LyrArc Article Gist
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief, Yukiya Amano, answers questions in a closed door 90 minute meeting with the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The IAEA chief says he cannot disclose details of his investigation into Iran's earlier weapons activities, or the agency's agreement with Iran for the inspection of nuclear facilities. Senator Corker who heads the committee said most senators left the meeting with greater concerns about the inspection process. The IAEA chief cited as reasons for the secrecy, independence of the agency, and what he called "a legal obligation" to protect confidential information. Senator Barroso described the process as one in which an NFL player or athlete is asked to mail in his own urine sample. Of particular concern to senators is the Parchin site where testing ocurred in the early 2000's, which Amano has said Iran is trying to sanitize, and which is not part of this agreement. Iran has not agreed to IAEA requests to interview a Iranian scientist Mr. Fakhrizadeh or other top Iranian military officers and nuclear scientists as part of its probe into past Iranian nuclear activities, Yukiya Amano told the WSJ in an intervew. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Sanger and Gordon point to critical elements of the nuclear deal that were needed but will now be missing. Iranian negotiators now say they will not ship atomic fuel out of the country. For the agreement to be serious and credible about Iran's peaceful intentions for the use of nuclear energy, it was important that the atomic fuel be shipped to Russia, where it would be converted into specialized fuel rods for the Bushehr nuclear power plant. If Iran at some point decided to opt out of the agreement the use of this atomic fuel for peaceful purposes cannot be assured.

LyrArc Article Gist
A study group at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy sends a public letter to U.S. president Obama on the Iran negotiations. It says the nuclear agreement negotiated with Iran "may fall short of the administration's own standard of a 'good' agreement." It is signed by some of Mr. Obama's main advisors during the first term. Some of these officials told the NYT that the letter was the result of serious concern that Mr. Kerry and other negotiators were moving towards major concessions that would weaken the international inspections of Iran's facilities, back away from making Iran reveal suspected past work on weapons, and allow Iranian R&D to move ahead with making nuclear fuel once the accord expires. The five Obama advisors from the first term who signed the letter are: Dennis Ross, Middle East negotiator, David Petraeus, CIA director, Robert Einhorn, State Department proliferation expert, Gary Samore, chief advisor on nuclear policy, Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman Jt. Chiefs of Staff. Gary Samore is president of the advocacy group United Against Nuclear Iran. The letter was also signed by President Bush's national security advisor during his second term, Stephen Hadley. Such a large group of advisors to presidents Bush and Obama familiar with the details of Iran's development of nuclear technology and weapons capabilities could give Republicans support to kill any agreement that falls short on inspections during Congressional Review. On this key factor where only vague assurances are made by the Iranian side- such as signing an International Atomic Agency convention giving inspectors broad rights to visit suspicious sites, followed by Ayatollah Khamanei ruling out military sites- the letter is specific. Inspections it says " must include military (including Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps), and other sensitive facilities. Iran must not be able to deny or delay timely access to any site anywhere in the country." Inspections work rigorously done is set as a precondition before any significant relief from economic sanctions on Iran....

LyrArc Article Gist
This editorial in the Washington Post describes the ballistic missile test by Iran in December 2015, and says the Obama administration has not responded effectively to this because of President Obama's effort to protect his legacy in the nuclear agreement.

