Jump to content

Iran dismisses idea of talks with EU and U.S. to revive 2015 nuclear deal


webfact

Recommended Posts

Iran dismisses idea of talks with EU and U.S. to revive 2015 nuclear deal

By Parisa Hafezi

 

2021-02-28T195046Z_2_LYNXNPEH1R0DC_RTROPTP_4_IRAN-NUCLEAR-USA.JPG

FILE PHOTO: Iran and six major world powers meet during a plenary session at the United Nations building in Vienna, Austria July 14, 2015. REUTERS/Joe Klamar/Pool/File Photo

 

DUBAI (Reuters) - Iran on Sunday ruled out holding an informal meeting with the United States and European powers to discuss ways to salvage the unravelling 2015 nuclear deal with major powers, insisting that Washington must first lift all its unilateral sanctions.

 

"Considering the recent actions and statements by the United States and three European powers, Iran does not consider this the time to hold an informal meeting with these countries, which was proposed by the EU foreign policy chief," Foreign Ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh said, according to Iranian media.

 

The United States said it was disappointed, but that it remained ready to "re-engage in meaningful diplomacy" on the issue.

 

Iranian officials had said Tehran was studying a proposal by European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell to hold an informal meeting with other parties to the nuclear pact and the United States, which reimposed sanctions on Iran after then-president Donald Trump quit the deal in 2018.

 

The new administration of President Joe Biden has said it is ready to talk to Iran about both nations returning to the accord, which scrapped United Nations sanctions against Iran in return for curbs intended to prevent it acquiring nuclear weapons - something Iran says it does not want.

 

But the parties cannot agree who should make the first move. Iran says the United States must lift sanctions while Washington says Tehran must return to compliance with the deal, which it has been progressively breaching.

 

A White House spokeswoman said Washington remained keen to achieve a "mutual return to compliance" with the deal.

She said it would consult with its partners who are signatories - China, France, Russia, Britain and Germany - on the best way forward.

 

NUCLEAR WATCHDOG TO MEET

One senior U.S. source said Iran's rejection was simply part of the diplomatic process.

 

Earlier on Sunday, Iran's nuclear chief urged the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) 35-nation Board of Governors not to endorse a U.S.-led push to criticise Tehran's decision to scale back its cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog.

 

"If the IAEA's Board of Governors adopts a resolution against Iran, we will show an appropriate reaction," Ali Akbar Salehi said, according to the Iranian state news agency IRNA.

 

In a position paper seen by Reuters that was sent to other IAEA member states ahead of the board's quarterly meeting this week, Tehran threatens to end a deal struck with the IAEA a week ago temporarily maintaining some monitoring of its activities.

 

Diplomats said it was still unclear whether the board would adopt a resolution.

 

On Feb. 23, Tehran stopped implementing the so-called Additional Protocol, which had enabled the IAEA to carry out snap inspections at undeclared locations.

 

But under the Feb. 21 agreement, Tehran agreed to maintain the recording of extra data as specified by the 2015 deal for up to three months, and to let the IAEA access it at the end if sanctions were lifted.

 

Khatibzadeh said that, for the United States to "end its illegal and unilateral sanctions and return to its commitments", there was no need for "negotiation or a resolution in the U.N. nuclear watchdog's Board of Governors".

 

(Writing by Parisa Hafezi; Editing by Kevin Liffey)

 

reuters_logo.jpg

-- © Copyright Reuters 2021-03-01
 
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing Iran is the real deal; as opposed to Iraq, where it was mostly smoke and mirrors, or N. Korea, which is a minnow by comparison; a nuclear armed Iran is gonna be a difficult one to deal with. Yeah, delaying the inevitable; they know they hold all the cards long term. Short of a mass invasion, and all the consequences that go with that, WW3 basically, I don't see any solution to this problem of dealing with Iran as a major player on the world stage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, nausea said:

I'm guessing Iran is the real deal; as opposed to Iraq, where it was mostly smoke and mirrors, or N. Korea, which is a minnow by comparison; a nuclear armed Iran is gonna be a difficult one to deal with. Yeah, delaying the inevitable; they know they hold all the cards long term. Short of a mass invasion, and all the consequences that go with that, WW3 basically, I don't see any solution to this problem of dealing with Iran as a major player on the world stage.

Diplomacy is war by other means. When diplomacy fails, what you have left is war.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pedrogaz said:

The US are untrustworthy partners. The EU are too timid and will follow US sanctions. A waste of air trying to talk to these countries. 

 

Maybe get informed as to how and why Iran was put under sanctions to begin with, or how and why the JCPOA was negotiated. It wasn't because Iran kept it's previous obligations (NPT).

