While in government, Hillary Mann Leverett participated in nearly two years of talks with Khatami government officials, from 2001-2003, over Afghanistan and al Qaida. Both Hillary and Flynt argued for engagement with Khatami's government while they worked in the U.S. government and after they resigned. You should be ashamed to cast aspersions on their motives without any evidence to support your lies.

actually the record is out there, when hillary mann worked for AIPAC's think tank, the washington institute for near east policy, she advocated sanctioning the "terrorist" government of mohammed khatami! what changed?? the fact that the leveretts found a higher bidder--oil companies and the iranian regime. they are a pathetic duo who have never met a dictator they didn't love! here is an in depth account of hillary mann's famous flip-flop:

Hilary Mann Leverett, and her husband Flynt Leverett, both former American national security officials of some repute, have recently turned themselves into the Salahis of foreign policy punditry. (Not my joke, alas, I heard it from a friend). In their recent op-ed in the Times, they argue that Iran is not about to implode, that the recent anti-government demonstrations amounted to very little, if anything, and that the best policy for the Obama Administration to pursue would be one of full-on engagement with the current regime:

The Obama administration's half-hearted efforts at diplomacy with Tehran have given engagement a bad name. As a result, support for more coercive options is building across the American political spectrum. The president will do a real disservice to American interests if he waits in vain for Iranian political dynamics to "solve" the problems with his Iran policy.

As a model, the president would do well to look to China. Since President Richard Nixon's opening there (which took place amid the Cultural Revolution), successive American administrations have been wise enough not to let political conflict -- whether among the ruling elite or between the state and the public, as in the Tiananmen Square protests and ethnic separatism in Xinjiang -- divert Washington from sustained, strategic engagement with Beijing. President Obama needs to begin displaying similar statesmanship in his approach to Iran.

This was not always Hillary Mann Leverett's worldview.

Before she married Flynt Leverett, there was Hillary Mann, hardcore anti-Iran agitator. As an Iran expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy in the late 1990s, she argued that Iran was a primary exporter of terrorism, and that the then-president of Iran, Ayatollah Khatami, was not a reformer and moderate, as he had been widely billed, but a radical in sheep's clothing. In other words, in the late 1990s, before the rise of Ahmadinejad; before the acceleration of Iran's nuclear program; before genocidal anti-Israel rhetoric emanating from Iran had become commonplace; before Iran sponsored the killing of American soldiers; and before the regime slaughtered its own people when they demanded freedom, Hillary Mann believed that Iran was a terror state worthy only of rigorous sanctions:

The April 10 German court finding that Iran's top leaders ordered the assassination of several dissidents in Berlin underscores the hollowness of Europe's policy of engagement with Iran, and presents the U.S. with a unique opportunity to make Iran's leaders pay a real economic price for their brazen disregard of international norms. Unfortunately, recent steps by Washington risk frittering this opportunity away. Most disconcerting was the announcement on April 11-barely 24 hours after the German court ruling-that the U.S. and the European Union (EU) had agreed to pursue avenues for sheltering European companies from the effects of last year's Iran sanctions legislation, the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA). Belatedly realizing the agreement's corrosive message, the State Department insisted that the agreement contained "no commitment, legal or political, to grant waivers" from ILSA. But the damage was done. The agreement, coming so close on the heels of the German court ruling, served to fuel growing doubts about America's will to vigorously enforce sanctions.

She goes on to write:

The U.S. needs to seize the opportunity created by Germany's indictment of Iran's leaders to reenergize its own policy. Pressing Europe diplomatically is important but not enough, as shown by the EU's weak response to the German court verdict-basically, withdrawing its ambassadors for a few weeks and suspending ministerial meetings. It reflects a lowest common denominator style designed precisely to deflect demands for more serious steps. With American credibility on the line, Washington should make it clear at the highest levels that the U.S. intends to enforce ILSA vigorously to deter further investment in Iran and to make Iran's leaders actually pay a real economic price for their sponsorship of international terrorism.

