Path to getting the Iran nuclear deal - Kerry and Obama very proactive; Hillary cautious, ambivalent

[karynnj]

The Iran nuclear deal signed last year after months of direct negotiations with Iranian officials, is likely to be remembered as Mr. Obama's most consequential diplomatic achievement.In Mrs. Clinton's campaign to succeed him, she is claiming her share of credit for it. The multinational sanctions regime that she cobbled together helped pull Iran to the negotiating table. The team she eventually sent to Oman, she likes to say, "set the table" for Mr. Kerry's diplomatic banquet.

But the behind- the- scenes story of Mrs. Clinton's role is more complicated than her public account of it. Interviews with a dozen or more current and former administration officials paint a portrait of a highly cautious, ambivalent diplomat, less willing than Mr. Obama to take risks to open a dialogue with Iran and increasing wary of Mr. Kerry's freelance diplomacy. Her decision to send her own team, some officials said, was driven as much to corral Mr. Kerry as to engage the Iranians.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/03/us/politics/for-hillary-clinton-and-john-kerry-divergent-paths-to-iran-nuclear-talks.html

[karynnj]

1. What does it this say about what negotiations a President Hillary Clinton will green light

From this article, it seems that she was reluctant to take on the negotiations with Iran. Speculating on the reasons, I would go with the fact that she thought they were unlikely to do anything -- other than perhaps demonstrate that Tehren would not be willing to make the concessions that were demanded. Add to that, the country viewed Iran very negatively and any public negotiations would incur the wrath of AIPAC and would infuriate Netanyahu.

Here, the potential gain was that Iran could be kept from getting a nuclear weapon - something they had been said to have been on the verge of attaining for long enough that many might have ceased to believe it. However, it might be that she - like Netanyahu - did not want to risk Iran gaining greater power in the region if they ceased to be a pariah nation. Any change entails risk that the changed world is worse than the current status quo. So far, Iran has elected a more moderate Parliament and Rouhani is still President - they tested missiles -- they helped get the resolution on Syria -- they still back Hezzbollah -- a mixed bag, but likely better than if no deal.

It could have come down just to the reluctance to take a risk of failing.

However, look on the other side -- what risks was she willing to take. She was a top advocate for intervening in Libya - and there does not seem to have been any surprise to her when a no fly zone to prevent a massacre morphed into backing regime change. We know that she and Petraeus did all they could to encourage the Syrian rebels (many of whom we knew very little about) and wanted to do more, but was held back by President Obama.

Together, it seems that she is really not reluctant due to being risk adverse. She was willing to accept risk both with military power and covert CIA power. Although she says diplomacy first, I don't think she has the same level of comfort for being patience and working hard to find the common ground that Kerry does.