Another step in the Iranian nuclear enrichment reduction agreement takes effect Jan. 20

There are reports from many quarters that a "pause button" (Kerry's words) has been agreed upon between the Group of 5+1 and Iran to start the process of reducing Iran's nuclear fission capacity and reducing some of the sanctions on Iran. The agreement requires the IAEA to monitor Iran's progress toward their public commitments, and some 59 U.S. Senators have signed a petition calling for increased sanctions, which if it were to be passed as a bill, the president has indicated he would veto.
In the more fine print, of the deal the New York Times reports the following yesterday:

Under the interim deal, Iran agreed to stop enriching uranium beyond 5 percent, a level that is sufficient for energy production but not for a bomb. The country’s stockpile of uranium enriched to 20 percent, a step toward weapons-grade fuel, will be diluted or converted to oxide so that it cannot be readily prepared for military purposes.

Iran also agreed not to install any new centrifuges, start up any that were not already operating, or build new enrichment facilities. The agreement does not, however, require Iran to stop enriching uranium to a low level of 3.5 percent, or to dismantle any existing centrifuges.

American officials said they would stop the promised sanctions relief — worth between $6 billion and $7 billion, according to the White House — if Iran did not fulfill the terms of the interim accord. (Negotiators Put Final Touches on Iran Accord, By Michael  R. Gordon and Eric Schmitt, New York Times, January 12, 2014)

Canada has remained "sceptical" of any commitments made by the Iranian regime, and several months ago emptied our embassy in Tehran, removing all options of playing any role in the process of information gathering on the process of these enrichment reductions.

The world also has considerable anxiety as to whether or not Iran, a Shia-dominated country openly moving to establish greater influence in the Middle East, currently backing along with Hezbollah the Syrian dictator, Assad, as well as fomenting violence in Iraq, will have much interest in keeping its commitments. One of its prime motivations is to poke its finger in the eye of the  "evil" United States.

Some writers in the west also urge the United States negotiators to refrain from attempting to expand the nuclear deal, if a final agreement is ever reached, into a process of "normalizing" relations with Iran, as the U.S. attempted to do with the former Soviet Union following arms reduction treaties.

One obvious concern about the current interim agreement is the question of whether or not the IAEA will be able to establish adequate monitoring resources inside Iran, including the establishment of a second office, with a second team of inspectors, and whether or not Iran will "come clean" on the fine print of its full capacity to enrich uranium.

If this conflict were a sports competition, one can rest assured that  those operating the betting games in Las Vegas would not give many odds to those betting on Iran's full compliance with any treaty, even one that begins to restore some of her capacity to export oil and to recoup some of her frozen assets.

Although once an ally of the United States, in a former life, Iran remains a dangerous and wily and cunning negotiating partner for the west, especially given her current multiple and conflicted engagements in the region.

The United States is actively pursuing the elimination of chemical weapons from Syria, with some hiccupped success, without playing a significant role in bringing the conflict to a negotiated settlement, and in Iran, attempting to cap nuclear enrichment, without restraining Iranian efforts to destabilize the Middle East. Clearly, U.S. influence in the region is waning and there is little evidence that other western countries are stepping into the void that results.