A lot of rubbish and nonsense here, e.g. Mr. Moderate (aka Hassan Rouhani or whatever his real name is); "democratically elected leader" overthrown in 1953 -- not democratic (Iran wasn't a "democracy" nor was Mosaddeq a "democrat"), not elected (PM was twice appointed and twice dismissed by the Shah -- 12 other PMs before Mosaddeq and 10 after Mosaddeq by MR Pahlavi) and not the leader (PM was head of govt not head of state); etc; etc

Unfortunately, the Mossadegh episode and the “elections” in Iran have become part of the narrative that the media uses when it wants to drive the larger point home, which is "let the Iranian people decide what they want to do and, do not interfere in their affairs."

Support the Iranian people; yes.

Interfere in Iranian people’s affairs; no.

Faramarz jaan, you had previously blocked me from commenting on your posts, and I want to thank you for reversing that. Like 90% of my hamvatans, I can be a hothead when it comes to politics, so please accept my apology if I was rude or got personal in the past. I think people in general (especially Americans, but others too) personalize politics too much. In other words, if they like and support Obama (which I generally do), some people feel the need to defend everything he does. I agreed with Obama's dealings with the IRI in his 1st term (fairly tough sanctions) and disagreed with his policies vis-a-vis the IRI in his 2nd term, which I believe were largely driven by his desire/need to have a "legacy". We may need to agree to disagree on that. Like I said, I generally support most of Obama's domestic and foreign policies and realize that GW Bush passed on a very bad hand to play. That being said, I think the US had a much stronger hand to play against the IRI and really could and should have continued squeezing the regime, a regime that will not change and/or be undermined, dislodged, and replaced without BOTH significant external and internal pressure. To some extent, the nuke deal gave the regime a much-needed lifeline or at least some breathing space in the form of its released funds. 

Dear Amir,

I support the Iran Nuclear Deal wholeheartedly because it did 2 things successfully. First, a bombing campaign on Natanz, Ghom (Fordo), Arak, etc. to destroy the nuclear weapons capability would’ve killed lots of innocent Iranians and would’ve released poisonous chemicals into the air that could’ve caused irreparable damage. The Deal stopped that. Second, it stopped the entire Region from going nuclear.

As for the argument that the Deal gave the Regime the money to last longer, I look at it differently. The reason that Obama was able to bring the allies AND China and Russia to support the oil sanctions and the banking (SWIFT) action was that Obama said that he was imposing the sanctions in order to bring the Regime to the negotiating table and negotiate in good faith. And once the Regime did that, he had to honor his part of the deal.

You cannot pursue a “Carrot and Stick” strategy, but after using the “Stick” to bring the Regime to the table, walk away from the “Carrot” part and use another “Stick” instead.

Faramarz, I don't necessarily subscribe to your assertion that a) those facilities were on the verge of being bombed, b) that the nuke deal "prevented" their being bombed. or c) if they were bombed, many innocent Iranians would have been killed. If Israel and/or the US (in particular Republican administrations) wished to bomb those facilities, I don't believe any such deal would prevent them. 

My problem with a deal isn't so much the principle of trying to reach a nuke deal with the IRI, but the fact that Obama struck a deal that lifted some important sanctions (and/or prevented others from being imposed) while at the same time allowing the IRI to keep components of its nuke program and some "sunset clauses" that expire in 10-15 years. (Bear in mind: the UN resolutions against the IRI stipulated that it needed to stop enrichment without conditions, as I recall).

Why do that? Who is playing the stronger hand? The US or the IRI? The price of oil was low, so there was no rationale to get the IRI's oil on the market. The market has already shown it can do without it. Militarily speaking, the IRI is not even remotely a match for the US, even with all their hart-o-poort over their so-called asymmetric terrorist warfare. The US could and should have faced the IRI with this decision (in my opinion): relinquish your entire program in every shape or sort and we will begin to lift sanctions. Otherwise, we will impose the fullest possible sanctions. Let the IRI make the choice, but don't allow them to keep components of their nuke program AND also release their funds, etc. Heck, I think John Kerry was reportedly even trying to encourage the Europeans to start reinvesting in the IRI in order to "reward" Mr. Moderate Rouhani. 

