian Council in general, are involved with negotiations, Khamenei wants sanctions removed immediately and fully if a deal is reached.

Also, a real deal would work toward getting closer to normalization of US-Iran diplomatic relations. And, it would have the US admit to the Mossadegh coup, and "deplore" it, while Iran did the same for the Argentina synagogue bombing, at a minimum.

Secret protocol in GOP letter to Iran revealed!

Ted Cruz, the Havana Ham
J. Scott Applewhite/AP

Everybody who keeps up on hot and stupid political news knows that 47 GOP Senate wingnuts sent a letter to Iran's mullahs saying that  future GOP administration would not necessarily be legally bound by any Team Obama deal with Iran on nuclear enrichment, and that the current Senate wouldn't consider it binding unless formally approved like a treaty.

Setting aside, for wingnuts, the fact that GOP president, including the guy named Shrub, have done similar, and for some butt-hurt liberals, the fact that the Logan Act has been in the past interpreted by the State Department as not applying to Congress, and this letter is little more than 47 petulant children holding their breath.

Speaking of, the secret protocol goes into that in more detail.

Here it is:

Dear Mad Mullahs:

This is Sen. Ted Cruz, and you don't know who you're messing with.

I have singlehandedly shut down the government of the United States in the past, and at other times, forced Congress to bend to my theocratic, Daddy-instilled Reconstructionist will. You cannot, repeat, cannot, survive a battle of the minds with me, and I will be the next president of the United States if I have to hold my breath for 22 months.

I and my colleagues are the Tea Party Council of the Senate of the United States. I and my fellows are more than a match for Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and the Guardian Council of Iran. We can out-stubborn you, out-intransigence you and even out-stupid you.

I personally have jammed up machinery far more complex than the centrifuges taken down by Stuxnet. Do not doubt me!

And, I have The Power! I shall cover you with the dust of the ashes of a red heifer if you do not submit. I will bring on the New Jerusalem and replace you with Cyrus, King of Kings, who shall bow and worship in the Most Holy Place.

Ted Cruz
Chairman, Tea Party Council of the Senate of the United States

And, that's how 47 Senators expect to have Ali Khamenei quaking in his boots.

Meanwhile, speaking of mad mullahs, Ayatollah Khamenei and the Guardian Council, Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif may be having fun trolling the Senate GOP over international law, but ignores those "logs" in his own government's eye.

Mousavi forms new ‘popular front’ political movement

Up until recently, over the last few weeks, defeated Iranian presidential candidate Mir Mousavi has been pretty quiet.

No longer. He has formed a new political movement, “The Green Path of Hope.” What the story doesn’t mention, though, is what has me most curious – will this light a fire under Grand Ayatollah Akbar Rafsanjani to do more in opposition to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, or not?

Former Iran lawmakers want to investigate Khamenei

This is big news. A group of reform-minded former Iranian lawmakers want to “investigate Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei over the aftermath of the country’s June 12 presidential election, including allegations arrested dissidents have been tortured.

Showing how serious they are, their letter calling for the investigation calls Kahrizak prison worse than Abu Ghraib.

Their letter has been addressed to Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who heads the Assembly of Experts, but it’s unlikely he could ramrod such an action through there.
-END-

But WHICH dictator do Iranians want dead?

Iranian protestors are now chanting “Death to the Dictator” – but, which one?

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, inaugurated for his second term just a day ago? Or Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei?

Khamenei ‘formally endorses’ Ahmadinejad

Actually, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, formally endorsed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad two months ago, before he was even re-elected, which is what makes this ceremony today such a farce. That, in turn, is why the event was boycotted by was boycotted by two former presidents — Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami, and many prominent clerics.

Plus, it looks like Khamenei and Ahmadinejad aren’t quite as chummy as they were four years ago.

Ahmadinejad caves to Khamenei on Veep

After a week of insisting he was his own man, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad showed who runs the country when he caved to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's demands and dumped his first vice president choice, Esfandiar Rahim Mashai. So, there will be no appeal to moderates.

Iran election – Ahmadinejad wants Obama talks; cleric rebuff Khamenei

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says he wants public talks with US President Barack Obama.

I wonder why. Maybe this is the reason. — a top group of Iranian clerics, from the late Ayatollah Khoumeni’s home of Qom, have called Ahmadinejad and his government illegitimate, as well as the sanctioning of the alleged election results by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

Clearly, we are nowhere near the endgame in Iran (barring a sudden collapse of Khamenei’s power). Stay tuned.

Iran now has Khamenei against the clerics

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has long been considered a dime-store cleric or Cracker Jack ayatollah by many Western analysts, as well as by his clerical peers (and superiors) in Iran (whatever the Farsi idiom is). Now, though, it may be more than just intellectual scorn at play.

Even as Khamenei refuses to back down from certifying Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as winner of the Iranian presidential election, some of those same clerics are joining the protest. This all ties in with Fareed Zakaria talking about the diffusion of even clerical power inside Iran, albeit with Zakaria’s claim about the “end of Iranian theocracy” being overblown.

And, with Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri calling for three days of mourning, that takes us up to and through Friday prayers. I’ve already predicted events on the streets of Tehran and elsewhere will probably heat up again after that. So, expect to see more of those mullahs on the street.

Guardian Council says NO to Iran Election redo

OK, so, it’s not just Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei who’s a hard-liner. Or a denier of reality. The Council of Guardians not only said no to a do-over, it denied the need for one:

On Press TV, the English-language state television satellite broadcaster, Abbas-Ali Kadkhodaei, the spokesman for the Guardian Council, declared: “If a major breach occurs in an election, the Guardian Council may annul the votes that come out of a particular affected ballot box, polling station, district, or city.”

