..."""that the three countries hope can placate the United States and its P5+1 partners..."""

forget about trying to placate a frothing pit bull...

"Given the close coordination between Turkey Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu and United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, I would be surprised if Davutoglu reached a deal with Tehran that the United States cannot accept."

Let's realize that despite all of the public posturing and media campaigning about how upset the US supposedly is that Lula and Erdo?an have gone ahead on this front, in all likelihood Washington has given plenty of discreet go-ahead winks to their Brazilian and Turkish friends.

Zaman reported conversation between Lula, Erdo?an and Obama at the nuclear security summit:

" ... Although Lula and Erdo?an did not obtain a firm commitment from Obama that he would “wait” on the sanctions issue, according to Amorim, Obama’s reaction “was not categorical.” Obama is “not at all negative about attempting a negotiated solution,” Amorim said..."

http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/news-207459-102-turkey-brazil-intensify-diplomacy-on-iran.html

The US would surely appreciate a graceful way out of the corner into which they have backed themselves, one that allows them to accept a reasonable compromise on an overhyped security threat without the political cost of moderating their hard-line public stance, or having to back down in direct negotiations with Tehran.

Gee. Alfred E Newman has certainly aged gracefully, hasn't he? He still looks rather young for his age.

"The US would surely appreciate a graceful way out of the corner into which they have backed themselves, one that allows them to accept a reasonable compromise on an overhyped security threat without the political cost of moderating their hard-line public stance, or having to back down in direct negotiations with Tehran." (Dan Kervick)

Um, Dan, you missed listing the one outcome which actually would have strengthened the US: having its deeds match its words by succeeding in imposing sanctions on Iran. Now, once again, Obama looks like a fool. Was this what Obama praised Lula for, so Lula could demolish the last chance of imposing those sanctions that Obama has been saying he wants all this time?

Yet Ben Katcher says blithely: "I would be surprised if Davutoglu reached a deal with Tehran that the United States cannot accept."

The US doesn't have much choice, does it? It's a done deal.

Barry Rubin sums up the situation:

"Now Lula has just visited Tehran in person and proposed that Brazil should provide Iran with equipment and parts to modernize its oil production while Iran assists Brazil in deep-water drilling efforts in the Atlantic Ocean. Lula also said he would urge Brazilian companies to invest in Iranian refineries. There can be no doubt that Brazil will oppose sanctions in the UN.

Seems Lula is a "great admirer" of the Islamist regime.

So once again—as with Venezuela, Iran, Syria, and a lot of other countries, Obama’s efforts to suck up to radical regimes has backfired in making them more confident about defying U.S. policies and interests. At the same time, his backing, praise, and at times money has had no effect on making them more friendly to Washington.

Have you noticed that all of America's enemies--treated so nicely by the Obama Administration--have thrown pies in its face, while none of America's real friends--even when treated shabbily--do so? As I've previously suggested, George W. Bush's "you're with us or against us" had serious flaws, but Obama's "if you're against us we're with you" is worse."

http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2010/05/another-humiliation-for-obama.html

If Nadine is unhappy, and on the attack, good things are in the air. We may avoid putting sanctions on one more nation yet.

"Um, Dan, you missed listing the one outcome which actually would have strengthened the US: having its deeds match its words by succeeding in imposing sanctions on Iran. Now, once again, Obama looks like a fool."

On the contrary. If this deal holds up, the US will be able to say that Iran would never have made the deal without the US-sponsored threat of sanctions hanging over its head.

Everyone saves face. No pies. And the world gets a deal that is perfectly adequate to address legitimate nuclear security concerns.

Nobody ever expects the initial tough negotiating stance to be the view that prevails in the concluding settlement.

Dan, you lack Nadine-logic. Nothing is good that lowers the temperature or favors accommodation over threat.

Maybe another 'sanctions-war' escalation track has been averted. If so, I agree that it looks like a good thing. And Obama can certainly claim pressure contributed to the outcome. That's what diplomatic language is for, isn't it?

It doesn't matter, well it matters somewhat, if Turkey and Brazil consulted with Obama or Hillary beforehand or not...but it's still good.

If they did, Obama is using "others" to get to his goal while maintaining some domestic political cover...if they didn't...well then, it's about time the world side stepped Isrmerica and our zionista congress on Iran and Israel.

In a way it would be even more encouraging if they didn't consult with Washington beforehand on this deal because the US needs to have it's superpower tutu shrunk to the proper size.

Obama has really painted himself into a corner. His campaign was premised entirely on Iran’s unwillingness to “take it or leave it” on the TRR trade. Now Iran appears to have taken it, leaving the PR campaign in shambles. Now it is clear that Washington is the unreasonable party. If Obama goes to the UNSC he will either lose or end up with a win without consensus, which is essentially a loss.

Iran has exposed Washington’s ploy for what it is–an attempt to hold the world’s nuclear power supply hostage to the nuclear cartel, AKA the P5+1, mostly former colonial powers. Naturally the large number of nations outside the nuclear cartel are not enthralled by the prospect of that.

The problem is that Washington wanted to have its cake and eat it too. It wanted to control the spread of nuclear weapons by restricting enrichment to the nine companies that currently are currently capable of it, a laudable and entirely justifiable goal.

The problem arises with Washington’s second goal, which is to use its the supply of enriched uranium as a weapon, forcing countries to bend to their will if they want their enriched uranium. The TRR was a perfect illustration of that strategy put into practice, exposing it for the whole world to see.

The NPT makes it clear that signatory nations are entitled to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes. There is no stipulation that says that nations must also be a friend of Uncle Sam to enjoy that right.

Now Obama will have to retool the message of his campaign, which will be unquestioningly accepted in the Western media. He will change the terms of the initial deal and explain that the new terms were actually the original terms. The P5+1 will all applaud, except perhaps Russia and China.

What Obama cannot do is openly state his true intentions–hold the non-nuclear world hostage. And for political purposes, Obama cannot agree to give up the prerogative to use nuclear fuel as a weapon. In any case, the world would not believe him if he did.

Dan, on this issue JohnH is closer to the truth than you are. "Everybody" has not saved face -- the US has lost face, badly, while Iran, Turkey and Brazil have gained face. Now we will have four to six months of negotiations, at the end of which this transfer deal won't happen, any more than the Russian transfer happened last year. But Iran will have gotten another six months of time to advance its nuclear weapons program, which is what it wanted in the first place.

If you think Iran is looking for a face-saving deal then you are an even bigger fool than I took you for. Iran wants more time, and has gained seven years already through "negotiations" that never lead to an agreement and "deals" that always fall through.

Well, we'll have to see what the deal is. But if Obama does suffer a loss of face as a result, then as I wrote in response to Steve's original post on the Lula intervention, Obama will have only himself to blame.

If Obama's goal is to re-establish US credibility and global leadership, and put himself forward as the arbiter of global rectitude and sanity, then then he is going to have to work harder to position the US in the center of these global debates, instead of on one of the two extremes.

Dan, you seem to think that global leadership consists of saying the right words to find "the center of these global debates," instead of having won respect and credibility based on past performance, including the willingness to back words with deeds.

The actions of Russia, Turkey, Iran, Syria and Brazil clearly spell out Obama's total lack of respect and credibility.

Right now, the administration's wrong-footed first reaction has made it look like our entire diplomatic stance for the past several months was undertaken in bad faith. If the credibility of the US government depends on backing words with deeds, then the White House is going to have to work out a graceful way of taking yes for an answer.

Obama has allowed himself to be maneuvered into isolating our country. This gave Turkey and Brazil a diplomatic opportunity big enough to drive a truck through. In economic affairs, he understands he had to broaden the decision-making nexus from the G8 to the G20. But in the security area, he is acting like the world is run by a G4: the US, UK, France and Germany.

We don't live in a bipolar world any longer, one in which the US can exert leadership by positioning itself simply as the chief power in the "free world". Obama needs to do a better job understanding where the globe's center of political gravity lies.

Unfortunately, the US public has been so provincialized and radicalized in recent years, and so indulged in their nostalgic and chauvinistic fantasies about the nature and extent of US power, that I don't know how a US president now brings them into the 21st century.