Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei seems to pull back on nuclear talks

[webfact]

Iran’s Supreme Leader Seems to Pull Back on Nuclear Talks
By THOMAS ERDBRINK and DAVID E. SANGER

TEHRAN — With exactly a week left before the deadline for a final agreement to limit Iran’s nuclear program, the country’s supreme leader appeared to undercut several of the central agreements his negotiators have already reached with the West.

In a speech broadcast live on Iran state television, the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, demanded that most sanctions be lifted before Tehran has dismantled part of its nuclear infrastructure and before international inspectors verify that the country is beginning to meet its commitments. He also ruled out any freeze on Iran’s sensitive nuclear enrichment for as long as a decade, as a preliminary understanding announced in April stipulates, and he repeated his refusal to allow inspections of Iranian military sites.

American officials said they would not be baited into a public debate with the ayatollah, who has the final word on nuclear matters. But with Western foreign ministers already hinting that the negotiations may go past the June 30 deadline, both American and European officials have said in recent weeks that they are increasingly concerned about the possible effects of the ayatollah’s statements.

Full story: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/24/world/middleeast/irans-supreme-leader-stiffens-his-position-on-nuclear-talks.html

-- The New York Times 2015-06-24

[Scott]

A troll post has been removed. The following countries are involved in these negotiations: United States, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia,

[Jingthing]

Some more dark clouds on an already very questionable deal with Iran. At this point, failure might equal success.

[Steely Dan]

There never was a deal, Obama in his desperation to capitulate to Iran has already dragged the other P5 members far further in granting concessions than they are comfortable with. Khamenei predictably wants even more division within the P5 and more capitulation from Obama and Kerry. I would venture that what he desires most is to be attacked by Israel in order to complete the rift between The U.S and Israel

P.s Who knows that the U.S and Iranian forces are using the same base in Iraq? that's how compromised the Obama administration is.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-22/iran-s-forces-and-u-s-share-a-base-in-iraq

[Chicog]

A troll post has been removed. The following countries are involved in these negotiations: United States, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia,

And Iran.

[Chicog]

There never was a deal, Obama in his desperation to capitulate to Iran has already dragged the other P5 members far further in granting concessions than they are comfortable with. Khamenei predictably wants even more division within the P5 and more capitulation from Obama and Kerry. I would venture that what he desires most is to be attacked by Israel in order to complete the rift between The U.S and Israel

P.s Who knows that the U.S and Iranian forces are using the same base in Iraq? that's how compromised the Obama administration is.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-22/iran-s-forces-and-u-s-share-a-base-in-iraq

Compromised?

They have a common enemy.

So what's so shocking?

Ah, I see.

McCain sticking his idiotic oar in again.

[ABCer]

Iran negotiates. Iran reaches understanding. Iran reaches an agreement.

Just before signing it withdraws. They have learned how far West will go. Now they will ask for more.

Cannot (should not) try to negotiate with Muslims. They will abide only till it is to their advantage.

I suppose their new agreements with Russia have nothing to do with this pull back (?)

[ezzra]

I got to give it to the man, he speaks the truth by saying that Iran will not stop perusing it's

nuclear options,,,

So now what Mr Obama? will you still go ahead and sign the treaty with them knowing full

well that the whole point of this agreement is not on the table now?

You know what? I think he will go ahead and sign......

[oneday]

Sounds like good news. Can't trust 'em anyway.

[Jingthing]

I got to give it to the man, he speaks the truth by saying that Iran will not stop perusing it's

nuclear options,,,

So now what Mr Obama? will you still go ahead and sign the treaty with them knowing full

well that the whole point of this agreement is not on the table now?

You know what? I think he will go ahead and sign......

Sadly I think you're probably right that Obama will sign ... no matter what.

[Chicog]

Iran negotiates. Iran reaches understanding. Iran reaches an agreement.

Just before signing it withdraws. They have learned how far West will go. Now they will ask for more.

Cannot (should not) try to negotiate with Muslims. They will abide only till it is to their advantage.

I suppose their new agreements with Russia have nothing to do with this pull back (?)

It is more complex than just your first line.

There are three factions involved: Parliament, the Guardian Council and the military.

And within those there are supporters and opponents.

Which may scupper the 30th deadline, but maybe not by much.

[arjunadawn]

A troll post has been removed. The following countries are involved in these negotiations: United States, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia,

And Iran.

