BLAST FROM THE PAST: THE IRAN NUCLEAR TREATY- AVOIDING REALITY. PT 3.

As the Vote to Approve the IRAN NUCLEAR TREATY in Congress Approaches, we are again Subjected to Meaningless Rhetoric that Completely Misses the Point, and is USED TO PROMOTE FEAR AND HATE INSTEAD OF REASON AND PRAGMATISM.  So, let us again see if we can Cut Through Bluster and Noise, and find Common Ground.

First, Ignore the Text, and Toss Out Any Objections That Have Been Raised Denouncing the Agreement.  Go into an EXAMINATION OF THIS TREATY, OR ANY TREATY FOR THAT MATTER, AS A DISINTERESTED OBSERVER WHO HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH FINDING THE MOST EQUITABLE SOLUTION THAT WOULD BENEFIT ALL SIDES.

#1-  Listen to ALL SIDES OF THE SUBJECT MATTER TO DETERMINE WHAT EACH SIDE VALUES MOST OF ALL, AND CONSIDER THE ELEMENTS THAT SEEM TO BE OF LITTLE CONCERN TO EACH.

#2-  What Category do the Most Important Goals of Agreeing to a TREATY FALL INTO, FOR EACH PARTICIPANT?

-  ECONOMIC-  IMPROVING INFRASTRUCTURE, OR IMPORT/EXPORT 

OPPORTUNITIES.

-  MILITARY/PROTECTION FROM OUTSIDE SOURCES.

-  STABILITY-  ALLIES TO MAINTAIN GOOD RELATIONS, OR PLEDGE 

OF SUPPORT.

AMONG OTHER THINGS.

#3-  TO MEET THE BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF WHAT EACH SIDE IS LOOKING FOR, WHAT WILL THE OPPOSITION HAVE TO AGREE TO, OR SACRIFICE TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN?

#4-  IS ONE SIDE , OR THE OTHER, PUSHING AN AGENDA THAT THE

OTHER SIDE COULD NOT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO AGREE TO.

IS ONE SIDE OFFERING JUST TOKEN CONCESSIONS, WHILE DEMANDING

EXTENSIVE SACRIFICES FROM THE OPPOSITION?

As I Mentioned in an Earlier Post, GOVERNMENTS DO NOT ENTER INTO THESE NEGOTIATIONS FOR NO REASON.  EACH SIDE HAS SOMETHING THE OTHER WANTS.

This Leads us to the FINAL STEP-  IF THE SITTING GOVERNMENT PROPOSING THE FINISHED TREATY IS FACED BY INTERNAL OPPOSITION, THEY MUST ALSO BE HELD TO THE SAME STANDARDS.  OPPOSING A TREATY, OR ITS COMPONENTS, IS EASY TO SAY, BUT TO OFFER NO REALISTIC ALTERNATIVES IS JUST OBSTRUCTIONIST POLITICS.  

Date-  9/2/2015.

BLAST FROM THE PAST: THE IRAN NUCLEAR TREATY- AVOIDING REALITY. PT 2.

So now we have Two or more Governments sitting at the Negotiation Table, each

One Probably Aware to a Certain Extent of Why the Others are there. Before going on

with Further Analysis, it is Important to remember the Following:

-  THIS IS AN ADVERSARIAL RELATIONSHIP, AND THE HOSTILITY BETWEEN THOSE INVOLVED IN NEGOTIATIONS IS GOING TO SHAPE THE MANNER IN WHICH THEY ARE CONDUCTED.

Each Side can CREATE AN IMMEDIATE TONE FOR THE NEGOTIATIONS, BY SIMPLY TREATING 

THE OPPOSING SIDE AS:

-  A PERENNIAL ENEMY WHO CAN NEVER BE TRUSTED.

                                            OR

-  AN OPPONENT ON THE WORLD STAGE, WHO MUST 

EARN TRUST BY SHOWING GOOD FAITH AND FLEXIBILITY.  ALSO,

ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THEIR MOTIVATIONS MAY BE DIFFERENT,  

BUT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED VALID ENOUGH TO HAVE AN OPEN

DIALOGUE.

                                             OR 

-   A POSSIBLE FUTURE ALLY OR FRIEND, GIVEN A CHANGE IN

CIRCUMSTANCES.  ALSO, UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PERSON OR 

PERSONS YOU ARE NEGOTIATING WITH NOW, MAY BE THOSE WHO

HOLD THE REIGNS OF POWER IN THE FUTURE.

WHILE MANY WILL NAIVELY CLAIM THAT COUNTRIES LIKE IRAN 

WILL NEVER BE A FRIEND OR ALLY FORGET THAT THE ART 

OF DIPLOMACY IS TO DO WHAT IS IN YOUR COUNTRIES BEST 

INTEREST, NOW AND IN THE FUTURE.  THIS DOESN'T MEAN 

GIVING UP YOUR IDEALS, AND BECOMING WHAT YOU FEAR AND 

HATE.  IT'S ADAPTING TODAYS SITUATION, TO LESSONS FROM THE 

PAST, BOTH GOOD AND BAD.  