LyrArc Article Gist
DW.com shows the Straits of Hormuz where the Persian Gulf meets the Gulf of Oman before it meets the Arabian Sea facing India. Ships cross a narrow space of 2 miles in the narrowest point that is 21 miles wide in the Straits of Hormuz. The UAE, Oman face Iran in that area. 20 million barrels of oil by tanker traffic cross the Straits of Hormuz every day. India, China, Japan and EU depend on the Straits of Hormuz for oil supplies making it critical for sea navigation. Iranian parliament  has threatened closing of the Straits as aresponse to the US strike on nuclear weapons development sites. China and India lose cheaper oil supplies from Iran as a result of the Israel-Iran war. Russia, Saudis, UAE, Qatar, gain because it increases the price of oil supplies from Russia. Iran loses a source of oil revenue with damage to its oil facilities. The Israeli economy is resilient and its stock markets are showing rapid growth as the war changes the Gulf region and  Southwest Asia, South Asia moving it in the direction of economic and business deals and agreements that enhance improvement in the lives of the people away from decades of conflict from the colonial era in which the British and the French gained control of the Gulf region and Iraq, Syria after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the anti colonial regimes that failed to provide development, the CIA's intervention under Dulles and Eisenhower to remove the democratically elected government of Mossadegh in Iran in 1953 and its repercussions in the Reagan period with Rumsfeld/Reagan compounding that error by supporting Iraq's Hussein leading to 3 decades of loss of American lives in the region's wars and also endangering Israel. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The US/Israel Iran ceasefire also allows the DJT administration and its supporters to focus on the goals of reaching new agreements on world trade to return manufacturing to the US, and tackle the issue of massive illegal migraton of estimated 10-15 million during the last administration. The limited goal of removing Iran's nuclear weapons by direct action being achieved, the US steps back to work with China and Russia on other issues of trade agreements to rebuild world trade and US manufacturing, and to take corrective action on illegal migration, and efforts to reduce cost of living, improve working people's lives and communities, health of the American people. It also gives China, India, Russia and the US to reflect on how they can improve the economic conditions of their own people and the people of the world.

LyrArc Article Gist
There is only one way to interpret this. Putin and Russian influence have calmed down the Israel Iran war. DJT opening up discussions and talking to both Russia and China has created a sense in both countries that their vital interests are with the US, China on a trade agreement with the US, and Russia for a settlement of the Ukraine war on terms that it sees as fair. There is the issue of nuclear non-proliferation on which US, Russia, China, India, Germany and the EU, and the rest of the world are in agreement which meant action to end Iran's nuclear program. Putin met with Iranian Foreign Minister and looked for a way to end the war. Putin said: “This gives us a chance to…think together about how it would be possible to get out of this situation,” said Putin. From the point of view of a safer planet Biden's period of not talking to China during the balloon incident, and not talking to Russia with a single minded focus on Ukraine conflict, can be seen as not the way a responsible world power should act. DJT's emphasis to end the wars in the Middle East yet standing firm on Israel's right to exist and the non proliferation of nuclear weapons, and working to end the war on Ukraine by puting pressure on all countries, is proving to be an approach that gives all world powers a chance to reflect truly on their obligations to their peoples and the people of the world. To keep their and the world's sanity and composure while pursuing national aspirations. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Retired General James Mattis headed Central Command under the Obama administration. He is the new U.S. Defense Secretary. Mattis is critical but has said "there is no going back" on the Iran nuclear agreement. Mattis also has said any U.S. president regarding allies as "freeloaders" is nuts. This is different from Trump's campaign speeches, Yet the trait of Mattis in Afghanistan and Iraq duty is that of aggressively following the enemy, he has been called "Mad Dog,"  and the 66 year old officer brings deep battlefield experience, is highly regarded in the military ranks, and had friction with the Obama administration- traits for which he is well regarded by Trump.

LyrArc Article Gist
As one group of B-2's headed west pver the Pacific, another group quietly headed east to bomb the Iranian nuclear weapons development sites. The intent was to carry out the decision made by the US and the EU and tacitly supported by Russia, China, India, and the world, to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It is now evident that since the beginning of 2025 the number on priority of the DJT administration in foreign policy was to end Iran's effort to get a nuclear weapon. This is why the US DJT administration brought together Gulf regimes Qatar and UAE, Saudis for $2 trillion in business and economic deals in a DJT visit in May 2025. It is also evident that when India launched air strikes on Pakistan terrorist bases in June the US president DJT ended the war quickly in 72 hours. The Pakistan military head met with DJT in the White House a week back. This was preparation for the plan to take out the nuclear sites with minimal regional instability, a goal of the American people after Reagan/Bush miscalculations in supporting Hussein in Iraq and creating the Middle East wars Americans have had enough of. It may close a chapter of violent conflicts in the Middle East to be replaced with US support for India, UAE/Qatar/Saudi, Pakistan economic deals economic agreements. Much of the Indian media fails to understand this. The job of a US president if done right has responsibilities to the Nation and the World, after all the missteps of his predecessors DJT is stepping into this role. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Sanger and Gordon of the NYT describe in some detail the manner in which the negotiations for a nuclear with Iran in June and July 2015 were conducted. The clause for lifting the arms embargo was added when the Iranian negotiators were supported by China and Russia, and was opposed by the U.S. negotiators and added only when Kerry and president Obama discussed this. The clause in the final agreement states that the arms embargo would be lifted in 5 years for conventional weapons and 8 years for ballistic missiles.