This absence you note really does sum it up, doesn't it? Is Iran really involved in the negotiation; I mean, at any level for which the other partners could begin to find a common ground. I assert no. Iran is evidencing the long held practice of following the principles of the Treaty of Hudaibiyah. In this regard Iran is the latest of a long line of muslim countries that negotiate in a very different way from other State actors. The goals of a nation like Iran will never be to find common ground with the West but to buy time, re-consolidate forces, and in any event, if suffered into a treaty, it cannot last more than ten years and can only be entered into to support the overall furtherance of Islam. Doubt this? Okay, but it is correct.

[ABCer]

I got to give it to the man, he speaks the truth by saying that Iran will not stop perusing it's

nuclear options,,,

So now what Mr Obama? will you still go ahead and sign the treaty with them knowing full

well that the whole point of this agreement is not on the table now?

You know what? I think he will go ahead and sign......

Sadly I think you're probably right that Obama will sign ... no matter what.

JT, you may be double right.

Obama will sign no matter what. And he is ready to sign no matter what.

I'm afraid Iranians know this by now.

[Jingthing]

You know, often it is democratic presidents who are most strong in foreign policy.

But this time, no.

[Ulic]

The supreme Ayatollahs statements do not seem any more inflammatory than statements made

by the Republican party politicians in the US.

[Chicog]

I got to give it to the man, he speaks the truth by saying that Iran will not stop perusing it's

nuclear options,,,

So now what Mr Obama? will you still go ahead and sign the treaty with them knowing full

well that the whole point of this agreement is not on the table now?

You know what? I think he will go ahead and sign......

Sadly I think you're probably right that Obama will sign ... no matter what.

JT, you may be double right.

Obama will sign no matter what. And he is ready to sign no matter what.

I'm afraid Iranians know this by now.

And once again people seem to have forgotten the other players in the P5+1, some of whom apparently want more than that for which the US would publicly settle.

Obama cannot sign this on his own. It would not only be pointless, but unenforceable.

[bijankoch]

I believe most people who deliver comments to this issue have no real idea what its all about.. No arrangement with Iran means war, and this is something that no one should go for.

[ggt]

The Ayatollah is speaking plainly: he repeated his refusal to allow inspections of Iranian military sites.

Iran never intended to give up their nuclear ambition...they simply want all economic sanctions lifted so they can continue to advance their ME agenda...

The US went into the negotiations with a weak hand...acting like a defeated enemy looking for mercy...

Iran will win these concessions and not give up anything...which has been their plan all along...

At some point in time...we much ask ourselves...if pumping up an imaginary POTUS legacy is worth the demise of the US military, economy, and society...while promoting division among the people and ignoring the Constitution of the US...

[Jingthing]

The supreme Ayatollahs statements do not seem any more inflammatory than statements made

by the Republican party politicians in the US.

Probably true but the difference is that the Ayat is the supreme leader there.

[Chicog]

The US went into the negotiations with a weak hand...acting like a defeated enemy looking for mercy...

Again: It is not the US negotiating in isolation. It is the P5+1.

Really. It is. They didn't just make it up.

[simple1]

A troll post has been removed. The following countries are involved in these negotiations: United States, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia,

And Iran.

This absence you note really does sum it up, doesn't it? Is Iran really involved in the negotiation; I mean, at any level for which the other partners could begin to find a common ground. I assert no. Iran is evidencing the long held practice of following the principles of the Treaty of Hudaibiyah. In this regard Iran is the latest of a long line of muslim countries that negotiate in a very different way from other State actors. The goals of a nation like Iran will never be to find common ground with the West but to buy time, re-consolidate forces, and in any event, if suffered into a treaty, it cannot last more than ten years and can only be entered into to support the overall furtherance of Islam. Doubt this? Okay, but it is correct.

Got any provable examples of the ten year rule on treaty agreements in the 20th / 21st centuries?

Although written by a university student, an interesting essay on Islam and political power, as practised by an Islamic state, is provided at the URL below.

"Islam theoretically guides policy but in practice merely legitimises authority and disguises Realpolitik, exists in Iran’s relations with foreign states".

http://www.e-ir.info/2011/10/25/islam-and-political-power/

[arjunadawn]

A troll post has been removed. The following countries are involved in these negotiations: United States, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia,

And Iran.

