Macron supports U.S.-Iran dialogue, floats himself as 'honest broker'

[webfact]

Macron supports U.S.-Iran dialogue, floats himself as 'honest broker'

 

French President Emmanuel Macron puts on his protective face mask as he delivers a statement with his Moldovan counterpart Maia Sandu (not seen) at the Elysee Palace in Paris, France, February 4, 2021. REUTERS/Benoit Tessier

 

WASHINGTON/PARIS (Reuters) - French President Emmanuel Macron on Thursday welcomed the renewed U.S. willingness to engage with Iran, offered himself as an honest broker and said Saudi Arabia and Israel must ultimately be involved somehow.

 

"We do need to finalise, indeed, a new negotiation with Iran," Macron told the Washington-based Atlantic Council think tank in a video conference from Paris. "I will do whatever I can to support any initiative from the U.S. side to reengage a ... dialogue and I will be here ... I was here, and available two years ago and one and a half (years) ago, to try to be an honest broker and a committed broker in this dialogue."

 

In 2018, former U.S. President Donald Trump abandoned the Iran nuclear deal, which was designed to limit Iran's atomic program in return for the easing of U.S. and other sanctions. His successor, President Joe Biden, has said that if Iran returns to "strict" compliance with the accord, the United States will too.

 

Trump restored the U.S. sanctions that the deal removed and placed more on Iran.

 

Macron said it was time for a new negotiation because Iran was closer to a nuclear weapon, there was a need to deal with its ballistic missile program and to promote regional stability.

 

In 2019 he pushed to bring Washington and Tehran back to the negotiating table and to set parameters for wider future talks.

 

The broad idea then was to ensure Iran - which denies it seeks an atomic bomb - could never acquire one, to end Yemen's civil war, to develop a plan for regional security and to ease economic sanctions on Tehran.

 

European and Western diplomats have said Britain, France and Germany have proposed sequencing for Iran to return to compliance in return for economic benefits. It is unclear if Washington would lift sanctions without Iran first complying.

 

(Reporting By Arshad Mohammed in Washington and John Irish in Paris; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama and Alistair Bell)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2021-02-05

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[sammieuk1]

Many would like to see if he can float in the channel first ????

[2530Ubon]

4 hours ago, webfact said:

. dialogue and I will be here ... I was here, and available two years ago and one and a half (years) ago, to try to be an honest broker and a committed broker in this dialogue."

Sounds a bit desperate for attention. Who's going to let Macron be in charge? If we wanted to surrender, then sure, send the Frenchman. 

[dexterm]

Macron the honest broker...what a joke! This is the man who sells arms to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States used in Yemen to kill thousands and destabilize the region. Maybe he's worried about losing his weapons sales, if peace breaks out.

 

Looks like Macron is now reneging on the agreement too, just like Trump. He wants to rewrite the deal to include Saudi Arabia in negotiations. 

 

A deal that was ratified by UN Security Council Resolution 2231, that was working until Trump came along to break his government's word. Iran wasn't the untrustworthy partner; the US was! Is an agreement made by France and USA not worth the paper it was written on? I am sure Iran must have its doubts. 4 years down the track it could be altered again.

 

It's the usual stunt: Move the goalposts....throw in a few new conditions and now even demand new players too that you know will be unacceptable to Iran, so that the 2015 deal, that all the signatories plus the UNSC agreed to and was working, fails which is of course what Biden, Macron, Israel and Saudi Arabia really want to happen. They can then blame Iran. Malarkey!

 

What is so bad about a synchronized return to the original agreement? Iran has offered to get rid of its enriched uranium and reintroduce weapons inspection compliance. Get the nuclear weapons off the table....that's what we all want ..is it or isn't it? I have my doubts. A couple of years before the deal expires, renegotiate the terms to extend it.

 

Then separately negotiate the other issues: ballistic missiles, proxy wars, destabilizing influences of all the players in comprehensive Middle East Peace talks, involving Iran, Saudi Arabia, Gulf States, Israel, Yemen, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestinians.

Edited February 5, 2021 by dexterm

[bluedoc]

10 hours ago, sammieuk1 said:

Many would like to see if he can float in the channel first ????

He’s two faced, I would trust, firstly he’s out for himself, secondly he’s out for what in it for his country. Disingenuous pr*ck

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

If arms sales to regional players would bar parties from being mediator or brokers, than the whole lot of the countries represented in the JCOPA would be dismissed (including Iran). If parties had no vested interests in the region they might not have bothered with the agreement all that much.