LyrArc Article Gist
A slight shift in American opinion favoring a deal with Iran is shown in a WSJ/NBC poll in July 2015 compared to the poll in April 2015. Support for reaching a nuclear deal with Iran remains stable at 36% in both polls, the opposed drops by 6 percentage points to 17% from 23%, and the percentage of people who say they do not know enough to formulate an opinion goes up to 46% from 40%. The intricacies of a nuclear technology deal and the sites involved lead to a high percentage of don't know enough to give an opinion. Factors hindering a deal include inspection of military sites, and Iranian intentions. Factors favoring reaching a deal now is the risk that this would mean Iran would go back into isolation and the opportunity to work with moderates might be lost. The Rouhani administration was an effort by voters to elect a government that could ease or remove sanctions to improve the economy and living conditions- its failure would lead to Iran losing an opportunity to open up to the world. The pressure from the U.S. Congress and Israel served to push for a verifiable and effective agreement to control development of nuclear technology for weapons systems. Behavioural factors involved are the very young population in Iran which has no memories about the period before the revolution in 1979- 70% of the population of 74 million are people under the age of 35. This group is eager for ties to the outside and could change Iran's outlook and policies int the future towards moderation. Risks in not reaching a deal also include the possibility of the Saudis developing nuclear technology and nuclear proliferation. Winners from a deal because of the flow of Iranian oil to world markets and a period of extended low oil prices are the U.S., Europe, China and India. Germany gains new markets to replace the growth in the Russian market after sanctions. Lifting of an arms embargo, an added risk in the last days of the talks, would be mitigated by making the lifting of that embargo very gradual....

LyrArc Article Gist
Bret Stephens in the NYT points out that the Iran Nuclear Deal did not have the support it needed to become a lasting agreement. He cites a Pew poll at the time of the deal showing 21% supporting it and 49% not supporting it. It lacked the two thirds support needed in Congress for a treaty to be passed. It was a J.C.P.O.A. or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action not an Executive Agreement or a Treaty, says Stephens. France initially called for stronger safeguards so that the Agreement would limit the development of nuclear weapons. Only later did France and the EU come into acceptance of the deal.  Stephens points out the efforts to renegotiate the deal coming from the EU, and cites this as showing that a better deal could have been negotiated. Since the deal the conflicts in the Middle East have continued to grow, so that the constructive developments of advancing Iran's economic development and reducing the role of military conflicts were not addressed, say experts skeptical of the deal. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This WSJ editorial says president Trump can exit because president Obama never really built support for the Iran Nuclear Agreement of 2015. Stephens in the NYT cites a Pew poll at that time showing only 21% supported it with 49% not supporting it.  This editorial says the deal made by Obama gave Iran $100 billion of sanctions relief and a chance to revive its nuclear weapons program after a 15 year waiting period. It says this increased conflicts and wars in the Middle East. President Trump said in his announcement on May 8, 2018 that the deal never led to "peace, or calm and never will." Another issue of winning popular support is mentioned, as WSJ says president Obama did not submit it as a treaty to the Senate for approval. The Trump administration has its own work now to build support with Europe in fixing the nuclear deal's weaknesses, and winning support from Democrats as well as Republicans for sanctions and new negotiations that help bring a better more peaceful Middle East, so that Iran can focus on lifting living standards and improving the economy, setting a new course. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Former Secretary of State James Baker III on the Obama administration's negotiations with Iran for a nuclear deal. He points out the importance of the U.S. making the removal of sanctions gradual manner as Iran fulfills its part of the agreement. Baker says Iran in the past has broken agreements to resume nuclear weapons research, making the verification process and snap back of sanctions critical. Baker does not address the issues related to how effective verification would take place, calling this the work of negotiators to work out the bureaucratic and cumbersome provisions. He also does not address the problems other critics have raised about any future snap back of sanctions because of the reluctance of European countries, saying only that the U.S. should maintain its credible position on the negtiations with its other partners- China, Russia, Germany, France and the UK.

