Iran wants sanctions relief; Israel ain't gettin' no total enrichment ban

On Friday I noted the symmetric spin on the part of Iran and the major powers negotiating over Iran's nuclear program. While Dennis Ross claims that Iran's  "leaders are preparing their domestic audience for concessions," the careful language in which the Times' Mark Landler described U.S. goals suggested that the U.S. and allies had moved off the maximalist "no enrichment" position loudly and repeatedly demanded by the Israelis.

Today, as the head of the IAEA, Yukiya Amano, announces an imminent deal with Iran on an inspection regime, the terms in which Times reporters describe a prospective general agreement on the how Iran's nuclear program may proceed suggests more firmly that a total ban on enrichment is off the table:

Spinning in the mirror with Iran

There's a fearful symmetry to the diplomatic posturing on display in this Mark Landler article about the pending talks with Iran:

...Mr. Ross said, Iran’s recent statements signal that its leaders are preparing their domestic audience for concessions. Iranian officials have declared that the West has effectively endorsed Iran’s right to enrich uranium, a step they portrayed as a major strategic coup. American officials insist the United States has not done that and has been deliberately ambiguous about whether it would ever grant Iran the right to enrichment.

New York Times warns Obama of phantom political risk

I'm sure I'm not the only reader who noticed that this article by the Times' Mark Landler about the alleged risks inherent in Obama's post-Labor Day political strategy failed to cite any evidence in support of this thesis:

While Mr. Obama’s partisan jabs appeal to his Democratic base, they may turn off independent voters, who flocked to him in 2008 in part because of his carefully cultivated image as a leader who rises above the partisan fray. With the jobless rate closer to 10 percent than 4 percent, they may start to tune out the president.