And I don't like him in The New Yorker:
How will we be able to tell whether the diplomatic process is working or stalling over the next couple of months?
I think we’ll have to see what each side tells its public. Are there new Iranian proposals? Are there new, different, or changed proposals from the P5-plus-1? Is Iran moving in the direction of working on those proposals? Will Iran refuse to discuss the future of its nuclear program at all—which has, at least at some point, been the position of some leading Iranians—or is it prepared to work toward a program that involves reassurances and firewalls significant enough to give confidence that it isn’t moving its program toward nuclear weapons?
It’s a slow process. Anybody who has watched it unfold would not conclude that, if today turns out to stay at a very early stage of discussions, it’s an abject failure. I think everyone has learned to have a lot of patience when it comes to negotiating with Iran; we won’t reach a rapid conclusion over how to proceed. Iran wants to eke it out, and it’s a strategy designed to get the best deal possible from their perspective. Twenty-five hundred years of Iranian commercial history has shown some tendency in negotiations toward that style.
Funny, this interview didn't mention Israel once.
---------
(*)
As Ambassador to Israel, Pickering led the United States’ criticism of an Israeli policy that expelled Palestinians accused of instilling uprising. Pickering stressed to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin that the United States considered the actions illegal and unhelpful for peace efforts.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment