What is Iran's end game in negotiations with the US over its Nuclear program?

I have been reading and listening to media reports on the reasoning the Iranian government chose now to negotiate and change its stance on its Nuclear program. Many are suggesting that sanctions have worked and finally got Iran's attention. Some suggest it was President Obama's stance on Syrian Chemical weapons that did the trick. It sounds like they did it because we are strong. I totally disagree with that assessment. I think it is because we showed weakness in negotiating with Syria and with Congress. We were going to lose the vote in the Congress for approval for an attack on Syria. So what's up?

It is my view that in this perceived weakness of our President in his making a severe misstep with the Congress, it created an opening for Iran to rethink how to take advantage of this moment. You see it was Vladimir Putin who helped Obama save face. It wasn't because he likes President Obama, but rather because it was in his strategic interest to not allow these chemical weapons to be disbursed to enemies of Russia in Georgia and other Caucasus nations around Russia.

So what is the end game of Iran? The key to that answer is reviewing the exact language of the Iranian President, Hassan Rouhani's speech in his address to the UN this week. Here is a key excerpt from that speech:

"Iran's nuclear program - and for that matter, that of all other countries - must pursue exclusively peaceful purposes. I declare here, openly and unambiguously, that, notwithstanding the positions of others, this has been, and will always be, the objective of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Nuclear weapon and other weapons of mass destruction have no place in Iran's security and defense doctrine, and contradict our fundamental religious and ethical convictions. Our national interests make it imperative that we remove any and all reasonable concerns about Iran's peaceful nuclear program."

The key phrase for me in this speech was the underlined portion above. I believe that Iran's position will be to insure that they can show they will have no nuclear weapons, but will have nuclear energy for their energy needs. I believe in this negotiating process with the West they will want Israel to also disarm their Nuclear weapons and this will cause the West and the US huge problems as all arguments as to why Iran should not have Nuclear weapons are similar for Israel not to have them as well. A Nuclear weapon free Middle East is in all Countries interest. But I will tell you here that Israel will not even admit they have the weapons nor will they be willing to get rid of them! You can put that in the Bank!

The Iranians are a very smart, well educated people. Many here in the US are naive to believe that the Iranians are coming to the negotiating table out of weakness. Believe me, they believe they have an opening and an edge or they wouldn't be contemplating this move at this time! Buyer beware!

Market and World affairs comments for May 20th

First of all, yesterday there was more data reported that wasn't very good for the economy. The Leading Indicators for April came in at a -0.3% reading for April. This compares to a +0.4% reading for March. March's number was revised upward yesterday as well, from a +0.4% to +0.7% reading.

I have included today a chart of the Dow for the past 3 months as a follow-up to yesterday's chart of the Dow for a year. It gives you a better refinement of just where you are and where either support or resistance will be broken. The triangle of the convergence of these lines are getting closer. Here is the chart below.


Yesterday in politics here, President Obama gave his highly anticipated speech on the Middle East peace process and North Africa's Arab Spring uprising. The President spelled out in clear terms what had been said in private regarding the Israel/Palestinian peace process over the past 20 years. One memorable line from the President's speech was this one, "At a time when the people of the Middle East and North Africa are casting off the burdens of the past, the drive for a lasting peace that ends the conflict and resolves all claims is more urgent than ever." President Obama pushed both sides to accept his starting point — borders for Palestine, security for Israel — and get back to solving a stalemate "that has grinded on and on and on." It was a good start effort by this President to state the realities we all know to be true.

I for one like President Obama's straight talk as it has been lacking by many of our previous Presidents who have strived for peace in the MIddle East.

President Obama, in his address Thursday on the Arab world uprising, said that Syria's Assad should lead his country to democracy or "get out of the way."

Again President Obama's straight talk was a welcome change form the previous lack of a stand with respect to these uprisings for democracy in Tunisia, Egypt, and the other countries of the region. You may not agree with his policy now, but at least it is clearer.

I think there was too much information contained in his speech and to get an accurate picture of what President Obama actually said, it is best to read the transcript or listen to his speech titled, "Moment of Opportunity" in its entirety.

Did Speaker Nancy Pelosi play a role in the release of the British soldiers?

News this morning from RTT cites the following, " Syria played a key role in resolving the standoff over the 15 British sailors and marines held by Iran, two government officials said Wednesday.
"Syrian efforts and the Iranian willingness culminated with the release of the British sailors," said Information Minister Mohsen Bilal.

He said Syria had been asked "to help positively in the issue of British" crew members since their March 23 seizure by Iran in the Persian Gulf.

He did not elaborate."

We will never really know if the trip by Speaker Pelosi to Syria had any connection to the release but the coincidence of the trip and the releease is striking. It was a chance for both Syria and Iran to take a whack at President Bush and they took it.

To read the story of Syria's involvement click here.

Policy on Iraq is about Oil but not what you think

The Bush/Cheney policy that drove us into Iraq was not WMD or other stories about a terrorist haven there. It was about OIL. But it wasn't that we had hoped to capture a source of oil for ourselves, nor did we want to really help the Iraqi's share in the profits of their oil supply revenue. It was about keeping the Middle East in turmoil so that Oil prices would stay high.

As you look to the chart shown here you can see the effect of the years of this Administration on the price of Oil on the right of the chart. It has gone above the 1979 spike in the center of the chart. Add to this the fact that both Bush and Cheney are Oil men and add to the mix that 2006 brought the highest profits in history to big Oil companies and their executives. That is why the President is rattling his saber with Iran. That is why there is no diplomatic effort to get the Iranians and Syria involved in talks. Because as long as there is turmoil, war and sectarian violence, Oil prices will continue to climb, as will gasoline prices.

There are ample stockpiles in our strategic oil reserve, and this Administration is doing all it can to keep the conflict going because the big fear is that if there is a peaceful solution to this conflict, Oil will once again go below $30 per barrel and Middle East countries will feel the pinch, especially the friends of the Bush's; the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia.

You want to do something to help end this war? Try using less gasoline, start saving energy and start promoting higher gasoline taxes to cut demand. It is the American people that can truly make a difference here, not the politicians. Start now.