This absence you note really does sum it up, doesn't it? Is Iran really involved in the negotiation; I mean, at any level for which the other partners could begin to find a common ground. I assert no. Iran is evidencing the long held practice of following the principles of the Treaty of Hudaibiyah. In this regard Iran is the latest of a long line of muslim countries that negotiate in a very different way from other State actors. The goals of a nation like Iran will never be to find common ground with the West but to buy time, re-consolidate forces, and in any event, if suffered into a treaty, it cannot last more than ten years and can only be entered into to support the overall furtherance of Islam. Doubt this? Okay, but it is correct.

Got any provable examples of the ten year rule on treaty agreements in the 20th / 21st centuries?

Although written by a university student, an interesting essay on Islam and political power, as practised by an Islamic state, is provided at the URL below.

"Islam theoretically guides policy but in practice merely legitimises authority and disguises Realpolitik, exists in Iran’s relations with foreign states".

http://www.e-ir.info/2011/10/25/islam-and-political-power/

The only real place I need turn for an example is the very issue we are discussing, the Iranian nuclear deal. Is it really anyone's suspicion that the much desired deal was capped at ten years by the West? Would someone really assert this in the face of both current news and 1,400 years of history?

The premise is basically that islamic states, Iran in particular, are not likely (not going to) enter into a treaty for more than ten years (and if they do, have the wherewithal to exit it at will as provided by islamic tradition). You assert this has not really been the case for the past 115 years. The frequent use of the Convention on the Rights of The Child or others regarding Human Rights are often the source of research as they demonstrate how treaties are bound islamic law, irrespective of what is signed. After all, a treaty generally means little without implementing rules locally. There is in these cases little need to be concerned about a ten year cap, IMO, because they are not bound nor implemented treaties! At all!

Instead of providing a fish I will offer a fishing pole. In the following articles Islam and International Law are considered. At times I do not agree and note this evidently. But substantially, what I assert in this previous post and others on TV is correct. It is quite complicated... at first. When one realizes after a few pages that once the premises are out of the way, islamic terms noted, the issue is simple. Establish a base knowledge of the House of War and House of Submission, enter islamic treaty practices secondary to those examples established by the prophet, and make islam always secondary to no law or treaty, and the issue is quite clear regarding the mindset of Iran with regard to any international treaty or obligation. I consider two pieces, both from the Max Planck Institute, both thoughtfully presented. However it is the first document beginning roughly on page 401 where the issue is no longer setup for discussion (the article is not this long; it is apparently excerpted). Its pretty clear if you are correct it would be in substantial non compliance with all things islamic.

Edit: I began to read this link but skipped it not because of a student writing it but because it ventured quickly into islamic power/politics. I am more concerned with islam and international law supremacy, or islam in relation to international law. It makes no difference to me if a buffoon wrote it, if it is correct that is enough. But if this quote "Islam theoretically guides policy but in practice merely legitimises (sic) authority and disguises Realpolitik, exists in Iran’s relations with foreign states" comes from the link provided then it is entirely incorrect. This is the thinking of someone with little to no knowledge of islamic law and its application/relation to international law. Islamic law does not theoretically guide anything in Iran. This is stunning confession of ignorance of islamic republics in general. There may be a realpolitik present but this does not constitute islamic law being theoretical.

1 Max Planck Ins Islamic Law & Treaties start 401.pdf

2 Islamic approach to international law.pdf

Edited June 26, 2015 by arjunadawn

[simple1]

This absence you note really does sum it up, doesn't it? Is Iran really involved in the negotiation; I mean, at any level for which the other partners could begin to find a common ground. I assert no. Iran is evidencing the long held practice of following the principles of the Treaty of Hudaibiyah. In this regard Iran is the latest of a long line of muslim countries that negotiate in a very different way from other State actors. The goals of a nation like Iran will never be to find common ground with the West but to buy time, re-consolidate forces, and in any event, if suffered into a treaty, it cannot last more than ten years and can only be entered into to support the overall furtherance of Islam. Doubt this? Okay, but it is correct.

Got any provable examples of the ten year rule on treaty agreements in the 20th / 21st centuries?

Although written by a university student, an interesting essay on Islam and political power, as practised by an Islamic state, is provided at the URL below.

"Islam theoretically guides policy but in practice merely legitimises authority and disguises Realpolitik, exists in Iran’s relations with foreign states".

http://www.e-ir.info/2011/10/25/islam-and-political-power/

The only real place I need turn for an example is the very issue we are discussing, the Iranian nuclear deal. Is it really anyone's suspicion that the much desired deal was capped at ten years by the West? Would someone really assert this in the face of both current news and 1,400 years of history?

