Truth Out has the interesting article Understanding Iran’s Diplomatic Strategy. The link takes you to a written part by Gareth Porter, whose position is summed up by the following quote:
For Obama’s advisers, assuming Iran was simply “playing for time” justifies a heavy reliance on “coercive diplomacy”, which combines a boycott of the country’s crude oil exports and hints that an Iranian failure to come to agreement would open the way for an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear sites. But that conventional wisdom, which the Obama administration inherited from the Bush administration, ignores the accumulated evidence that Iran’s diplomacy strategy is to accumulate centrifuges, not in order to support a weapons programme, but rather to negotiate a larger bargain with the United States.
There is also a 25 minute video program with a Russian, an Iranian, and an American. I suppose you might say that each expert is of “undetermined expertise and objectivity”. However, some of them do present what are logically possible explanations.
To figure out among the four opinions which one to believe is beyond the scope of this blog. Maybe the best we can do is to keep an open mind. I suppose it is possible to stand back and see why some of the actors believe the way they do whether or not it turns out that their beliefs match reality. The American’s argument as to what the North Korean example ought to mean to Iran amounts only to wishful thinking that Iran could accept his point of view. I can see lots of reasons why his argument would carry little weight with Iranian leaders.
Being such a success at bringing peace to Sturbridge :-(, I am not sure anyone should trust my view at all.