Her views at the time on Iran's sponsorship of terrorism were clear and uncompromising:
On January 7, 1998, Iran's President Khatemi told America-via CNN-that terrorism "should be condemned . . . and we condemn every form of it in the world." Khatemi also "denied categorically" reports that Iranian officials abroad regularly engage in acts of surveillance against Americans. These are encouraging words. However, a review of Iranian, Arab and American media reports shows that Iran's links to international terrorism appear to have continued unabated since he assumed office in August 1997. U.S. government officials from different agencies responsible for the fight against terror confirmed the thrust of these reports-that Iran remains active in support of international terrorism in each of the areas outlined below-though they did not comment on the veracity of the individual media citations.

So what happened? What changed? Two things: Iran fully embraced its rogue status, and Hillary Mann lost her bearings.

What do the Leveretts get besides insults for the reasonable statements that they make?

The Leveretts, AIPAC loyalists , are merely fudging the key factor, which is that their real country, Israel, controls the entire US agenda on the Muslim world. Most revealing is the current "bribe" the US will pay to Avigdor Lieberman, a former Moldavian night club bouncer, to "freeze" settlements for just 90 days, and then of course resume them.

So 1200 settlers waiting 90 days from more landgrabbing, gets the US to give Israel $3 billion worth of bombers. Do the math. Aren't we suppose to have the most severe financial problems in 60 years?
And what will the 20 bombers be used for? Bomb Iran!

So much about the US being a global super power. Sic transit gloria.
For the Israelis to bleed for all its worth. And why not? AIPAC is backed by 100 million white Christian fundamentalist who think their Jesus wants the Muslim world wiped out so good Christians can achieve salvation. Israelis have know for decades that they can milk these suckers ad infinitum. So there never will be any peace in the ME.

Iran’s Man in Washington

How Flynt Leverett and his wife, Hillary Mann Leverett, became leading advocates for doing business with Tehran

BY LEE SMITH | Feb 9, 2010 7:00 AM

Flynt Leverett is fielding questions from an audience at the New American Foundation for a panel titled “What the Iranian People Really Think,” and the crowd—at least the Iranian part of it—is starting to get hostile. When Leverett cites poll numbers suggesting that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad most likely won Iran’s heavily contested June presidential election, the Iranians sitting near me in the glass-box conference room direct a chorus of groans and sarcastic laughter toward the podium, where the 51-year-old think-tank celebrity sits with his hands folded in front of him.

During the question-and-answer portion of the evening, the voices of the Iranian questioners tremble with anger. What do you know, they ask, about Iran or its people and how the Islamic Republic treats them? Leverett handles the questions with a confidence born of being one of the most influential Iran experts in Washington—a position that he has earned despite having neither an academic background in the field nor the ability to speak Farsi.

Leverett’s wife and colleague, Hillary Mann Leverett, a neatly dressed, seven-months-pregnant brunette who sits in the front row and watches her husband, is a bona fide Iran expert who served on the Iran desk of George W. Bush’s National Security Council staff, where her husband worked on broader Middle East issues. But Flynt Leverett subscribes to the realist school of foreign policy, which holds that knowing the internal mechanisms of a regime and the particular characteristics of a language and culture are largely irrelevant to understanding its geopolitical actions. Despite their fondest hopes, the Iranian opposition members in the audience aren’t going to return to a newly democratic Iran any time soon because, as Leverett has explained in a string of recent articles including a New York Times op-ed, the current Iranian regime isn’t going anywhere—so we better deal with it.

In Leverett’s opinion, the White House has made a hash of engagement with Iran, and the mullahs appear to respond better to his overtures than they do to requests from the Obama administration: unlike the president, the Secretary of State, or any other American diplomats or officials, Leverett has actually scored a precious invitation to Tehran. “We do not have a visa,” Leverett explained to me in an email. “Which as I am sure you have heard is a cumbersome process.” Still, it’s quite a coup. Access equals influence in Washington, and the fact that Leverett gets to go to Tehran, an itinerary envied by policymakers and access-peddlers, underlines his status as one of the most important Iran experts in town.

The curious dance between Washington’s Iran experts and the foreign government whose actions they are supposedly analyzing has parallels in the ways that totalitarian governments like the Soviet Union and Mao’s China manipulated Western public opinion by only granting access to scholars and policy hands who would toe the party line. Similarly, the Iranian government today decides who in the West will be granted the kind of access that will allow them to speak with authority about the regime to Washington. Western scholars and policy wonks alike understand that access to the regime is a form of currency that can make you powerful, or rich, or both. Washington’s ambitious and talented, its romantic opportunists looking to attach themselves to a beautiful cause, and those eyeing fat commissions for opening Iran’s energy resources to U.S. companies, all see access to the Iranian regime as the biggest prize in the foreign policy game.

