I read conflicting reports on the sanctions on Iran. Iran's currency is dropping fast, but is it bad enough to change Iranian policy before they get nukes? Congressional Research Service says the sanctions aren't really working:
Department of Defense and other assessments indicate that sanctions have not stopped Iran from building up its conventional military and missile capabilities, in large part with indigenous skills. However, sanctions may be slowing Iran’s nuclear program somewhat by preventing Iran from obtaining some needed technology from foreign sources. Iran is also judged not complying with U.N. requirements that it halt any weapons shipments outside its borders, particularly with regard to purported Iranian weapons shipments to help the embattled Asad government in Syria.
If sanctions "may" be slowing nuclear work "somewhat," I don't have high hopes.
But with the image of effectiveness in the news based on currency exchange rate problems for Iran's people, would the Obama administration consider a fake deal to get them through the election?
Indeed, could the Obama administration actually convince itself that sanctions really are biting and that therefore anything Iran agrees to is a good deal for us because Iran is purportedly desperate to end sanctions? Or might the Obama even administration believe that we actually need to do something to prevent the chaos of economic collapse? Would a nuclear deal seem like wise cashing in of chips before the casino breaks?
If the administration believes sanctions are biting (or just wants the public to believe it) and if the administration can get us to believe that military means are cheap and effective--and therefore likely to compel Iran to give in to our demands--does cutting a fake deal look like a good deal made from a position of strength?
This doesn't set my mind at ease:
The New York Times reported on Saturday that the United States and Iran have agreed in principle to hold one-on-one negotiations on Iran's nuclear program but the White House quickly denied that any talks had been set.
Talks happen all the time. Past presidents have done it (you see how well it has worked thus far). But with a close election, President Obama has the incentive to make a deal that can look good for a couple weeks and that it can pretend is the result of crippling sanctions and effective joint US-Israeli military threats.
It's quite possible that the Iranians are so confident that they don't even see the need to pretend to surrender to our demands to halt nuclear work and to allow us to pretend to take their surrender. That's what I wrote in May, anyway (but I've thought that for years since Iran believes God is on their side, truth be told, despite the long-held urge of many in the West to pretend to believe a fake Iranian promise):
I'm reasonably sure there will be some sort of deal. The main sticking point will be convincing Iran that we really are willing to pretend that Iran is making some concession to us. But there's a decent chance that Iran is so confident that they won't stoop to that level of even pretending to back down to the West.
Every election people suspect an October surprise, but we never seem to get one. (Remember Madeleine Albright saying she wouldn't be surprised if President Bush had Osama bin Laden in custody ready to unveil him to the world before the 2004 election?). This administration may be so campaign-oriented, however, that it really does have the nerve to pull one off.