LyrArc Article Gist
The NYT report that provides details on what Iran agreed to in the deal reached in Geneva on November 23, 2013 with western nations and the P5+1 that includes Russia and China. It provides a 6 month period in which additional steps to secure that Iran's program is limited to peaceful uses can be achieved. It also slows the Iranian nuclear weapons program by about one month according to this report, and gives additional warning if Iran moves in that direction. Not enough to dismantle Iran's nuclear enrichment program which is what Israel, Saudi Arabia want to see. France has called for tougher steps to limit the nuclear program in prior negotiating sessions. U.S. president Obama has looked for a compromise which would provide the opportunity to do this at a later stage, possibly through a series of smaller agreements. The sticking point is Iran's insistence that it has the right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes like other signatories to the UN Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty. This may be the only agreement that could be reached at this time, leaving tougher negotiations for a later stage when more trust and credibility is achieved, without the risk of jeopardizing a future agreement that goes further and seriously tackles the problem....

LyrArc Article Gist
Both presidents Biden in 2024 and Carter in 1980 faced high inflation that reduced their popularity, under Biden over 9% and under Carter 13%. Cost of living became a major issue as wage increases did not keep pace with inflation. WSJ attributes the inflation under Carter to policies of Richard Nixon and failure of the Fed under Miller and Volcker to control inflation. It attributes the inflation under Biden to Covid spending and on top of that the Spending under the Inflation Reduction Act and other bills passed to rebuild infrastructure. Biden and Fed's Powell did bring inflation down in 2024, and it had also to do with supply bottlenecks, opportunistic behaviour by retailers in 2022-2023.  A significant weakness for Biden was the Border and failure to act quickly under Homeland Security head Alejandro Mayorkas, against whom the Republicans started impeachment proceedings. Added to this was the continued flow of fentanyl destroying American lives. Another weakness was the unease of parents with policies on transgender. On foreign policy the Obama policy of funding Iran under the nuclear negotiated agreement increased risks for Israel and emboldened Iran. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Michael Gordon of the NYT points out that the nuclear deal with Iran reached in Geneva on Nov. 23, 2013, is largely a holding action and a way to put some constraints on the nuclear program till Iran and the U.S. can work out some major differences. The Obama administration looks to be willing to concede Iran's rights to enrich uranium- it is the strict limits that are needed that are the points of negotiation. The agreement is given in the 4 page document- the Joint Plan of Action which leaves most of the core sanctions in place and lets Iran keep most of its nuclear infrastructure.

LyrArc Article Gist
President Macron of France puts forward the basic building blocks for an agreement to reduce tensions with Iran. In a speech to the General Assembly of the United Nations he says that there should be negotiations between Iran, its regional neighbors, the U.S. , European countries and China. The Obama period nuclear deal of 2015 failed because of a lack of a comprehensive settlement and including Iran's neighbors in the region. Macron pointed out that the U.S. approach under president Trump of "maximum pressure" with tighter economic sanctions has produced a response from Iran of maximum pressure on its neighbors, including the attack on Saudi oil facilities with drones that took out half of the Saudi oil supplies. Macron put forward five issues for negpotiations to focus on: certaity that Iran never acquires nuclear weapons, solution to the Yemen civil war, a regional security plan that addresses other conflicts, ensuring security of maritime navigation especially in Straits of Hormuz, lifting of economic sanctions. He pointed out that "today we have a risk of serious conflict based on miscalculation and disproportionate responses." Mr. Trump even alluded to this when he told reporters after the dismissal of John Bolton as National Security Adviser, saying Bolton made Trump look like a voice of moderation. A lot depends on who are the advisers and whether moderation is exercised on all sides.  Macron, Merkel and Britain's prime minister Johnson met with Rouhani on the sidelines of the UN meetings to encourage dialogue. Countries likely to be severely affected by oil shutoff through the Straits of Hormuz are Japan, South Korea, India and China, and are quietly pushing for an easing of tensions.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The Obama administration started the first term in office with efforts at reaching agreement on reducing nuclear arsenals. By the second term of the Obama administration the talks were already faltering. The war in Syria and Iraq and other conflicts in the Ukraine led to worsening relations with Russia. During the first year of the Trump administration that followed the two Obama terms in office the situation is completely reversed from what it was in 2008, showing that more than good intentions are needed to pave the way for reducing nuclear weapons. The expansion of NATO to Russian borders, the conflict in the Ukraine, the sanctions that hurt the Russian economy in Obama's second term did more to destabilize relations. The Trump administration's ambivalence towards Russia is not seen in the way the U.S. is responding to Russia'a policy actions to expand its nuclear weapons capabilities.

