Negotiating in Good Faith
Europe’s team of negotiators, the EU-3, are most likely negotiating in good faith. It is reasonable to believe that their offers, concessions, incentives or bribes are presented with full backing of their respective governments and that their full intent is to bring about improved relations with Iran and to secure the cessation of uranium enrichment efforts in Iran. The Bush administrations decision to support those negotiations can also be seen as one of ‘good faith.’ That is, even if the administration has little or no confidence in the negotiations, their intent would be to support the negotiated agreement between the EU-3 and Iran should an agreement be reached.
And then there are the mullahs and their spokesmen. Are they negotiating in good faith? Can we afford to assume that their intent is an agreement to end Iranian nuclear weapons development?
Iran has stated clearly that their intent was not to end their uranium enrichment efforts, only to temporarily suspend their efforts while negotiating. They have stated that they have no obligation to end the program. Despite the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the IAEA’s finding that Iran has failed to be forthcoming and transparent in its nuclear development efforts Iran maintains that they have a right to continued enrichment efforts.
Iran has no history of being a willing and trustworthy ally of freedom or peace. Have we forgotten that Hezbullah, the Lebanese terrorist organization, has been and remains an instrument for Iranian influence in the Levant and as such continues to call for the end of Israel. Iran’s support of terrorism, through Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, evident from the outset of the regime in 1979, has not ceased nor waned. If anything, it has increased given their role in supporting the terrorist now attacking Iraq’s people on a daily basis.
Iran’s initial response to word of the U.S. support for the EU-3 negotiations was predictably lacking in value. Sirus Naseri, the chief negotiator, or perhaps chief stalwart for the mullahs, called the U.S. offer "too insignificant to comment about." [See previous post.] Now comes word of Iran’s newest set of conditions. The mullahs believe the U.S. should unblock frozen assets, lift sanctions and cease hostile actions.
Why were the assets frozen and what has changed since that action?
Why were sanctions put in place and what has changed since that action?
Iran is counting on the world to have forgotten the cause of their isolation and to stand against the U.S. when the negotiations fail and it becomes an issue for the UN Security Council. Of course, our media has done little to remind the people of the West of Iran’s history under the mullahs.
