There might be a historic nuclear deal on the table between the five major world powers and Iran if it wasn’t for that meddling France. Word coming out of negotiations in Geneva this weekend points to France as the lone holdout for stricter sanctions than those agreed to by other countries.
There was plenty of optimism heading into Saturday negotiations. But after marathon negotiations, France raised issues with the agreement on the table. The five of U.N. Security Council’s permanent countries — China, Britain, France, Russia and the U.S. — are bargaining for a short-term agreement with Iran to restrain the country’s controversial nuclear program and make it more transparent. In exchange, the five countries have agreed to limited scale backs of international sanctions. France decided Saturday a deal must include calls for Iran to shutdown its Arak nuclear reactor that “could produce enough plutonium for several nuclear weapons a year once it goes online,” according to NBC News. There is so far no proof Iran has any intention to build nuclear weapons. “As I speak to you, I cannot say there is any certainty that we can conclude,” French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius told France Inter radio. He said his country couldn’t accept a “sucker’s deal”.
But other diplomats are very clearly not pleased with their French counterpart. More than a few were perfectly fine with throwing France under the bus to the press. Per Reuters:
“The Americans, the EU and the Iranians have been working intensively together for months on this proposal, and this is nothing more than an attempt by Fabius to insert himself into relevance late in the negotiations,” the diplomat told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Israel will probably be pleased with France’s behavior. Negotiations continued late Saturday but a deal seemed further away than most expected Saturday morning. All hope is not lost. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif told reporters negotiations “will continue in one week or 10 days,” if a deal isn’t reached this weekend.
Reprinted with permission from the Atlantic Wire. The original story — which ran on Saturday, Nov. 9 — can be found here.
What We're Following See More »
In light of his recent confessions, the speakership of Dennis Hastert is being judged far more harshly. The New York Times' Carl Hulse notes that in hindsight, Hastert now "fares poorly" on a number of fronts, from his handling of the Mark Foley page scandal to "an explosion" of earmarks to the weakening of committee chairmen. "Even his namesake Hastert rule—the informal standard that no legislation should be brought to a vote without the support of a majority of the majority — has come to be seen as a structural barrier to compromise."
Even if "[t]he Republican presidential nomination may be in his sights ... Trump has so far ignored vital preparations needed for a quick and effective transition to the general election. The New York businessman has collected little information about tens of millions of voters he needs to turn out in the fall. He's sent few people to battleground states compared with likely Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, accumulated little if any research on her, and taken no steps to build a network capable of raising the roughly $1 billion needed to run a modern-day general election campaign."