Yet unlike Maoist China or Soviet Russia, both closed societies, Iran is a divided country where crowds have protested in the streets for over half a year. The regime there is split into two dueling camps. In addition to representatives of the democratic opposition, Washington hosts a team of experts who advocate the party line of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani—let’s call them the “reformers”—who are critical of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, but, unlike the democratic opposition, have no wish to bring down the system. But a second team of experts supports Ahmadinejad and Khamenei, and no one makes their case better than Leverett. “Flynt has a good understanding of how that government works,” says his New America colleague Steven Clemons. “He sees Khamenei as the guy that matters. What he believes is that Khamenei is a shrewd calculating operator who moves Iran’s strategic interest.” Leverett’s colleagues were surprised by the invitation. “I was pleased as punch that New America has been designated twice by the regime as an institution off-limits,” Clemons told me, adding that he respects the Leveretts’ right to hold differing policy positions.

The opposition camp has been critical of Leverett for his collaborations with Mohamed Marandi, director of Tehran University’s Institute for North American Studies and the son of Khamenei’s personal physician, who appears to have facilitated Leverett’s upcoming visit. “The University of Tehran is the institution which has applied for our visas,” Leverett explained to me.

Leverett was offended when I asked if the Revolutionary Guard had played a role in his invitation, and yet there’s little doubt that his co-author is personally and professionally close to the regime—and publicly justifies some of its most brutal actions. Since the June elections, Marandi has been the Ahmadinejad government’s key spokesperson in the English-language media, and he recently defended the regime’s sentencing opposition members to death. His true occupation may be even more unsavory. “He passes himself off as an academic, but he’s with the Ministry of Intelligence,” says Ramin Ahmadi, co-founder of the Iran Human Rights Documentary Center and a professor of medicine at Yale.

Of course, if you need to make the case that you have a genuine channel to the regime’s inner sanctum, it’s hard to do better than to partner with a hard-core regime man like Marandi. In the realist view, Leverett’s strong stomach and lack of sentimental attachments is proof that he is coming from the right place. “Flynt comes from a very strong national-interest point of view and emphasizes energy security,” says David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter and a frequent guest at dinner seminars at the Leveretts’ Northern Virginia home. “They’re background dinners, usually about eight to 10 people, weapons experts, energy experts, Iranian nationals, with varied points of view on the Middle East,” he says. While Frum explains that Leverett’s “domestic politics are on the conservative, not liberal, side,” it is also true that Leverett’s fame and acceptance in Washington policymaking circles rests on the fact that he was lionized by liberals for his opposition to the Bush administration’s Iran policy.

The story of Leverett’s rise and fall and rise embodies the upside-down weirdness of the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, when obscure Middle East experts and Washington bureaucrats occupied center stage of the national debate. It’s safe to say that in less turbulent times, and under a less controversial president, no one would have ever heard of Flynt Leverett. Born in Memphis, Tennessee, Leverett earned a bachelor’s degree from Texas Christian University, earned a doctorate in politics from Princeton, honed his Arabic-language skills in Damascus, and joined the CIA during a period when the agency was not especially known for running agents, or paying much attention to Iran.

In 2001, after a decade at the agency, Leverett landed a plum position on the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff, then headed by Richard Haass, and was subsequently named senior director for Middle East affairs on the National Security Council staff. In the interagency process that coordinates policymakers in the bureaucracies across Washington—defense, state, White House, CIA—Leverett earned a reputation for committing what are known as “process fouls.” “That’s when you intentionally exclude other policymakers,” says a former senior-level Defense Department official. “Leverett did that to us all the time, withholding a paper and cutting us out of the debate because he feared, rightly, we were going to disagree with him.”

But it was Leverett’s disagreements with the president that, in his account, compelled him, as he wrote in 2005, “to leave the administration.” However, as another former member of the Bush NSC staff explained, Leverett did not leave his post by choice. “The job of a director on the NSC staff is bureaucratic,” says the former Bush official. “If there’s a deputies’ meeting, you take notes. When you get a letter from a foreign government, you log it in and draft a response.” Leverett continually missed deadlines and misplaced documents, and the NSC Records office had a long list of his delinquencies. His office was notoriously messy—documents were strewn over chairs, windowsills, the floor, and piled high on his desk. For Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser and a famously well-organized “clean desk” type, repeatedly missing deadlines and losing important letters was simply not tolerable behavior for an NSC officer, and Leverett was told to leave.

Returning to the CIA briefly before retiring from government service in the spring of 2003, Leverett moved on to the Brookings Institution, and then the New America Foundation, as he began to reinvent himself as an Iran expert with the help of his wife. Hillary Mann Leverett claimed that after rotating back to the State Department from the White House in April 2003 she had received a fax from a Swiss diplomat acting as an intermediary on behalf of the Iranians, offering what the Leveretts would come to call the Grand Bargain. According to the Swiss fax, she said, the Islamic Republic would cease support for terrorist organizations, terminate its nuclear weapons program, and recognize Israel if the United States would in turn guarantee that it had no designs to topple the regime.

So why didn’t the Americans bite? As the Leveretts explained in a series of interviews and their own articles, including, most famously, a 2006 op-ed in the New York Times published with redactions ordered by the Bush White House, it was because of Bush and the neoconservatives, who intended to lead the United States to war again.

As the missed Grand Bargain became another proof of Bush’s incompetence, Leverett and his wife found themselves the center of a great deal of positive attention among reporters, talk-show hosts, and Democratic politicos. The couple was profiled in Esquire, and Flynt enjoyed a guest spot with Jon Stewart. The problem is that it wasn’t the neocons who dismissed the plausibility of the offer; rather it was Flynt Leverett’s putative allies, including then-Secretary of State Colin Powell and his deputy, Richard Armitage. Other staffers don’t remember it at all. As a former colleague on the NSC staff recalls, “this historical document arrives and Condi Rice and Stephen Hadley don’t remember it, and only Flynt does. It was either a concoction of the Swiss ambassador, or of the Swiss ambassador and the Leveretts together.”

Even as the legend of the Grand Bargain has been discredited, the tale—a narrative describing a sensible, realistic Iran eagerly courting a stubborn Washington, with the Leveretts in the middle of things—served its purpose. It not only identified the couple as critics of the Bush administration, it also certified them as experts about the Iranian regime—and as instruments through which the regime might influence Washington.

Those who constantly attack the Leveretts have no reason or logic.

This very good piece makes one realize that in this time of crisis - and things in the US will get worse as China and India rise and our money is spent on perpetual wars - there is another way.

Good for them both. We will one day have to choose the path proposed by the Leveretts, but we will probably have to offer the Iranians better terms in the future. Time is on their side and they know it.

Why did these two people leave the White House? We all know they are spot on and we all know America is heading for the rocks, so why not change course?

As I wrote, "Silly Reply to a Good Article". Probably written by one of our paid greens who has a vested interest in promoting confrontation.

What a sham. The U.S./Israel are not interested in human rights in Iran. Total baloney

Political prisoners are dying in Chinese prisons as well. Should the US cut diplomatic ties and pursue a confrontation policy with China? Not to mention Saudi Arabia, the greatest sponsor of Islamic fundamentalism. How about Pakistan´s ISI? Or Morocco´s repression of Western Sahara?

Get real, US foreign policy is not dictated by human rights considerations.

Mr. Evans-

I tend to agree that it is almost impossible for America's political body to objectively consider its relationship with Israel. I also agree that as long as Israel is given a preeminent role in US Mid-East policy making, US-Iran relations are not likely to improve. I think one of the underlying arguments being presented by the author of the article is a reevaluation of long-term US strategic goals in the region.

Additionally, Israel and Iran have worked together in the past, for example during the Hussein years in Iraq. It is not inconceivable the two states could work together in the future in the role of dual-hegemony supported by the U.S. This scenario seems much more likely if American engages Iran rather than resorting bellicose language and hoping a demagogue does not rise to a position of leadership on a platform of increasing escalations either here or abroad.

Clinton also recently said that if the Israeli Palestinian conflict were resolved that 50% of terrorism directed towards the U.S. would stop. Former head of the CIA Bin Laden unit Micheal Scheuer, Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, Queen Noor, Former President Jimmy Carter and many more think that far more than 50% of the reasons announced for terrorism towards the U.S. and elsewhere would be eliminated

Bill Clinton
"”It will take about half the impetus in the whole world — not just the region, the whole world — for terror away,” he told an audience of Egyptian businessmen from the American Chamber of Commerce in Egypt. “It would have more impact by far than anything else that could be done.”

How did Israel's lawyer Dennis Ross get that position?

"tend to agree that it is almost impossible for America's political body to objectively consider its relationship with Israel."

Especially when the rug would be pulled out from underneath you.

If Iran changed its policies/strategy in the Middle East, 90% of terrorism would be eliminated. It's laughable that these sly jokers excuse Iran's development and support of proxies + asymmetric warfare as defensive in nature. Actually, it's disgusting that they would put forth such a lie, especially in the context of the israeli/palestinian conflict. Iran is the impediment! Iran is the reason that, even if the US was able to broker a peace deal or if Palestinians were able to declare statehood (both of which I doubt), it would mean nothing! Iran may be rational, but the Iranian regime is more cynical and malicious than any government in the region.

I'd be curious as to why you believe an Arab country with a democratic government or one 'otherwise accountable to its people' would make a better ally than Israel.

Also, the difference between the China/Taiwan situation and the Israel/Arab situation is that with the first it's a question of which Chinese government is the legitimate one. Both China and Taiwan represent an exercise by the Chinese people of their right to self determination. On the other hand, the conflict between Israel and the Arabs is based on the denial by the Arabs of the Jewish right to self determintation. Mprepver, both China/PRC and China /ROC (aka Taiwan) have established a modus vivendi - there is a great deal of trade between the two (they recently signed a $100 billion trade pact) and Taiewanese investment in the PRC is well over $100 billion. Contrast this with total direct trade between Israel and the combined Arab world (including the WB/Gaza) of around $350 million as of 2008. Also note that there is no boycott of companies doing business with Taiwan as there is by the Arab countries of companies doing business with Israel.

In other words, you're comparing apples and oranges.

The bulk of the US and Israeli population have been brainwashed into believing Iran is a threat just like they were brainwashed – and still believe according to most polls – that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and was connected to Al Qaeda and 9/11.

Regardless of what the civilian population of the US believes, it has absolutely no control over what its government actually does. An election every couple of years which removes a handful of Congressional members and replaces them with new ones totally subservient to the same campaign contributors and Israel provides no means to actually enforce “democratic control” of the state.

Even if it did have such control, the US electorate is so unconcerned about the continued wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, due to the current economic conditions, that US threats to start another war in Iran seem to be completely off their radar. I can assure you that the average American really has NO accurate idea what is going on in terms of Iran. Given the total control of the mainstream media by the Israel Lobby and the military-industrial complex, there is absolutely no way the US electorate is going to be persuaded to take the kind of massive action it would require to force the US government to not pursue the course it is pursuing.

In other words, stay tuned for another disastrous war for the benefit of the American Corporatocracy.

Dn't be a fool. A war with Iran would be the end of the US as a superpower. We are already in deep trouble because of the two wars that we have lost or are losing.

The Leveretts are absolutely correct.

I would not put it better

Iran has tried to speak reasonably many times. It's our government that has behaved foolishly after every opening and now that we are bleeding like hell in Afghanistan, we still act as if we can continue like this for a few more years.

What is really sad is that Obama never had the courage to bring about meaningful change. Folks in DC don't realize how difficult things are becoming throughout America and this policy of confrontation will lead us nowhere.

I've spent a significant amount of time in Iran and it's clear that the Iranians are willing to improve relations. However, they feel that they don't have a reliable partner in the US.

First question: What does that have to do with anything I just said?
Second question: Which Iranians? The ones currently in power? The ones who would probably be ripped apart in the current power struggle if it was thought they were too conciliatory to the West?

That's not a problem. The Iranians have said repeatedly they are prepared to change their policies towards the US, if the US is willing to change. As you make clear, Obama, for whatever reason, has so far been a weak president. Therefore, either he must gain the courage to really engage Iran or the US must continue to bleed in the ME.

No, I said nothing of the sort concerning Obama. To quote myself "...the recent American elections...make it far more practical to think of such things in ten years time" which has nothing to do with the strengths or weaknesses of a president. If I really have to be more clear then how about this:

1. Nixon was a Republican who had already proven his dislike of Communism which made it difficult for opponents of warmer ties to China to attack Nixon. Obama in contrast is a Democrat whose brief foreign policy work focuses on multilateral action which Republicans have a tendency to attack.

2. China and the U.S both had a great dislike for the Soviet Union and a sense that the Soviet Union was more of a pressing threat than each other. In contrast Iran's greatest threats are probably Israel (which is backed by the U.S), Saudi Arabia (which is also backed by the U.S) and the U.S itself. Its other enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan were defeated, ironically enough, by the U.S which means that we don't have that much to get their help on.

3. Very secretive talks between the Chinese and Americans took place for years during the 60s and early 70s before Nixon went anywhere near China. In contrast Obama, if he were to do such a thing, would only have a matter of months.

4. The greater power of Republicans in the House and the Senate (especially far right Republicans who aren't willing to compromise) means that they would probably do their best to skewer any effort by Obama to be more friendly to Iran. On the Iranian side of things they appear to be going through a low level power struggle and the government seems to be increasingly dominated by hard liners.

The bottom line is A. I made no mention of Obama being weak B. now is not the best time for rapprochement and C. that it is a bad idea to compare events in the present to events in the past that had very different circumstances.

My understanding is that you are indeed saying Obama is no Nixon (which is probably true). Maybe a Republican like Nixon (without Watergate!) can move towards normalizing ties after 2012.

While I'm not crazy enough to predict elections I doubt it'll be a Republican in office in 2012 simply because most presidents have gotten two terms in office. Even if we did buck the trend and have a Republican in office they probably would be pushed by the strength of far-right elements to continue the relatively hard line that Bush and Obama have followed. That's why I'm thinking in terms of ten years or longer, we can't be optimistic about U.S-Iranian relations in the short term. Personally I would be delighted if the two states were less antagonistic but foreign policy shifts are notoriously hard to make.

Iran is a bully? That's truly laughable.

If Syria (or Iraq, or Iran, or Somalia, or Panama, or Grenada, or Cuba....etc etc..) actually had the ability to retaliate we never would have attacked them - we are cowards, bullies that pick on the weak and terrorize anybody who refuses to follow our orders.

If Syria were to exterminate a US base in Iraq they would certainly be within their rights, but they know that the ignorant American electorate could be provoked into believing that the US had been 'attacked' and must 'defend' itself by nuking Damascus.

After all, the American electorate has already proved itself stupid enough to buy the line about Saddam being in cahoots with AlQaeda, they will believe anything their Nobel Peace fraud President tells them.

Its not hard to see why most people in the World see the US as the worst threat to World Peace, because it is.

A somewhat new lobby is the unofficial Green Lobby, which consists of Iranians (and non-Iranians) funded by the US government directly or indirectly to bring about "regime change". They lobby to prevent the two countries from improving relations, because they will lose their enormous funding if that actually happens. This loose network of people includes so called Iranian American think tanks as well as members of the MEK terrorist organization who work under different names in the US.

Meanwhile, ordinary Americans face perpetual economic hardship.

The fact that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons probably puts it at far greater risk of an attack by the US or Israel than if it had not. Should Iran eventually acquire these weapons I would think that the risk would be even greater still.

As far as the renewal of talks with the West. Ahmedinejad has already gone on record as stating that Iran's nuclear program is not on the agenda for discussion.

The regime in Iran will talk to the West until the cows come home, but as they have stated numerous times, they have no interest in suspending, much less discontinuing, their nuclear weapons program.

Iran needs to be sorted soon and if USA is too busy in Afghanistan it will probably be Russians that will do it.

In addition, the more we push and shove Iran, the closer it moves to China. The Chinese are already establishing very strong relations with the country, despite much wishful thinking in the US. We need to improve relations with Iran for a host of reasons including the fact that strong Iran/Chinese relations are not in our interests.

Iran might want to move closer with China, but I don't know that the Chinese feel the same. their oil imports from Iran have decreased by half over the last year.