 

It's fine rejecting Macron as a broker, just not along the lines suggested. It could be claimed, for example, that he does not represent major clout, doesn't have the trust or backing of parties involved and so on. Making the objection about arms sales is daft.

 

For most intents and purposes, the JCPOA is in tatters. The state of things regionally and internationally shifted as well. Sanctifying a return to the original agreement is alright, but ignores two considerations -

 

(1) Iran is in a weaker position and further concessions can be bargained. That would be 'unfair' inasmuch as international relations have a whole lot to do with 'fairness'. And whether some on here like it or not, it would contribute to a more stable Middle East.

 

(2) The signing or the original agreement was a rushed affair, mainly (IMO) due to Obama's term coming to an end. That meant that certain issues were left out, with Iran capitalizing on the USA political schedule and the concern among Western parties about Russia and China playing along if things were to drag out.

 

If I understand correctly, you do not object to terms being amended or renegotiated as such, just not at this time? If so, then what's the rationale of treating the agreement as hallowed?

 

As for statements such as "Iran wasn't the untrustworthy partner, the US was!"  - The USA, under Trump, did renege on the deal, sure. That doesn't make Iran into a 'trustworthy' partner. Nothing related to this agreement relies on trust, when it comes to Iran, hence the strict terms applied. And to remind, the JCPOA came about after Iran proved itself 'untrustworthy' through non-compliance with the NPT.

 

I doubt Biden wants the JCPOA to fail, especially given he appointed two architects of the agreement to key positions. Similarly, Macron got no real interest in seeing things fall apart, either. Israel's position, which you routinely paint as uniform is not quite that, and Saudi Arabia might wish many things, but it still doesn't make them a reality.

 

Would Iran be more open to renegotiate terms or amend the deal to include further issues if the agreement is restored? I kinda doubt it. Open an agreement to extension two years before it's end? What would be Iran's motivation to do that? By then, it would be in a much better place economy-wise, and a couple of years' worth of delays and 'negotiations', or even sanctions are something it could handle.

 

The bottom line is that the circumstances allow some parties to get an advantage. I think what's on the table now is just how much will be conceded.

[tonbridgebrit]

From the OP  "Trump restored the U.S. sanctions that the deal removed and placed more on Iran" .

So, Obama removed the sanctions and Trump restored the US sanctions, and placed more. Once Trump was in power, did Iran change whatever policy they had during Obama's time in charge ?  They didn't, Iran's policy during Obama's time was the same as what it was when Trump took over the presidency.

So, Macron wants to help broker a peace deal with Iran ?
Well, the first thing Macron can do is, is to encourage Joe Biden to immediately remove all sanctions that were placed onto Iran during Trump's time in charge. Once this has been done, once the sanctions have been removed, hopefully Iran will be happier. And then, then Macron can organize a big meeting, involving Iran and the other countries.

Can Macron do this ?  Can Macron go all out to encourage Joe Biden to immediately remove the sanctions ?

[JonnyF]

I can think of a more fitting name for him, also ending with the 3 letters KER.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, tonbridgebrit said:

From the OP  "Trump restored the U.S. sanctions that the deal removed and placed more on Iran" .

So, Obama removed the sanctions and Trump restored the US sanctions, and placed more. Once Trump was in power, did Iran change whatever policy they had during Obama's time in charge ?  They didn't, Iran's policy during Obama's time was the same as what it was when Trump took over the presidency.

So, Macron wants to help broker a peace deal with Iran ?
Well, the first thing Macron can do is, is to encourage Joe Biden to immediately remove all sanctions that were placed onto Iran during Trump's time in charge. Once this has been done, once the sanctions have been removed, hopefully Iran will be happier. And then, then Macron can organize a big meeting, involving Iran and the other countries.

Can Macron do this ?  Can Macron go all out to encourage Joe Biden to immediately remove the sanctions ?

 

As far as I recall, Obama did not remove all sanctions from Iran. Some sanctions left in place as they were addressing issues not covered in the agreement, and further, removal of some measures would have required a majority - which he did not have. For those with short memories, the USA president needs to reaffirm the agreement every six months, as a result of that.

