1551 GMT: Nuclear Watch. The latest ponderings of David Ignatius of The Washington Post on the nuclear discussions have little to do with an objective assessment of the situation (see 1505 GMT). Instead, the one paragraph of value is the spin from Western officials:
U.S. analysts believe that the past three months of talks should at least have convinced the Iranians that their bargaining position is weak. Tehran’s hard line hasn’t prevented the imposition of new sanctions, it hasn’t amplified Europe’s economic jitters and it hasn’t fractured the P5+1 coalition. Now the real bargaining begins, in the view of some U.S. and European officials, with economic sanctions adding more pressure on Tehran every day.
Then there is this curious conclusion:
The Obama administration has opted to work with international coalitions to confront Syria and Iran. This still seems like the most sensible policy. But if these multilateral efforts are failing, it will fall to the United States to devise an alternative strategy. If the United States wants to get to “yes” in these negotiations, it will have to bargain more independently and aggressively.
Is Ignatius suggesting --- either on his own behalf or that of officials feeding him the lines --- that Washington should break away from European partners and deal one-on-one with Tehran? And what does "aggressively" mean?