Nothing is what it seems

Tom Cotton is the newest Emmanuel Goldstein because he was the lead signatory on the letter to the mullahs, which supposedly undercut the Leader of the Free World's diplomacy.

Let's set the Wayback Machine to July, 2008. You might remember, although I'm guessing you don't, that the former Leader of the Free World was involved in talks with the mullahs via a six-way diplomatic effort. The New York Times noted that things collapsed:

International talks on Iran’s nuclear ambitions ended in deadlock on Saturday, despite the Bush administration’s decision to reverse policy and send a senior American official to the table for the first time.

The presence of William J. Burns, the under secretary of state for political affairs, was one of the most important encounters between Iran and the United States since relations were severed nearly three decades ago. And it was part of a rare show of unity among the six negotiating partners — the United States, France, Britain, Germany, Russia and China — who pressed Iran to accept compromise.

But Iran responded with a written document that failed to address the main issue: international demands that it stop enriching uranium. And Iranian diplomats reiterated before the talks that they considered the issue nonnegotiable.

So why did this happen? Was it bad negotiating? Or did something else happen. Last year Michael Ledeen suggested a reason:

During his first presidential campaign in 2008, Mr. Obama used a secret back channel to Tehran to assure the mullahs that he was a friend of the Islamic Republic, and that they would be very happy with his policies. The secret channel was Ambassador William G. Miller, who served in Iran during the shah’s rule, as chief of staff for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and as ambassador to Ukraine. Ambassador Miller has confirmed to me his conversations with Iranian leaders during the 2008 campaign.

Ledeen could be lying about this, I suppose. An enterprising reporter might see if Mr. Miller is available. So what would Obama's reason be? John Hinderaker has a suggestion:

So Obama secretly told the mullahs not to make a deal until he assumed the presidency, when they would be able to make a better agreement. Which is exactly what happened: Obama abandoned the requirement that Iran stop enriching uranium, so that Iran’s nuclear program has sped ahead over the months and years that negotiations have dragged on. When an interim agreement in the form of a “Joint Plan of Action” was announced in late 2013, Iran’s leaders exulted in the fact that the West had acknowledged its right to continue its uranium enrichment program.

Did they? Well, let's see. Direct from the Iranian news service:

“The (nuclear) program has been recognized and the Iranian people’s right to use the peaceful nuclear technology based on the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) and as an inalienable right has been recognized and countries are necessitated not to create any obstacle on its way,” Zarif said in a press conference in Geneva on Sunday.

“The (nuclear) program will continue and all the sanctions and violations against the Iranian nation under the pretext of the nuclear program will be removed gradually,” he added.

He said the next six months will be a serious start towards “the full removal of all UN Security Council, unilateral and multilateral sanctions, while the country’s enrichment program will be maintained." "Production of 5-percent-enriched uranium will continue in the country similar the past,” Zarif continued.

“None of the enrichment centers will be closed and Fordo and Natanz will continue their work and the Arak heavy water program will continue in its present form and no material (enriched uranium stockpiles) will be taken out of the country and all the enriched materials will remain inside the country. The current sanctions will move towards decrease, no sanctions will be imposed and Iran’s financial resources will return,” he continued.

It's possible that a lot of people are lying about all this. Hinderaker makes a salient point:

In view of these events, it is deeply ironic that the Democrats are accusing 47 Republican senators of undermining Obama’s position in the negotiations for a final agreement. Unlike Obama, they have done nothing in secret. They have published an “open letter” that is intended for the Obama administration and the American people as much as for Iran’s leaders. The letter spells out basic truths relating to our Constitution and the Senate’s role in ratifying treaties. Unlike Obama’s secret overture to Iran, the GOP senators aren’t discouraging Iran from dealing with Obama so that they can get a better deal later. On the contrary, their letter strengthens Obama’s bargaining position. He can say, “Even if I wanted to, I can’t give in on nuclear enrichment. It would never get through the Senate.” 

Ironic isn't the term I'd use. I'll not actually use the terms I'd prefer to use because I don't like to work blue. Hinderaker is right, of course. The letter to the mullahs was an open letter for a reason; Cotton and his colleagues wanted people to understand what was going on and they were quite open about it. No back channels for this crew.

So, will Iran get the bomb? Hard to say. Other countries aren't waiting to find out, though:

As U.S. and Iranian diplomats inched toward progress on Tehran’s nuclear program last week, Saudi Arabia quietly signed its own nuclear-cooperation agreement with South Korea.

That agreement, along with recent comments from Saudi officials and royals, is raising concerns on Capitol Hill and among U.S. allies that a deal with Iran, rather than stanching the spread of nuclear technologies, risks fueling it.

Saudi Arabia’s former intelligence chief, Prince Turki al-Faisal, a member of the royal family, has publicly warned in recent months that Riyadh will seek to match the nuclear capabilities Iran is allowed to maintain as part of any final agreement reached with world powers. This could include the ability to enrich uranium and to harvest the weapons-grade plutonium discharged in a nuclear reactor’s spent fuel.

Several U.S. and Arab officials have voiced concerns about a possible nuclear-arms race erupting in the Middle East, spurred on by Saudi Arabia’s regional rivalry with Iran, which has been playing out in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen in recent months.

This is going so well.