U.S. patience with Iran on renewing nuclear talks 'not unlimited' - State Department

 

U.S. State Department Spokesman Ned Price faces reporters during a news briefing at the State Department in Washington, U.S., February 24, 2021. REUTERS/Carlos Barria/Pool

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States' patience with Iran on returning to discussions over the 2015 nuclear deal is "not unlimited," State Department spokesman Ned Price said on Wednesday.

 

Iran has not formally responded to a U.S. offer last week to talk with Iran in a joint meeting with the countries that negotiated the deal.

 

Asked at a news briefing whether there was an expiration date on the offer, Price said Iran's moves away from compliance with the 2015 agreement's restrictions on its nuclear activities made the issue an "urgent challenge" for the United States.

 

"Our patience is not unlimited, but we do believe, and the president has been clear on this ... that the most effective way to ensure Iran could never acquire a nuclear weapon was through diplomacy," Price said.

 

(Reporting by Humeyra Pamuk, Daphne Psaledakis and Simon Lewis; Editing by Leslie Adler and Jonathan Oatis)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2021-02-25

 

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

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

You tell 'em Joe...

Time to come to the table if you want relief or conflict if you don’t 

iran has been 6 months away from a nuclear bomb for like 15 years now. 

One way or another Iran will rope-a-dope until they can bomb Israel; and everyone knows it including the ones who claim they don't know it.

As I remember it was US that withdraw themselves from the "Iran deal", and noe they are telling the counter part they are losing their patience.

Yes, I know Iran is a threat to safety and stability, but maybe US should take a step back and try negotiating instead of demanding.

2 hours ago, Enzian said:

One way or another Iran will rope-a-dope until they can bomb Israel; and everyone knows it including the ones who claim they don't know it.

Because the Iranians are suicidal?

4 hours ago, placeholder said:

Because the Iranians are suicidal?

may be they (Mullahs) are - can anybody understand their mindset?

Just now, sweatalot said:

may be they (Mullahs) are - can anybody understand their mindset?

There's plenty of evidence to show that they aren't. For example, after Trump had Soleimani assassinated, how did they react? Lots of angry words, and deniable military acts. 

6 hours ago, Dagfinnur Traustason said:

As I remember it was US that withdraw themselves from the "Iran deal", and noe they are telling the counter part they are losing their patience.

Yes, I know Iran is a threat to safety and stability, but maybe US should take a step back and try negotiating instead of demanding.

I was suggesting that in another thread...

Edited February 25, 20215 yr by onthedarkside
comment on moderation removed

6 hours ago, Dagfinnur Traustason said:

As I remember it was US that withdraw themselves from the "Iran deal", and noe they are telling the counter part they are losing their patience.

Yes, I know Iran is a threat to safety and stability, but maybe US should take a step back and try negotiating instead of demanding.

It was on Donald Trump's orders that the US govt. that withdrew.

It seems you believe that the identity of the head of state is irrelevant.

During the campaign, Biden made it clear that he was in favor reinstituting it.

3 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

I was suggesting that in another thread...

Good on you! Just squish the big bully. Not saying Iran is good, but there is an overdriven trust in a nation that has one of the worst economies in the world. Talk about living in a bubble. ????

 

10 hours ago, Dagfinnur Traustason said:

As I remember it was US that withdraw themselves from the "Iran deal", and noe they are telling the counter part they are losing their patience.

Yes, I know Iran is a threat to safety and stability, but maybe US should take a step back and try negotiating instead of demanding.

 

Some of Biden's top advisors and appointments are among the architects of the JCPOA, others have long mileage negotiating with Iran, and/or considerable experience in things Middle East. Now, given this and the Biden administration declared preference for diplomacy and goal of getting things back on track, how about giving them a wee bit credit that they know their stuff?

 

This is not 'demanding', this is 'negotiating'. And I'm pretty sure most of what's aired is for public consumption anyway. They'll eventually find a formula allowing things to advance.

15 minutes ago, Dagfinnur Traustason said:

Good on you! Just squish the big bully. Not saying Iran is good, but there is an overdriven trust in a nation that has one of the worst economies in the world. Talk about living in a bubble. ????

 

 

The US economy is nowhere near 'one of the worst' in the World. And this doesn't have a whole lot to do with the OP.

Inflammatory troll post reported and removed.   

12 hours ago, Dagfinnur Traustason said:

As I remember it was US that withdraw themselves from the "Iran deal", and noe they are telling the counter part they are losing their patience.

Yes, I know Iran is a threat to safety and stability, but maybe US should take a step back and try negotiating instead of demanding.

I do think it is Israel and the US who are the bigger threats to safety and security. But yeah, the US really has lost a lot of respect with such a flip flop type of behavior. Not to mention being the biggest enabler of the country who carries nuclear weapons already. Guess who? It's not Denmark.

 

I'm not antisemitic. Figured I'd say that before it is spewed out.