LyrArc Article Gist
Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post cites the Pew poll of September 3-7, 2015, on the Iran nuclear deal of July 2015, showing increase in skepticism about the deal's provisions by people who are informed to some extent (a little or a lot) about its details- 57% opposing to 27% supporting. The strongly partisan opinion on the issue, and the lobbying on both sides, including bringing Iraq WMD into the picture as noted by Dana Milbank in another column in the Washington Post, overstates each case. This draws attention away from the actual provisions. About 30% have no opinion it appears because the issue of this magnitude involving nuclear weapons proliferation has become politicized when it should be examined only on its merits, where public opinion would be shaped by the details of the deal itself, not who has negotiated it. The Pew Research Center poll shows 21% support the agreement negotiated with Iran, 49% disapprove, 30% offer no opinion. This compares with a poll taken 6 weeks before in July 2015 showing 33% supporting it and 45% opposing it. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A detailed look at the limits of the November 23, 2013 nuclear deal at Geneva negotiations with Iran. David Sanger of the NYT points out the limits of the deal and any future deal reached with Iran. Experts and negotiators of deals with North Korea point to the difficulties and the reversibility of such deals. Only a deal that takes the centrifuges and the nuclear fuel out of the country would be complete, say experts in Israel. In the period since 2009 when Obama took office Iran has increased the amount of low-enriched uranium to 9000 kilograms from 2000 and centrifuges from a few thousand to 18000, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, showing the difficulties of achieving such an agreement. The reactor at Arak is another pathway to nuclear weapons using plutonium. Any hidden facilities also present risks.

LyrArc Article Gist
The NYT's Sanger and Gordon give readers glimpses of what happened inside the negotiating rooms at the hotel in Lausanne, Switzerland, where the outlines of the nuclear agreement with Iran were laid out. Wendy Sherman led the American negotiating team, and Javad Zarif led the Iranian side.

