The Washington Post today devoted several articles to the issue of Iran, which are more about the US and Israel than the Islamic Republic itself. Confrontation between the two partner-countries continues in Washington, and most likely a consensus is not expected in the near future. US President Barack Obama is more flexible in his position on the Iranian nuclear program, while Israeli Prime Minister expresses his extreme concern that trust in the Islamic Republic could lead to the creation of another nuclear state.
But apparently, despite all the attempts to disrupt the nuclear talks, Israel is likely to fail, as both the US and Iran are set on a constructive dialogue in view of the fact that the agreement is necessary to both sides, in the first place in terms of economic and strategic cooperation.
Obama said that all the statements by Netanyahu only distract from finding a solution to the main problem, namely how to prevent the development of nuclear weapons in Iran. At the moment, the negotiations are technically detailed, Iran and the countries of the "six" are trying to agree on volumes of production of enriched uranium, as well as for its reconciliation.
For the US, the nuclear agreement is an opportunity to finish an era of tension between the two countries and get a powerful ally in Iran to confront ISIS, and for Iran, in turn, the lifting of sanctions is important. And what does Israel want? Prime Minister Netanyahu has openly stated that Iran is a threat throughout the world, first and foremost to Israel because of the considerable differences between two states in their views. Even despite the fact that Netanyahu is a protégé of the USA, he did not refrain from harsh comments and criticism of the US government for lobbying for Iran, which he voiced when speaking before the US Congress.
The agreement is still in question, but a new round of talks starts on Tuesday, and Iran, for its part, is ready to make concessions, but at the same time considers it necessary to defend its interests to the fullest. It is difficult to understand what Israel wants. However, Netanyahu still believes in the US as a partner, and believes that, despite all the differences, the two countries will be able to come to a common decision on the issue. As for the US it is important to make an ally in the Persian Gulf.
Another article in the Washington Post is devoted to Russian assets in England - "Russian Energy Deal Comes at Contentious Time." Anxiety begins to grow for the UK in connection with the sanctions imposed on Russia,.
The fact that John Brown, a former head of BP, on Monday became the executive chairman of the energy campaign under the leadership of Mikhail Friedman, and Friedman himself, in turn, had threatened to sue the British government. Because of the sanctions the amount of economic cooperation between Moscow and London has declined substantially, hitting the profits of enterprises, including those of Friedman.
Sanctions have not been applied to Brown, and this plays into the hands of Friedman, but at the same time he is worried about the British government, because of the low oil prices he can buy shares of companies within the UK and thereby circumvent the sanctions. These manipulations have led to increased tension with Russia. The UK supports the strengthening of sanctions against Russia, but at the same time realizes that this may lead to a loss of assets in the country. Thus, another European state has put itself in a very narrow framework of decisions on foreign policy issues.
Bloomberg magazine analysts talk about Turkey's position in relation to ISIS in an article titled "Turkey Still Won't Fight Islamic State". Despite an agreement with Washington, Ankara is not hurrying to begin active military operations against the militants of Islamic State. The agreement between the two countries provides for the application of Turkish military strikes against terrorist groups. However Turkey, unlike the US, is not hurrying to sacrifice its population to intervene in the politics of other countries. For Erdogan, the safety issue is very important for the Turkish military located on the territory of Syria. In addition, Ankara stands for joint diplomatic efforts, rather than for a military escalation of the conflict. For the United States this is a problem, as far as since six months ago its participation in military actions against ISIS was supported by a number of countries, and today the situation is different. This once again proves the failure of the American plan to combat ISIS using air-strikes and other military maneuvers.