Just in the 20th Century, think of the COUNTRIES WHO WERE AT ONE TIME 

ALLIES OF THE U.S. WHO BECAME FOES, OR VICE- VERSA, FOES WHO LATER BECAME ALLIES.

BLAST FROM THE PAST: THE IRAN NUCLEAR TREATY- AVOIDING REALITY. PT 1.

(*IN THIS ARTICLE I USE THE WORD "TREATY" TO DESCRIBE

THE RESULTS OF THE NEGOTIATIONS.  HOWEVER, TERMS SUCH

AS "DEAL" OR "AGREEMENT" COULD REPLACE "TREATY" WITH

NO LOSS IN MEANING OR UNDERSTANDING.

As the Debate over the Nuclear Treaty with Iran is still being Discussed in Congress, and the Media, we find that one thing Remains True:

SOME POLITICIANS STILL AVOID ANY REAL DEBATE THAT MIGHT RESOLVE THE CONTROVERSY.

WHY?  IT WOULD INVOLVE INSIGHT AND THE ABILITY TO THINK BEYOND SIMPLISTIC SOLUTIONS THAT WILL ADDRESS THE REALITY OF THE SITUATION, INSTEAD OF REPEATING MEANINGLESS RHETORIC THAT PLEASES YOUR SUPPORTERS.

So, let us Step Back, Ignore everything that has been said, and look Beyond Bombastic One Liners to see where the TRUTH MAY LIE.

First Question- WHAT IS A TREATY?

A TREATY IS BASICALLY A CONTRACT BETWEEN TWO OR MORE PARTIES;

THAT ARE USUALLY DIFFERENT GOVERNMENTS OR NATIONS, WHO ARE RECOGNIZED AS THE LEGITIMATE SOURCES OF AUTHORITY FOR A GIVEN GEOGRAPHICAL AREA OR POPULATION, THAT HAVE THE POWER TO CREATE AND ENFORCE ANY POLICIES, FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC.

A TREATY IS JUST LIKE A SIGNED BUSINESS DEAL. THE GOALS AND PARTIES TO IT MAY BE DIFFERENT, BUT THE PRINCIPLES ARE THE SAME.

What can we Safely Infer if Two or More Parties are Entering into Diplomatic Talks,

with the Outcome Eventually being a SIGNED TREATY FOR ALL PARTIES?

#1-  EACH PARTICIPANT IN THE NEGOTIATIONS HAS SOMETHING THE OTHER WANTS.-  No One Enters into These Negotiations Insisting that the Opposing Side Give Up Something, but will get nothing in return. Turning it around, No Side enters such Talks with the Idea of Giving Into Certain Demands, and Anticipating No Concessions From the Opposition. 

That would be Unrealistic and Foolish.

#2-  WHILE THERE MAY BE MANY POINTS OF CONFLICT OR DISAGREEMENT, ALL PARTICIPANTS HAVE ONE OR TWO MAIN GOALS THEY WANT THE TREATY TO ACHIEVE.-  These are Usually So Prominent that They are Generally Apparent at the Outset of the Talks, and are in some cases THE ONLY REASON(S) THAT BROUGHT THE OPPOSING SIDES TO THE NEGOTIATION TABLE.

LOOK FOR PART 2.

THE SOCIOPATH- HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT.

Now you may be asking yourself,  "How can I know if I am dealing with a Sociopath, what are the signs?" First of all, one important fact must be placed on the table when we try to answer this question;  Sociopaths come from all walks of life.  There are no economic, racial, social or intellectual traits that have been identified as exclusively Sociopathic.  A Sociopath could be your parent or sibling, Aunt or Uncle, Close family friend, Business acquaintance, Teacher...etc.  Sometimes the hardest part of identifying a Sociopath is facing the fact that it might be someone close to you.

You have to realize, the Sociopath is playing a part.  They create a facade that best suits their needs and desires, projecting an image to others that makes them seem to be something their not.  They are very adroit in adapting their behavior to given situations and use this ability to manipulate others.  Once a perceived weakness is spotted in another, the Sociopath decides how to exploit this characteristic and acts accordingly.

However, there are certain things you can look for, if you think that you are dealing with a Sociopath.  Keep in mind, these examples are not universal in nature.  Not every Sociopath will exhibit all of these behaviors.  In turn, many of the following examples may be found in people who are not Sociopaths.  Yet, if you find an individual who fits multiple examples, you may have reason to be cautious.

I would like, before I begin the list, to point out that Sociopathy is not a mental illness that is the result of a physical defect of the brain.  Unfortunately, one is not born a Sociopath, where early diagnosis could lead to proper treatment.  However, before I get into what circumstances may create a Sociopath, let us go through the list.