 

Did Iran change its policies? Not much, no. Does Iran find it harder to carry on certain policies? Yes. Does the strain of the sanction effect Iran's readiness to negotiate? I think it does, if one compares earlier comments by Iranian leaders and officials.

 

There is no obligation to pacify Iran or to 'make it happy'.

[Chomper Higgot]

On the upside, the US has signaled a return to the table.

 

A broker to a negotiation is often a means to bring parties with opposing objectives into discussions, Macron is right to try and the timing might just be right.

 

Saudi Arabia needs to think carefully too, the world is moving away from reliance on the oil through which Saudi Arabia, and other ME States have wielded sway in Washington, the clock is ticking on the usefulness of ‘old alliances’.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 5, 2021 by Chomper Higgot

[tonbridgebrit]

6 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

As far as I recall, Obama did not remove all sanctions from Iran. Some sanctions left in place as they were addressing issues not covered in the agreement, and further, removal of some measures would have required a majority - which he did not have. For those with short memories, the USA president needs to reaffirm the agreement every six months, as a result of that.

 

Did Iran change its policies? Not much, no. Does Iran find it harder to carry on certain policies? Yes. Does the strain of the sanction effect Iran's readiness to negotiate? I think it does, if one compares earlier comments by Iranian leaders and officials.

 

There is no obligation to pacify Iran or to 'make it happy'.

So, you reckon that Iran during Obama's time, and Iran once Trump was in power, was the same Iran. From that, surely you accept that Trump restoring sanctions that Obama had removed, and adding new sanctions, Trump's actions were unjustified ?

It wouldn't be surprising if Iran's attitude is, they want to go back to the deal they had during Obama's time.  And telling Iran that they've got to carry out certain actions just to get back to the deal they had with Obama, well, this might encourage Iran to not bother talking about any deal. That's no good for everybody.

[Morch]

11 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

On the upside, the US has signaled a return to the table.

 

A broker to a negotiation is often a means to bring parties with opposing objectives into discussions, Macron is right to try and the timing might just be right.

 

Saudi Arabia needs to think carefully too, the world is moving away from reliance on the oil through which Saudi Arabia, and other ME States have wielded sway in Washington, the clock is ticking on the usefulness of ‘old alliances’.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With regards to oil and alternative energy sources, the same applies to Iran.

I think that it's a good opportunity to try and get opposing parties to negotiate, even if indirectly.

 

[Morch]

13 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

So, you reckon that Iran during Obama's time, and Iran once Trump was in power, was the same Iran. From that, surely you accept that Trump restoring sanctions that Obama had removed, and adding new sanctions, Trump's actions were unjustified ?

It wouldn't be surprising if Iran's attitude is, they want to go back to the deal they had during Obama's time.  And telling Iran that they've got to carry out certain actions just to get back to the deal they had with Obama, well, this might encourage Iran to not bother talking about any deal. That's no good for everybody.

 

You're welcome to check my posting history. No posts asserting Trump's move was justified, or even smart. This has nothing to do with your 'reckon' waffle.

 

Iran needs the agreement to go back to track because it's economy is in shambles. To a large extent, that's a result of the sanctions. If the agreement completely falls apart Iran's situation would be even worse.

 

It's not a negotiation between equals, and it's not about goodwill.

[dexterm]

5 hours ago, Morch said:

 

@dexterm

 

If arms sales to regional players would bar parties from being mediator or brokers, than the whole lot of the countries represented in the JCOPA would be dismissed (including Iran). If parties had no vested interests in the region they might not have bothered with the agreement all that much.

 

It's fine rejecting Macron as a broker, just not along the lines suggested. It could be claimed, for example, that he does not represent major clout, doesn't have the trust or backing of parties involved and so on. Making the objection about arms sales is daft.

 

For most intents and purposes, the JCPOA is in tatters. The state of things regionally and internationally shifted as well. Sanctifying a return to the original agreement is alright, but ignores two considerations -

 

(1) Iran is in a weaker position and further concessions can be bargained. That would be 'unfair' inasmuch as international relations have a whole lot to do with 'fairness'. And whether some on here like it or not, it would contribute to a more stable Middle East.

 

(2) The signing or the original agreement was a rushed affair, mainly (IMO) due to Obama's term coming to an end. That meant that certain issues were left out, with Iran capitalizing on the USA political schedule and the concern among Western parties about Russia and China playing along if things were to drag out.

 

If I understand correctly, you do not object to terms being amended or renegotiated as such, just not at this time? If so, then what's the rationale of treating the agreement as hallowed?

 

As for statements such as "Iran wasn't the untrustworthy partner, the US was!"  - The USA, under Trump, did renege on the deal, sure. That doesn't make Iran into a 'trustworthy' partner. Nothing related to this agreement relies on trust, when it comes to Iran, hence the strict terms applied. And to remind, the JCPOA came about after Iran proved itself 'untrustworthy' through non-compliance with the NPT.

 

I doubt Biden wants the JCPOA to fail, especially given he appointed two architects of the agreement to key positions. Similarly, Macron got no real interest in seeing things fall apart, either. Israel's position, which you routinely paint as uniform is not quite that, and Saudi Arabia might wish many things, but it still doesn't make them a reality.

 

Would Iran be more open to renegotiate terms or amend the deal to include further issues if the agreement is restored? I kinda doubt it. Open an agreement to extension two years before it's end? What would be Iran's motivation to do that? By then, it would be in a much better place economy-wise, and a couple of years' worth of delays and 'negotiations', or even sanctions are something it could handle.

 

The bottom line is that the circumstances allow some parties to get an advantage. I think what's on the table now is just how much will be conceded.

>>For most intents and purposes, the JCPOA is in tatters.
..Baloney! Biden seems to think Iran can restore compliance within weeks, and so does Iran. The US admin is the problem who wants to renegotiate a promise already agreed upon.

 

>> Iran is in a weaker position and further concessions can be bargained. 
So you're saying it's OK to continue reneging on a deal that was working and ratified in the UN Security Council, because Trump broke the word of the USA. Therefore it is now fine to take advantage of Trump's duplicity. It's OK to kick a man you just knocked to the ground...because you can. And that's what you call a diplomatic way to prevent nuclear proliferation? So much for diplomatic ethics.

 

How can Iran trust any US administration if you accept that it is normal to backtrack on anything already agreed. Who's to say, the goalposts won't be moved again in 4 years' time?

>>The signing or the original agreement was a rushed affair, mainly (IMO) due to Obama's term coming to an end. That meant that certain issues were left out, with Iran capitalizing on the USA political schedule and the concern among Western parties about Russia and China playing along if things were to drag out.
..nonsense. It involved over 2 years of negotiations, and was the best that could possibly be agreed to by all parties, and still is if you really want to halt Iran's nuclear program. You do want that...well don't you? Of course that was before the US and now apparently France changed its mind.

 

>> The USA, under Trump, did renege on the deal, sure. That doesn't make Iran into a 'trustworthy' partner.
..Thank you. Trump broke his word..sure! Iran kept theirs..as the weapons inspectors confirmed.

 

>>Would Iran be more open to renegotiate terms or amend the deal to include further issues if the agreement is restored? I kinda doubt it.
..yes and so do I, and so does Biden. And that is the name of France's, Israel's, Saudi Arabia's and Biden's game. They are trying to make Iran an offer that they know Iran will refuse. So that they can conveniently play the blame game.

 

>>The bottom line is that the circumstances allow some parties to get an advantage.
..that's a nice euphemism for saying: the USA and France can cheat and lie if they can get away with it.

 

The real bottom line is. Does France, USA want Iran to develop nuclear weapons or not? Iran will willingly return to an agreement that was working. They are willing to do so in a slowly slowly you show me yours, I'll show you mine approach...and I don't blame them! Biden is saying: go back to exactly what you Iran were doing before i.e full compliance ..err ...but maybe we won't quite be doing the same.

 

Does Biden actually want Iran to end its nuclear enrichment or not? Or would he prefer Iran to be the scapegoat allowing Israel or even US forces to attack Iran? 

 

if war breaks out or Iran gains a nuclear weapon, just remember it was the USA who continued reneging on a deal that was working.

[candide]

26 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

A broker to a negotiation is often a means to bring parties with opposing objectives into discussions, Macron is right to try and the timing might just be right.

Exactly. The tension has probably been too high to allow for immediate direct negotiations, so a broker would be useful in order to avoid loss of face issues. It could be Macron or someone else, but he may not be the worst option.

Having said that, there has been a growing rivalry between Turkey, S.A. and Iran in recent years in the ME. Iran is only one part of the problem.

Edited February 5, 2021 by candide

[tonbridgebrit]

21 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You're welcome to check my posting history. No posts asserting Trump's move was justified, or even smart. This has nothing to do with your 'reckon' waffle.

 

Iran needs the agreement to go back to track because it's economy is in shambles. To a large extent, that's a result of the sanctions. If the agreement completely falls apart Iran's situation would be even worse.

 

It's not a negotiation between equals, and it's not about goodwill.

"It's not a negotiation between equals, and it's not about goodwill."

Is this the attitude that Trump had ?  Is this the attitude that the US government has got ?  Oh, so we're not equals, this isn't about goodwill.
The US government.  [ On what grounds are we not equals. Is it because we've got more weaponry than you have ?  It's not about goodwill. Is it about attempting to extract a deal that maximises the benefits for us, and minimises benefits for you ? ]
[ I'm the biggest gorilla in this jungle, I get to choose what happens, I choose what the deal is ] .

What kind of attitude is this ?  I really do hope that the US government does not have this attitude.

Edited February 5, 2021 by tonbridgebrit

[dexterm]

18 minutes ago, candide said:

Exactly. The tension has probably been too high to allow for immediate direct negotiations, so a broker would be useful in order to avoid loss of face issues. It could be Macron or someone else, but he may not be the worst option.

Why the need for a broker as though there isn't already an agreement signed by Iran, France and 5 others? All Biden need do is send off an envoy to resign the deal that Trump reneged on.

 

If you have a contract or agreement...negotiated over more than two years, shaken hands on it, signed, officially stamped, you wait until the contract is close to renewal to renegotiate terms. Well, that's how honest people behave.

[Tug]

I personally don’t care who acts as a (broker) just get the ball rolling for nuclear nonproliferation and the relief of the average Iranian families it’s time for both countries to start working towards better relations diplomacy not blood!

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

The JCPOA can be restored. But at this point in time, one party is still out, and one party is moving further and further into non-compliance and breach of terms territory. So no, not baloney, just the usual matter of what is vs. what may be. I think the 'problem' is more about attitudes such as you represent, focusing on pointing fingers and vehemence.

 

Kindly don't put words in my mouth. I never said anything about it being 'ok' to pressure Iran. What I did say is that often how politics and diplomacy work. You want to pretend the world works otherwise or go on about 'diplomatic ethics' go right ahead. Guess no issues when Iran plays the same games, but eh.

 

As for trusting the USA (or for that matter, any other signatory) it's always a sort of a gamble. The expectation is that countries will exhibit some measure of continuity when it comes to such things, but that's not always  the case. When it comes to this specific agreement, the warning lights were flashing even when it was on the drawing board. Obama did not have enough political support to push it through, but went ahead anyway. It might have been a mistake. It's the same way for Iran - whatever they sign up for, their supreme leader can renege on later.

 

The negotiations were indeed lengthy - and that was implied with regard to China and Russia's stance. The final push to sign the agreement was rushed, and was accompanied by several 'deadlines' which were used to promote the sense of urgency. Please stop with the nonsense bits about my personal position - clarified on plenty of posts, including one above. The agreement was the best that could have been achieved under the prevailing circumstances, one of them being Obama's political situation. That goes back to the point about rushing to sign the agreement.

As for the 'untrustworthy', no. The USA, under Trump proving to be untrustworthy is one thing. Iran was not 'keeping it's word' so much as being under a strict regime not leaving them much room to do so. The reason for this inspection regime was precisely because Iran was deemed untrustworthy. Refer to the JCPOA's origins - namely, Iran's non-compliance issues with the NPT.
 

You can call leveraging an advantage cheating, but that's nothing more than schoolyard take on global politics and diplomacy. The same goes for the faux assumption that the playing field is level, or that parties are of equal standing and strength. Welcome to the real world.

 

Neither the USA nor France want Iran to develop nuclear weapons. If it was otherwise they wouldn't bother with the agreement to begin with. It's just that they seem to think they can that (Iran not developing nuclear weapons) and bit more. Two of the major issues raised are Iran's ballistic missile program and Iran's regional activities. Neither of these does much for promoting a more stable, or peaceful Middle East. Why would you be so upset about these being (potentially )curtailed some?

 

Your threats about wars and nuclear arms are dully noted.

 

[Morch]

13 minutes ago, tonbridgebrit said:

"It's not a negotiation between equals, and it's not about goodwill."

Is this the attitude that Trump had ?  Is this the attitude that the US government has got ?  Oh, so we're not equals, this isn't about goodwill.
The US government.  [ On what grounds are we not equals. Is it because we've got more weaponry than you have ?  It's not about goodwill. Is it about attempting to extract a deal that maximises the benefits for us, and minimises benefits for you ? ]
[ I'm the biggest gorilla in this jungle, I get to choose what happens, I choose what the deal is ] .

What kind of attitude is this ?  I really do hope that the US government does not have this attitude.

 

Yawn.

No, that's an accurate representation of reality. Countries are not equal, but posses different levels of power and clout. You seem to understand this perfectly well when cheer-leading China's actions and policies.

[Morch]

10 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Why the need for a broker as though there isn't already an agreement signed by Iran, France and 5 others? All Biden need do is send off an envoy to resign the deal that Trump reneged on.

 

If you have a contract or agreement...negotiated over more than two years, shaken hands on it, signed, officially stamped, you wait until the contract is close to renewal to renegotiate terms. Well, that's how honest people behave.

 

Because tensions are what they are, and that's how it is.

You seem to ignore that the agreement's status, as far as the USA goes, is less solid than what you claim it to be. The constant references to 'how honest people behave' and all that - you do realize we're talking about international politics, right? You do realize that if Iran was playing straight there would have been no JCPOA, sanctions and the current mess, right?

[dexterm]

41 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

@dexterm

 

The JCPOA can be restored. But at this point in time, one party is still out, and one party is moving further and further into non-compliance and breach of terms territory. So no, not baloney, just the usual matter of what is vs. what may be. I think the 'problem' is more about attitudes such as you represent, focusing on pointing fingers and vehemence.

 

Kindly don't put words in my mouth. I never said anything about it being 'ok' to pressure Iran. What I did say is that often how politics and diplomacy work. You want to pretend the world works otherwise or go on about 'diplomatic ethics' go right ahead. Guess no issues when Iran plays the same games, but eh.

 

As for trusting the USA (or for that matter, any other signatory) it's always a sort of a gamble. The expectation is that countries will exhibit some measure of continuity when it comes to such things, but that's not always  the case. When it comes to this specific agreement, the warning lights were flashing even when it was on the drawing board. Obama did not have enough political support to push it through, but went ahead anyway. It might have been a mistake. It's the same way for Iran - whatever they sign up for, their supreme leader can renege on later.

 

The negotiations were indeed lengthy - and that was implied with regard to China and Russia's stance. The final push to sign the agreement was rushed, and was accompanied by several 'deadlines' which were used to promote the sense of urgency. Please stop with the nonsense bits about my personal position - clarified on plenty of posts, including one above. The agreement was the best that could have been achieved under the prevailing circumstances, one of them being Obama's political situation. That goes back to the point about rushing to sign the agreement.

As for the 'untrustworthy', no. The USA, under Trump proving to be untrustworthy is one thing. Iran was not 'keeping it's word' so much as being under a strict regime not leaving them much room to do so. The reason for this inspection regime was precisely because Iran was deemed untrustworthy. Refer to the JCPOA's origins - namely, Iran's non-compliance issues with the NPT.
 

You can call leveraging an advantage cheating, but that's nothing more than schoolyard take on global politics and diplomacy. The same goes for the faux assumption that the playing field is level, or that parties are of equal standing and strength. Welcome to the real world.

 

Neither the USA nor France want Iran to develop nuclear weapons. If it was otherwise they wouldn't bother with the agreement to begin with. It's just that they seem to think they can that (Iran not developing nuclear weapons) and bit more. Two of the major issues raised are Iran's ballistic missile program and Iran's regional activities. Neither of these does much for promoting a more stable, or peaceful Middle East. Why would you be so upset about these being (potentially )curtailed some?

 

Your threats about wars and nuclear arms are dully noted.

 

I quoted your words directly. Let readers be the judge of who's telling the truth. 

 

>> and one party is moving further and further into non-compliance and breach of terms territory.
..hogwash. Blaming the victim as usual.
One party, Trump,  abruptly moved into non compliance 4 years ago! and has been bullying Iran and the rest of the world into non compliance ever since!

Iran says it could halt enrichment within days and surrender any enriched material! Will the USA fulfil its side of the bargain?

 

The USA, Israel, and Saudi Arabia who all destabilize the Middle East, want to emasculate Iran to prevent Iran from defending itself.