“Fortunately, in the recent presidential election we found no witness of major fraud or breach in the election,” he said.

“Therefore, there is no possibility of an annulment taking place.”

Kadkhodaei then brushed off specific accusations, while Khamenei himself said Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s margin of victory was so big as to preclude fraud.

Time: Four endgames on Iran misses No. 5

Time has a thought-provoking speculative article four ways the Iranian political tussle could play out. It rightly notes none of the main actors want to destroy Iran’s current political structure, for example.

But, it misses option No. 5.

That would be for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and former President Akbar Rafsanjani to cut a deal behind the backs of both Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and opposition presidential candidate Mir Mousavi.

Ahmadinejad has no particular loyalty to Khamenei, despite the latter’s pre-election quasi-endorsement of him. Rafsanjani has no special loyalty that I know of to Mousavi; rather, I think he’s just seen him as a stalking horse to his goal of unseating Khamenei.

If the two can line up enough support among both the Council of Guardians and the Academy of Experts, Ahmadinejad has control of the Basij to nullify any lingering Mousavi street protests after Rafsanjani sells him down the river.

Amnyay, take a look at the Time story and judge for yourself if a scenario like mine is plausible, then, if it is that likely.

Update: True, Ahmadinejad attacked Rafsanjani during the election, over his foreign policy as well as alleged opulence. But, politics can always make strange bedfellows. And, I don’t think I”ve yet exhausted the possibilities.

Rafsanjani might cut a deal with Khamenei, for that matter, that could involve a new election, or other possibilities.

To use an old foreign policy word, I think the situation in Iran is very “fluid” right now.

From comments, “uninformed” shows he’s anything but:

I agree that there are more than 4 possible scenarios. Another, real possibility, is Mousavi and Rafsanjani simply back down. I think both have too much too lose in a full scale revolt. A sick variant of this, is this was the plan all along. An agreement to reform, but only after the revolutionary element could be weeded out from the reform camp. Mousavi publicly distances himself from those who revolt, leaving a smaller group isolated, allowing the government to cull them. After the dust settles, the 2 major and 2 minor players "mend" fences.

Definitely agree these are all possibilities.

Also agree that the four major/semi-major players probably would like to at least be started on a resolution process by Monday.

Update: The Guardian’s four-option scenario, though DOES have a Rafsanjani takeover as one of the options. As often is the case in the world of foreign affairs, the British MSM thinks more broadly than America’s.

Khamenei charges Rafsanjani corruption not true?

The NYT buries what is a key portion of its story on Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s reaction to protests over the Iran presidential election, and buries it at the bottom story.

But, it confirms what I’ve been saying for a week.

By Khamenei raising the issue of former President Akbar Rafsanjani, his rival to take over as Supreme Leader of Iran, and corruption, even if to deny it the Gray Lady makes clear this is ultimately not about the presidential election, but beyond that.

And, if members of his family are being detained, too, the crackdown is spreading.

Excellent breakout of Iran’s political background

Again, not coming from a wide-eyed person here in the U.S., but from Dieter Bednarz at Der Spiegel. He, as have I in previous blog posts, focuses on the Khamenei-Rafsanjani square-off, as the key to what’s happening now.

Also contra wide-eyed Juan Cole and Andrew Sullivan claims of vote fraud, when Mir Mousavi claims not just that he won, but that he got nearly 70 percent of the vote, he comes off as just as unbelievable as any other battlers in the current Iranian political scene. And, Cole and Sully continue to lose credibility the longer they continue to keep Mousavi on any sort of pedestal, even if a small one, and the longer they ignore Rafsanjani’s camel’s nose in the tent.

Yet more on Iran’s Rafsanjani angle

At The New Republic, Robert Baer says President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad’s attacks on former President (and ayatollah) Akbar Rafsanjani were certainly at the instigation of Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. That said, I think Baer overstates another item when he claims Iran is a military dictatorship and not a theocracy.

Yes, Khamenei may be a Cracker Jack or mail-order ayatollah, but he is one, and he heads a council of ayatollahs and other religious jurists that are Iran’s ultimate power source. It also seems to me that he’s trying to put lipstick on the pigs (non-halal bad pun warning!) of both Rafsanjani and opposition presidential candidate Mir Mousavi (indirectly).

So, while I critiqued Obama’s press statement yesterday as “blah, blah, blah,” nonetheless he’s probably right not to prematurely commit to one side in an internecine and even Byzantine power struggle inside Iran. (That said, his noncommittal yesterday WAS “blah, blah, blah.”

Iran coup by Ahmadinejad against Khamenei?

In posting yesterday, I discounted what other commentators were citing as “proof” of elections rigged by Iran’s clerical Council of Guardians to get President Mahmound Ahmadinejad re-elected against former Parliament Speaker Mir Mousavi.

I referenced the Guardian’s Abbas Barzegar, who said Western pundits engaged in wishful thinking to the degree the Western press largely didn’t even report on the size of Ahmedinejad’s biggest rallies, including one that may have hit 1 million people.

Other analysts noted that, while Iran’s clerics have, in the past, simply refused to allow reformers to run in the first place, they normally haven’t rigged elections.

So, what about possibility No. 3 — a coup by Ahmadinejad against the Council and Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei?

Steve Clemons gives it serious discussion.

The Nation, as linked by MideastAnalysis, has an in-depth report.

Actions such as concrete street barricades, the actions of the Revolutionary Guards and more, as well as Ahmadinejad’s tenuous-at-times relationship to the high clerics, this seems at least as likely as Khamenei rigging the election. Now, the coup would have been getting prepared in advance, of course, but how much? How much depth of support would a coup have?

And, per Clemons, is a counter-coup possible?

I would say as an attempt, it’s possible; as a success, not likely.