The premise is basically that islamic states, Iran in particular, are not likely (not going to) enter into a treaty for more than ten years (and if they do, have the wherewithal to exit it at will as provided by islamic tradition). You assert this has not really been the case for the past 115 years. The frequent use of the Convention on the Rights of The Child or others regarding Human Rights are often the source of research as they demonstrate how treaties are bound islamic law, irrespective of what is signed. After all, a treaty generally means little without implementing rules locally. There is in these cases little need to be concerned about a ten year cap, IMO, because they are not bound nor implemented treaties! At all!

Instead of providing a fish I will offer a fishing pole. In the following articles Islam and International Law are considered. At times I do not agree and note this evidently. But substantially, what I assert in this previous post and others on TV is correct. It is quite complicated... at first. When one realizes after a few pages that once the premises are out of the way, islamic terms noted, the issue is simple. Establish a base knowledge of the House of War and House of Submission, enter islamic treaty practices secondary to those examples established by the prophet, and make islam always secondary to no law or treaty, and the issue is quite clear regarding the mindset of Iran with regard to any international treaty or obligation. I consider two pieces, both from the Max Planck Institute, both thoughtfully presented. However it is the first document beginning roughly on page 401 where the issue is no longer setup for discussion (the article is not this long; it is apparently excerpted). Its pretty clear if you are correct it would be in substantial non compliance with all things islamic.

Edit: I began to read this link but skipped it not because of a student writing it but because it ventured quickly into islamic power/politics. I am more concerned with islam and international law supremacy, or islam in relation to international law. It makes no difference to me if a buffoon wrote it, if it is correct that is enough. But if this quote "Islam theoretically guides policy but in practice merely legitimises (sic) authority and disguises Realpolitik, exists in Iran’s relations with foreign states" comes from the link provided then it is entirely incorrect. This is the thinking of someone with little to no knowledge of islamic law and its application/relation to international law. Islamic law does not theoretically guide anything in Iran. This is stunning confession of ignorance of islamic republics in general. There may be a realpolitik present but this does not constitute islamic law being theoretical.

Thanks for the links. Haven't read the entire contents, but what I have read is interesting. One must assume the lawyers at US State Department and equivalents in other parties to the negotiations would be fully aware of the issues articulated and would be planning accordingly. I did note...

While such treaties with non-Muslim communities were initially understood to have a maximum duration of ten years, over the course of time this limit was expanded; the Ottoman Empire finally took to concluding treaties with an unspecified duration with European powers.

All Islamic states have in principle, accepted the validity of modern international law and have adopted their state practice to its prerequisites to a very large extent.

From an international law perspective neither the IC nor Islamic law can affect the international obligations of the I.R. Iran. Otherwise a universal system of international law would not be feasible. Islamic law is part of domestic law and the obligation to adjust domestic law to the international obligations of a state is a well established principle of international law.

Edited June 27, 2015 by simple1

[arjunadawn]

This absence you note really does sum it up, doesn't it? Is Iran really involved in the negotiation; I mean, at any level for which the other partners could begin to find a common ground. I assert no. Iran is evidencing the long held practice of following the principles of the Treaty of Hudaibiyah. In this regard Iran is the latest of a long line of muslim countries that negotiate in a very different way from other State actors. The goals of a nation like Iran will never be to find common ground with the West but to buy time, re-consolidate forces, and in any event, if suffered into a treaty, it cannot last more than ten years and can only be entered into to support the overall furtherance of Islam. Doubt this? Okay, but it is correct.

Got any provable examples of the ten year rule on treaty agreements in the 20th / 21st centuries?

Although written by a university student, an interesting essay on Islam and political power, as practised by an Islamic state, is provided at the URL below.

"Islam theoretically guides policy but in practice merely legitimises authority and disguises Realpolitik, exists in Iran’s relations with foreign states".

http://www.e-ir.info/2011/10/25/islam-and-political-power/

The only real place I need turn for an example is the very issue we are discussing, the Iranian nuclear deal. Is it really anyone's suspicion that the much desired deal was capped at ten years by the West? Would someone really assert this in the face of both current news and 1,400 years of history?

The premise is basically that islamic states, Iran in particular, are not likely (not going to) enter into a treaty for more than ten years (and if they do, have the wherewithal to exit it at will as provided by islamic tradition). You assert this has not really been the case for the past 115 years. The frequent use of the Convention on the Rights of The Child or others regarding Human Rights are often the source of research as they demonstrate how treaties are bound islamic law, irrespective of what is signed. After all, a treaty generally means little without implementing rules locally. There is in these cases little need to be concerned about a ten year cap, IMO, because they are not bound nor implemented treaties! At all!

