WHY THE OBAMA/KERRY TEAM GOT TAKEN IN GENEVA

Negotiation, some say, is an art. It may be, but there are a few basics.

First, and probably foremost, your opposition must know that you will, you really will, walk away if you can't get what you want. One of the most effective means of demonstrating this willingness is to, well--walk away. If the screws are tight enough on your opponent, he or she or they will come back.

If the screws are not tight enough, then, you should not be negotiating. You should be tightening the screws.

Yes, it's about what you want when you sit down to negotiate. Of course, if the other side has the upper hand, the negotiating process may be the art of the possible. That was not the case at Geneva.We've got the upper hand if we choose to use it, both economically, and with force.

Sure, negotiation is a two-way process, but if one doesn't decide at the outset what one wants--exactly, then, a negotiation becomes simply a process of determining how much each side is willing to give up to get something each can live with. That is not a good plan when dealing with people who have zero credibility.

It is never a good idea to let your opponent know, or ever guess, how far you're willing to go. Extreme care must be taken to avoid giving the other side the impression you're bluffing.

After deciding what it is you want, exactly, the next decision to be made before negotiations begin is exactly what you're willing to give up or concede in order to get what you want.

On the other hand, it's best to recognize all the reasonable points the other side urges, e.g., the Iranian people and nation are as entitled to the peaceful use of nuclear power as anyone else. These negotiations are about, among other matters, how that can be accomplished.

Time can be the friend of either party. Time gives the Iranians time to continue to build a nuclear device; time allows the sanctions, if effective, to turn the screws.

Having those thoughts in mind, we should have gone into the negotiations with several objectives, none of which Obama/Kerry obtained, e.g.,
a) Iran does not get a nuclear weapon, ever,
b) Iran does not get the equipment and hardware necessary to make a nuclear weapon. (If that means a monitored check on stockpiles of uranium, centrifuges, and heavy water assets, so be it.)
c) all American hostages released, immediately.
d) the Iranians cease funding terrorists.

When dealing with an opposition that cannot be trusted, there is only one approach that works: "We don't care what you say or what you promise or what you sign. We are only impressed by what you do." The question really is: "What are you willing to do to resolve the problems that exist between us? What are you willing to do, initially (you first), as a demonstration of good faith?"

You may very well get the response: "What are we willing to do?  and why must we go first?"

The answer at Geneva should have been: "If you don't like the sanctions (and you will like them less when we tighten the screws), presumably, you're here because you'd like them lifted or eased. We're quite willing to continue them as they are for the time being--until we run out of patience. So if you'd like to talk about your problem with our sanctions, then show us your good faith by allowing the international inspection team to assess your present capability and your capacity for the future to build a nuclear weapon.That's where we start, and we go no further until that happens."

In cases like these, there will be no basis for ever believing what a calculating, cynical negotiator says or promises. The only way to proceed is to insist that his principals take some first step. A few ideas come to mind:
a) Have the Supreme Leader stop leading chants of "Death to America,"
b) Stop arming terrorists in other countries,
and, of course,
c) (A no-brainer) Release the American citizens being held as hostages--forthwith.

The Obama/Kerry team went to Geneva to get a deal. It was obvious to everyone, including the Iranians, that Obama/Kerry would not walk away without a deal of some kind. The Obama/Kerry team never entertained the idea that military action was on the table or even could be on the table. The Iranians knew that and that, in and of itself, removed most of the pressure.

The only question in the Iranians mind was just how much they could get. They got a lot. The only reason they agreed to sign the agreement at all (apparently, immediately disavowed by Khamenei) was when the resistance in the Congress and in the general public made it appear that Obama would not be allowed to cave in.

When people swear to kill you and, actually, kill hundreds of your people, and when they arm your enemies, it is well to wonder whether one should sit down with such people at all. We did, and we may have laid the foundation for World War III.