Dear Amir,

You are asking many questions and raising many points which require a blog to respond to them. So let's take them one issue at a time.

Why do you think China and India agreed to go along with the oil sanctions and Russia agreeing to not veto the UN resolutions against the Regime?

Ultimately, I think the decisive factor was the initial pressure from the US administration....Do you want to do business with the US (GDP $18 trillion, give or take) or with the IRI (GDP $400 billion).

I think an additional factor was that none of those other states are comfortable with the IRI getting nukes, with the partial exception of the Russians wishing to sell the IRI nuclear fuel and completing that piece-of-junk reactor in Bushehr. 

OK. The US and all these countries are members of the World Trade Org. and as such they cannot bar each other's access to their markets. The US cannot tell Germany that if you sell Mercedes Benz and BMW's in Iran, you cannot sell them in the US. The Germans can take the issue to WTO and get a favorable ruling. Or they may start a trade war and don't let the US companies do business in Germany. Also, there are 1000’s of Americans that earn their livings from working for these companies and a sanction against these companies will hurt them.

Their cooperation with the US was voluntary because of the agreed upon goal of removing the nuclear threat.

The Chinese for example, could've set up a central bank to central bank arrangement with the IR and bypass SWIFT, but they did not do that. They could've set up phony banks that only dealt with the IR and did not care about the US sanctions but they did not.

They agreed to be a part of these sanctions because they subscribed to the peaceful nature of the Obama's approach.

So, why didn't they do that when the US blocked the IRI from the SWIFT system, for example?? You make it sound as if economic sanctions against the IRI, South Africa, Myanmar, etc, etc are a figment of the imagination....

SWIFT was part of the "Stick" package that they had agreed to.

Also remember, Obama's sanctions and SWIFT actions allowed China, India, Japan and S. Korea to hold the Iranian oil revenues in a single account in their banks and the proceeds could only be used to purchase consumer goods from that country, which obviously help their economy.

As you may recall, the sanctions never created a shortage in Iran and shops were always full of goods from these countries for people who could afford them. A couple of weeks ago, Oppozit program (Afsheen Nariman) showed how Sepah bought thousands of SUV's from Hyundai in S. Korea and warehouse them in Parchin and gradually released them to the market. That shows you how ineffective the sanctions were on the Regime. But the Regime wanted foreign investments in oil and gas and jobs for the people and that's why it agreed to the negotiations.

I never said there were shortages. The idea was to deprive of the regime of vital oil money. Even Rouhani is on record saying that they were experiencing increasing difficulties paying their people. 

I'm just wondering: do you think the common presidential aspiration to achieve a signature "legacy" in foreign affairs (the nuke deal) and in domestic policy (Obamacare) had anything at all to do with the administration's stances and approach, especially its apparently intense eagerness to secure a deal, any deal (versus the supposed alternative of WW3, Armageddon, etc, etc)?

Back in the summer of 2008, Obama was campaigning on economy, healthcare, bringing the soldiers home from Iraq by the end of 2011 as was negotiated between W. Bush and al-Malaki and resolve the Iran nuclear threat peacefully, if possible. 70 million people voted for him and he delivered on all 4 promises.

You may recall that he first tried to engage Khomeini by sending him letters. When he did not get anywhere, he unleashed the Stuxnet virus on the Regime’s centrifuges which set them back for many months. He also had the US drones blanketing Iranian skies tracking the enrichment activities and when Fordo was discovered he rushed the matter to the UN Security Council and got a resolution through. And he ultimately created leverage by getting the world to go along with oil sanctions and the negotiations ensued.

He did not plan a legacy. The legacy is the result of his great accomplishment.