Instead of providing a fish I will offer a fishing pole. In the following articles Islam and International Law are considered. At times I do not agree and note this evidently. But substantially, what I assert in this previous post and others on TV is correct. It is quite complicated... at first. When one realizes after a few pages that once the premises are out of the way, islamic terms noted, the issue is simple. Establish a base knowledge of the House of War and House of Submission, enter islamic treaty practices secondary to those examples established by the prophet, and make islam always secondary to no law or treaty, and the issue is quite clear regarding the mindset of Iran with regard to any international treaty or obligation. I consider two pieces, both from the Max Planck Institute, both thoughtfully presented. However it is the first document beginning roughly on page 401 where the issue is no longer setup for discussion (the article is not this long; it is apparently excerpted). Its pretty clear if you are correct it would be in substantial non compliance with all things islamic.

Edit: I began to read this link but skipped it not because of a student writing it but because it ventured quickly into islamic power/politics. I am more concerned with islam and international law supremacy, or islam in relation to international law. It makes no difference to me if a buffoon wrote it, if it is correct that is enough. But if this quote "Islam theoretically guides policy but in practice merely legitimises (sic) authority and disguises Realpolitik, exists in Iran’s relations with foreign states" comes from the link provided then it is entirely incorrect. This is the thinking of someone with little to no knowledge of islamic law and its application/relation to international law. Islamic law does not theoretically guide anything in Iran. This is stunning confession of ignorance of islamic republics in general. There may be a realpolitik present but this does not constitute islamic law being theoretical.

Thanks for the links. Haven't read the entire contents, but what I have read is interesting. One must assume the lawyers at US State Department and equivalents in other parties to the negotiations would be fully aware of the issues articulated and would be planning accordingly. I did note...

While such treaties with non-Muslim communities were initially understood to have a maximum duration of ten years, over the course of time this limit was expanded; the Ottoman Empire finally took to concluding treaties with an unspecified duration with European powers.

All Islamic states have in principle, accepted the validity of modern international law and have adopted their state practice to its prerequisites to a very large extent.

From an international law perspective neither the IC nor Islamic law can affect the international obligations of the I.R. Iran. Otherwise a universal system of international law would not be feasible. Islamic law is part of domestic law and the obligation to adjust domestic law to the international obligations of a state is a well established principle of international law.

In both docs I made various notes reflecting conflicting facts or just differing opinion. Perhaps I did not note my comments here. It is variously true that treaties have been renewed, extended, or prolonged, or not sunset but understanding mindset is required, they must further islam. As you and this author have noted there is a varying degree of realpolitk, but it is always secondary to islamic law or the furtherance of islam, in islamic states. Elsewhere in simply muslim dominate nations there is likely more passive subsuming to international law. I don't think my deficit in law is a weakness as I think this issue is substantially predicated upon islam, and here its very clear. I protest that all Islamic states have in principle accepted anything of the sort. Because they are smarter than the west does not mean they are compliant with the west. They are by necessity able to speak with two tongues and speak to two worlds at the same time. In a house of mirrors appearances can be quite contrary to the substance. The substance will always be islam.

First doc notes roughly begin 401; second doc was in many ways just backgrounded doc number one. But these really are good foundation docs, IMO.

Edit: I would be very surprised if the US State depart is giving voice to these concerns, or diplomatic observations stretching back a long, long time. The US government lexicon has been virtually scrubbed of anything that defines or labels or contrasts muslims as anything more than westerners... in the east. Really. It is sufficiently scrubbed. I previously worked for the US DoS DSS and I can tell you it is a very PC agency, perhaps the most. In the event that their are sound, dubious voices, I would not be surprised at all to know policy directives ignore or suppress their contribution. This is evident in every facet of dealings with the islamic world. Lastly, my observations regarding Iran and following islamic principles of treaty making stand on their own merit, my underlying suspicions why this is happening at all remain very dubious- to others. I do not believe it is accidental at all the Valerie Jerrett is the go to gal for Iranian talks, back door talks, etc., and I am not surprised in any event that this is a ten year possible plan. Against Iran's on ignorance and hate they may not be seeing that Obama is intending them a ten year road map to the bomb, with cover, and development. The Iran deal to Obama, will be a massive transfer of intellectual nuclear wealth to Iran, not sidelining their pursuit of a bomb.

Edited June 27, 2015 by arjunadawn