Well looks like the administration gave the Iranians a slap in Syria just bombed one of their strong holds come on to the table Iran 

12 hours ago, Dagfinnur Traustason said:

Good on you! Just squish the big bully. Not saying Iran is good, but there is an over driven trust in a nation that has one of the worst economies in the world. Talk about living in a bubble. ????

 

Exactly, well goodluck with telling some here, a different approach is out of the question by the western powers by all accounts, they just want another Korea, Vietnam, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan is the way I see it.

1 hour ago, Kwasaki said:

Exactly, well goodluck with telling some here, a different approach is out of the question by the western powers by all accounts, they just want another Korea, Vietnam, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan is the way I see it.

 

You haven't been able to coherently outline what a 'different approach' would be, or what makes it superior. The very same approach you criticize is one which let to the JCPOA coming about. I was under the impression you saw the JCPOA as a positive thing, could have been wrong.

14 hours ago, Solinvictus said:

I do think it is Israel and the US who are the bigger threats to safety and security. But yeah, the US really has lost a lot of respect with such a flip flop type of behavior. Not to mention being the biggest enabler of the country who carries nuclear weapons already. Guess who? It's not Denmark.

 

I'm not antisemitic. Figured I'd say that before it is spewed out.

 

Tell that to the Kurds, and Christian and other minorities in Syria.

 

Israel is a nation subject to the  openly stated threat of being wiped off the map:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/27/israel.iran

 

I can think of no other nation facing such a threat.

 

Getting in a preemptive claim that you are not anti Semitic is not a barrier to others rightly judging for themselves what you have to say in your posts.

 

 

Edited February 26, 20215 yr by Chomper Higgot

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

Tell that to the Kurds, and Christian and other minorities in Syria.

 

Israel is a nation subject to the  openly stated threat of being wiped off the map:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/27/israel.iran

 

I can think of no other nation facing such a threat.

 

Getting in a preemptive claim that you are not anti Semitic is not a barrier to others rightly judging for themselves what you have to say in your posts.

 

 

I seriously view this as not only cliche but pathetic.

1 hour ago, Solinvictus said:

I seriously view this as not only cliche but pathetic.

You’ve already given us an example of your views.

 

@Chomper Higgot

 

It doesn't really matter whether Israel is under threat or whether Iran's threats are credible. Bringing up Israel was just means to hijack the discussion.

 

Yes, Israel owning nuclear weapons is definitely not good. Then again, when the cat's out of the bag, dealing with it is troublesome. Countries who managed to develop and build military nuclear capability aren't in the habit of letting it go. Once you're in the "club", it's pretty much a done deal.

 

While it would be nice if this could be addressed, that's not reason enough to allow all and sundry to get said weapons, or to focus international resources and attention away from new proliferation issues - which are much easier to address and contain. The interests of anti proliferation are to deal with what's possible first.

 

One argument is that Israel's ownership of nuclear weapons created/might create a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Fair enough. But then again, so far this has been successfully contained. Can't say much for the logic of allowing Iran to have them, no doubt soon to be followed by Saudi Arabia, and possibly Turkey - as opposed to how things are at present. No added benefit in dealing with 3-4 nuclear capable countries.

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

@Chomper Higgot

 

It doesn't really matter whether Israel is under threat or whether Iran's threats are credible. Bringing up Israel was just means to hijack the discussion.

 

Yes, Israel owning nuclear weapons is definitely not good. Then again, when the cat's out of the bag, dealing with it is troublesome. Countries who managed to develop and build military nuclear capability aren't in the habit of letting it go. Once you're in the "club", it's pretty much a done deal.

 

While it would be nice if this could be addressed, that's not reason enough to allow all and sundry to get said weapons, or to focus international resources and attention away from new proliferation issues - which are much easier to address and contain. The interests of anti proliferation are to deal with what's possible first.

 

One argument is that Israel's ownership of nuclear weapons created/might create a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Fair enough. But then again, so far this has been successfully contained. Can't say much for the logic of allowing Iran to have them, no doubt soon to be followed by Saudi Arabia, and possibly Turkey - as opposed to how things are at present. No added benefit in dealing with 3-4 nuclear capable countries.

 

Agreed.

 

Though my point was accusing a nation under direct threat of being ‘wiped off the map’ of being the major threat to safety and security is totally irrational, if only because it’s offered as a distraction from the discussion around the nation making the threat against Israel obtaining the nuclear weapons that would enable it to carry out the threat.

 

 

When there is is no rational basis for an point of view, look for an emotional basis.

 

 

On 2/25/2021 at 6:02 AM, webfact said:

discussions over the 2015 nuclear deal is "not unlimited,

I think their limit is about 500 billion...

8 hours ago, Morch said:

 

You haven't been able to coherently outline what a 'different approach' would be, or what makes it superior. The very same approach you criticize is one which let to the JCPOA coming about. I was under the impression you saw the JCPOA as a positive thing, could have been wrong.

You seem to know how patriotism work anyway. Good Luck!

1 hour ago, Dagfinnur Traustason said:

You seem to know how patriotism work anyway. Good Luck!

 

Barking at the wrong tree, and failing to make sense, again.