"(I)mpasse....should surprise no one."
"....Iranian envoys continued to resist a proposal for an interim deal that would stop the most dangerous parts of the program in exchange for" virtually nothing.
"....Iran countered with maximalist demands for the lifting of sanctions and recognition of its right to enrich uranium."
"Dangerous" is code language for Iran's legitimate rights.
So is "maximalist demands." Dozens of other nations with commercial nuclear programs have them. Western states don't order them or each other to relinquish them. Why Iran?
Obama should concede nothing. He "should resist any effort by Russia or other members of the international coalition to weaken the steps that Iran must take, or to grant Tehran major sanctions relief for partial concessions."- Advertisement -
He "should continue to reject recognition of an Iranian 'right' to enrich uranium."
In other words, he should defy international and constitutional law by spurning Iran's legitimate rights. Post editorial writers stopped just short of urging war.
Ray Takeyh is a Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow. His June 15 Washington Post op-ed headlined "Negotiating a nuclear bomb."
Despite no evidence suggesting an Iranian military nuclear program, Takeyh said Tehran's "current path to the bomb is perilous." Its policies are "defian(t).
Intrusive inspections can't detect everything. "As Iran's nuclear facilities grow in scope and sophistication, (perfecting) centrifuges that operate with efficiency at high velocity (then) require(s) only a limited number of such machines to quickly enrich weapons-grade material."
Operations "can easily be (done) surreptitious(ly to) avoid detection."
Diplomacy won't "resolve the (Iranian) nuclear conundrum...." Severe restrictions on its program must be imposed.