They don't want Iran to have ballistic missiles, but its OK for them to be able to rain them down on Iran with impunity.

 

Honor the current nuclear deal. Get nuclear weapons off the table.

Then negotiate a comprehensive Middle East peace agreement to deal with all other issues...Israel's nuclear arsenal that US admins have repeatedly turned a hypocritical blind eye to might be one of them for starters!

Edited February 5, 2021 by dexterm

[dexterm]

25 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Yawn.

No, that's an accurate representation of reality. Countries are not equal, but posses different levels of power and clout. You seem to understand this perfectly well when cheer-leading China's actions and policies.

>>Countries are not equal, but posses different levels of power and clout.

Might is right. Got it.

 

How about trying to make the world a safer and perhaps even better place? Biden can halt US involvement in his country's shameful contribution to massacre and famine in Yemen with the stroke of a pen. How about doing the same to end nuclear proliferation in the Middle East? The deal's already negotiated..just sign it.

[dexterm]

34 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Because tensions are what they are, and that's how it is.

You seem to ignore that the agreement's status, as far as the USA goes, is less solid than what you claim it to be. The constant references to 'how honest people behave' and all that - you do realize we're talking about international politics, right? You do realize that if Iran was playing straight there would have been no JCPOA, sanctions and the current mess, right?

Yes, it is what it is.

 

>>The constant references to 'how honest people behave' and all that - you do realize we're talking about international politics, right?

..ROFL So this is your moral compass? I wish Biden had brought up your point in his inauguration speech.

 

Iran was complying with a nuclear non proliferation deal.

If it ain't broke; don't fix it!

Edited February 5, 2021 by dexterm

[Morch]

 

@dexterm

 

What I was describing is how things are. For that purpose, the agreement is currently not working - the USA is still out, and Iran is being in a non-compliance state. You seem to think that focusing on pointing fingers is an apt response to this observation. Whatever. Let me point out I wasn't 'blaming' anyone, just stating facts.

 

Iran says a whole lot of things, and by different officials/leaders. Maybe it can stop enrichment within days, but so far this didn't happen. Both sides are testing the waters, guess no one wants to go first. That's sort of the point of Macron's suggestion.

 

There are various countries which can be said to be 'destabilizing' the Middle East, no argument. That you choose to accept Iran is engaged in such activities and labels it's actions as merely 'defending' itself is ridiculous and not credible. I don't know that Iran was rained with missiles by parties mentioned, but there was this attack on Saudi Arabia....of course, I guess you do not count Iran's arming proxies with such weapons as relevant. Oh well.

 

There are no nuclear weapons to take off the table, yet. And it's less than clear Iran will be very motivated to negotiate on them other issues at a later date. Why not take up the opportunity to promote Middle East stability leveraging the current circumstances?

 

As for the last bit, an expected bit of the usual crusade. Beat that Drum. Or stay on topic. Whichever.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 5, 2021 by Morch

[Morch]

16 minutes ago, dexterm said:

>>Countries are not equal, but posses different levels of power and clout.

Might is right. Got it.

 

How about trying to make the world a safer and perhaps even better place? Biden can halt US involvement in his country's shameful contribution to massacre and famine in Yemen with the stroke of a pen. How about doing the same to end nuclear proliferation in the Middle East? The deal's already negotiated..just sign it.

 

Going on and on about 'the world isn't fair' is not much of discussion. I think I've addressed the reasons for the USA's stance on several comments now, you keep ignoring or deflecting rather obvious considerations and points made.

[Morch]

14 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Yes, it is what it is.

 

>>The constant references to 'how honest people behave' and all that - you do realize we're talking about international politics, right?

..ROFL So this is your moral compass? I wish Biden had brought up your point in his inauguration speech.

 

Iran was complying with a nuclear non proliferation deal.

If it ain't broke; don't fix it!

 

This has nothing to do with my personal compass. I'm stating how things are, that's all. Kinda low coming from someone often moaning about 'besmirching'.

 

Unless you missed it, politicians say fine things on certain occasions, and do a whole lot of not so nice things most of the time. That too, is how it is. You want to pretend otherwise? Your choice.

 

How is the JCPOA not broken?