LyrArc Article Gist
Pierre Razoux, a French historian provides this account of the Iran-Iraq war that lasted from 1980 to 1988, at a cost of 680,000 people killed and $1.1 trillion in war destruction and money diverted from the economy. In 1980 Saddam Hussein of Iraq launched the war by attacking Iran which had just come under the Ayatollah Khomeini with the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1979. The war dragged on for 8 years with Khomeini persisting in the war. With U.S. and Saudi policy to increase production bringing the price of oil down from $30 to $10 designed to bring Iran and Iraq to the peace talks, as well as the Soviet Union to withdraw from Afghanistan, all three being major oil producers. The dollar also weakened by 37% during this period. The diplomatic isolation of the Khomeini regime made it more difficult for Iran to buy arms on credit than Iraq could, leading to the war ending with Iran finding it no longer possible to continue the human losses. The Carter administration, particularly with National Security Advisor Brzezinski, tilted towards Iraq to oppose Soviets in Afghanistan, and the Saudis also supported Iraq during the early period. Under president Reagan the U.S. began covert and direct assistance to Iraq to prevent an Iraqi defeat early in the war. Rumsfeld visited Baghdad in December 1983 and March 1984 to organize the U.S. effort to oppose Iran. This may have laid the seeds for future conflicts that lasted through the administrations of the elder and junior Bush. As Razoux points out the Revolutionary Guards became entrenched from this period in Iran's history, making it difficult for election process to work or elected governments to operate. 23 months following the end of that war in 1988 Saddam Hussein launched a war on Kuwait, leading to the U.S. led Gulf war and the entry of the U.S. into a ground combat role, which was followed by the invasion of Iraq under George Bush after 9/11 attacks. The twin wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are estimated to have cost the U.S. over 1 trillion dollars. The result today is largely the division on the ground into Shia regions under the Revolutionary Guards and the Shiite government in Baghdad, and Sunni regions led by Islamic State and autonomous Iraqi Sunni tribes, ignoring the Iran-Iraq boundaries set in the colonial period by the French and the British. In all the amount spent in the Khomeini-Saddam war of $ 1 trillion being about $2 trillion in today's money, and the $1 trillion spent by the U.S., means about $3 trillion has gone into the wars in this region. This comes at a time of deficits in government budgets in the U.S. and a deep recession in the U.S. and Europe. It also explains why the U.S. public is reluctant to take even the minor action such as giving a standoff "no-fly zone" protection to the rebels in Syria, and supported the Obama administration in its reluctance to keep even the basic military force in place to protect its diplomatic mission in Libya, where the cost would be small relative to earlier enlarged military missions under the two elder and junior Bush administrations. The result is that refugees are pouring into Europe from Syria and Libya, through Turkey. Turkey itself is host to millions of refugees in camps along its border. The vacuum and the withdrawal of the Obama administration from the region has led to the rise of Islamic State with covert assistance from Sunni regimes in the region to counteract the growing influence of Shiite Iran. It also may explain the Iranian people's support for the nuclear weapons effort through years of sanctions, leading finally to an agreement with the Obama administration that relaxes sanctions in exchange for a future possibility of acquiring nuclear weapons. Lost in the conflict is the Arab Spring of 2012-2013, with the Tunisian democracy the only surviving result of that movement for democracy and awakening among Arab peoples. The Reagan administration in its aggressive anti-Soviet position made large errors- including ignoring human rights abuses and use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war, by supporting Iraq and reversing position after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, having a disastrous effect on the entire region decades later. Much of the Obama administration's reluctance for any action may stem from the U.S. role in this period and its consequences of protracted conflict. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
It is hard to imagine that one is even writing about this, as shocking as it is- the 4 or 5 minutes between a decision to launch nuclear weapons and the end of life on this planet earth as we know it. Here Sam Nunn, a U.S. senator who was part of the negotiations for arms control and who is the leading American in this field talks about the unimaginable danger. He says the strategy from the Cold War where Russia and the U.S. put their nuclear forces in a position to be launched within minutes, 4 to 5 minutes, is outdated and needs to be changed. Hillary Clinton described the issue in the television debate. Yet this was not discussed because of the nature of the 2016 presidential election with lack of serious discussion.  And both Nunn and Clinton emphasize that once the missiles are in the air they cannot be ordered to go back. Accidental error, judgemental error, informational error in which one side thinks the other has launched a missile, a firing by mistake, are possible. In this situation Nunn says Trump is temperamentally unfit, and Clinton is fit to take on the responsibility. Yet the question this raises is as Nunn signals- is anyone but God fit to make this decision to launch nuclear weapons. Nunn says it is outdated and wrong to have only a few minutes, as such a decision cannot be made in a few hours or days, much less in 5 minutes. Nunn brings up a discussion he had in Moscow when he brought this up with Russians and president Putin. Russian president Putin told Nunn that he was fully aware of this. Putin's response was- "Senator Nunn, at some point it becomes automatic."  Nunn does not clarify what this means, or what Putin means to say. For people on the planet it is not enough to have Reagan, Gorbachev, Clinton, as Nunn mentions being responsible people for a nuclear decision. The current state of affairs is simply shocking and the lack of attention to this is also shocking. Equally dangerous is that 20 countries have weapons usable nuclear material, and sophisticated hacking of command and control processes is another danger.       ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Former senior directors in the National Security Council in the Bush administration who talk about a a complete change in policy towards Iran- changing policies pursued all the way back to President Carter and Reagan and the Ayatollah Khomeini government. New policy would be implemented through hard work on diplomatic negotiations to bring Iran and the U.S. closer by tackling many of the differences. The U.S. recognizing the Iran government and its interests in the region and Iran cooperating on the nuclear isssue to safeguard against nuclear proliferation. What this means is that the portion of oil price increases that are a result of political volatility, with Iran as one of the sources of the political volatility, will be affected as the political volatility from this source is reduced significantly. Also note recent news about Petrochina signing an agreement with Iran to develop large Iranian oil fields. This was a different aspect of the oil price increase as the lack of modernization and investment to develop oil fields in countries like Iran, Venezuela and Mexico was a problem on the supply side. In the case of Iran there was a squeeze as demand was growing inside these countries at the same time as there wasn't enough investment in the oil fields. Chinese participation means that this problem is being addressed differently from that if the western oil majors were involved, but still being addressed. Over time this should be part of contributing factors that are becoming evident for less price pressures. However it should also be noted that these changes will take some time to work their way. ...