 

The JCPOA was, maybe (or even probably), the best they could manage at the time and under prevailing conditions. Things changed (yes, Trump was bad) and currently there are different conditions and, perhaps, an opening for forging a more comprehensive version of the same agreement. I get the objections, sort of, but not the vehemence accompanying them. If anything you of all posters should be cheering for it - both for the faux 'great humanist' bit, and the anti-Israel angle.

 

 

[dexterm]

8 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Going on and on about 'the world isn't fair' is not much of discussion. I think I've addressed the reasons for the USA's stance on several comments now, you keep ignoring or deflecting rather obvious considerations and points made.

Please don't put words in my mouth by misquoting me, which is against forum rules.

If you want to fantasize about what you think are my opinions, don't use quotation marks.

 

We pay our leaders to make the world a better and safer place. If you cynically believe that every politician has to be some sort of Machiavelli, that's your problem.

 

[dexterm]

8 hours ago, Morch said:

 

This has nothing to do with my personal compass. I'm stating how things are, that's all. Kinda low coming from someone often moaning about 'besmirching'.

 

Unless you missed it, politicians say fine things on certain occasions, and do a whole lot of not so nice things most of the time. That too, is how it is. You want to pretend otherwise? Your choice.

 

How is the JCPOA not broken?

 

The JCPOA was, maybe (or even probably), the best they could manage at the time and under prevailing conditions. Things changed (yes, Trump was bad) and currently there are different conditions and, perhaps, an opening for forging a more comprehensive version of the same agreement. I get the objections, sort of, but not the vehemence accompanying them. If anything you of all posters should be cheering for it - both for the faux 'great humanist' bit, and the anti-Israel angle.

 

 

The argument that it is what it is is your usual bunkum muddying the waters routine.

 

If Biden really wants Iran to stop producing enriched uranium, he can do so today. Sign the deal that he and his President Obama negotiated.

 

If Biden does not want Iran to stop producing enriched uranium, and is thus looking for a pretext to start a war, then make Iran an offer he knows they will refuse by moving the goalposts, which is what he and Macron are currently doing.

 

If there's a problem with that, it's of Biden's making.

 

If he's shilly shallying because he wants to appear tough with Iran to please his domestic audience, then it's pathetic brinkmanship, gambling with people's lives. So much for the new US diplomacy.

 

If that causes a war, or Iran gaining nuclear weapons, then it's squarely Biden's fault.

Edited February 6, 2021 by dexterm

[Morch]

24 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Please don't put words in my mouth by misquoting me, which is against forum rules.

If you want to fantasize about what you think are my opinions, don't use quotation marks.

 

We pay our leaders to make the world a better and safer place. If you cynically believe that every politician has to be some sort of Machiavelli, that's your problem.

 

 

I did not put words in your mouth, and stop with your bogus "against forum rules" bit. After a series of posts which basically amount to 'it's not fair', 'it's not right', 'it ain't nice' - hard to call it any other way.

 

People choose or support leaders for all sort of reasons, not just the one you mentioned. And even so, it can be argued that trying to amend the agreement would contribute more to overall stability long term. If you wish to pretend believing every politician is a righteous boy scout, that's up to you.

 

19 minutes ago, dexterm said:

The argument that it is what it is is your usual bunkum muddying the waters routine.

 

If Biden really wants Iran to stop producing enriched uranium, he can do so today. Sign the deal that he and his President Obama negotiated.

 

If Biden does not want Iran to stop producing enriched uranium, and is thus looking for a pretext to start a war, then make Iran an offer he knows they will refuse by moving the goalposts, which is what he and Macron are currently doing.

 

If there's a problem with that, it's of Biden's making.

 

If he's shilly shallying because he wants to appear tough with Iran to please his domestic audience, then it's pathetic brinkmanship, gambling with people's lives. So much for the new US diplomacy.

 

If that causes a war, or Iran gaining nuclear weapons, then it's squarely Biden's fault.

 

Holding that reality is more complex than your over-simplistic narrative is not "muddying the waters".

 

To use your own 'argument' - one could claim that if Iran was truly interested in stability, or getting out of this mess, it would simply cease uranium enrichment, and do whatever it takes to restore the agreement. It could be said that Iran failing to do so, focusing on 'you go first', 'Trump reneged on the agreement' and so on is pathetic and gambling with people's lives.

 

But, obviously, such moralizing or 'reasoning' is only ever applied to other parties, not those you support.

 

As for your scaremongering - there is no war, and there are no nuclear weapons. Get a grip.