 

If Iran restarts it's nuclear program, or fully disengages from the inspections regime etc, then the international sanctions will snap back. That's something included in the JCPOA. No JCPOA = sanctions. These ain't just the US sanctions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, nausea said:

I'm guessing Iran is the real deal; as opposed to Iraq, where it was mostly smoke and mirrors, or N. Korea, which is a minnow by comparison; a nuclear armed Iran is gonna be a difficult one to deal with. Yeah, delaying the inevitable; they know they hold all the cards long term. Short of a mass invasion, and all the consequences that go with that, WW3 basically, I don't see any solution to this problem of dealing with Iran as a major player on the world stage.

 

Iran is under US sanctions at the moment. That alone cripples the Iranian economy. Since no one, not even China or Russia is interested in Iran going nuclear capable, there's a fair chance international sanctions (much wider scope and participation) could snap back. It's a good question whether the Iranian regime can handle the economic fallout (no pun intended), Covid-19 situation and push its nuclear ambitions at the same time, under such conditions.

 

I don't think it will come to this, though. From all that's said so far, seems like sides are trying to come to some formula about holding discussions and talks. Once that's settled, guess progress would be swifter.

 

It is true, though, that once countries achieve military nuclear capability, the cat is out of the bag.

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Iran is under US sanctions at the moment. That alone cripples the Iranian economy. Since no one, not even China or Russia is interested in Iran going nuclear capable, there's a fair chance international sanctions (much wider scope and participation) could snap back. It's a good question whether the Iranian regime can handle the economic fallout (no pun intended), Covid-19 situation and push its nuclear ambitions at the same time, under such conditions.

 

I don't think it will come to this, though. From all that's said so far, seems like sides are trying to come to some formula about holding discussions and talks. Once that's settled, guess progress would be swifter.

 

It is true, though, that once countries achieve military nuclear capability, the cat is out of the bag.

It always seems odd (to me at least) that countries placed under the most severe sanctions not only survive but are perfectly capable of continuing to do what they are not supposed to be doing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

It always seems odd (to me at least) that countries placed under the most severe sanctions seem to not only survive but continue doing what they are not supposed to be doing.

 

Always? Don't know about that. Sanctions aren't a replacement for an inspections regime, nor do they assure compliance. But given trusting a country is not an acceptable option, and outright war not a palatable one, they are often sort of in-between choice.

 

Or to put it another way, take away sanctions and relevant countries would have an easier job of getting their agendas in place. At the very least, it slows them some, and takes a toil.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Morch said:

 

Always? Don't know about that. Sanctions aren't a replacement for an inspections regime, nor do they assure compliance. But given trusting a country is not an acceptable option, and outright war not a palatable one, they are often sort of in-between choice.

I am thing about Russia (to a lesser degree), always under sanctions.....N. Korea.....always under sanctions.....both just continue seemingly like sanctions don't exist....but <I guess they do for the "little people"...they are the ones who really suffer at the end of the day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why bother to negotiate. 

You have Iran who even if they promised, they would not keep their end of the bargain.  When two people or countries negotiate and put into writing their respective responsibilities, that agreement is only as good as the character of the people or country who signed it.  

Iran like North Korea is bent on having a nuclear capability.  Even if they agreed to stop the program, without intensive rigid inspections the agreement to stop is only a collection of words on a piece of paper.  



Hitler and Stalin negotiated a non-aggression pact.  How did that work out. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

I am thing about Russia (to a lesser degree), always under sanctions.....N. Korea.....always under sanctions.....both just continue seemingly like sanctions don't exist....but <I guess they do for the "little people"...they are the ones who really suffer at the end of the day.

 

Russia is not under sanctions for nuclear arms, and anyway, the sanctions in place are nowhere near as full blown (or paid heed to by other countries) as those placed on Iran. North Korea is a dictatorship, with its ruler withstanding sanctions at extreme costs to the people. Iran's regime, for all it's faults, is not quite there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Thomas J said:

Why bother to negotiate. 

You have Iran who even if they promised, they would not keep their end of the bargain.  When two people or countries negotiate and put into writing their respective responsibilities, that agreement is only as good as the character of the people or country who signed it.  

Iran like North Korea is bent on having a nuclear capability.  Even if they agreed to stop the program, without intensive rigid inspections the agreement to stop is only a collection of words on a piece of paper.  

 

 

Iran was declared as abiding by the terms set in the JCPOA. These included a strict inspections regime. Both went away with Trump's withdrawal from the agreement. So both the trust and rigid controls issues are kinda odd points to raise.

 

It is conceivable that Iran was bent on circumventing the restrictions, or that it still intends to - but there was no clear indication that was the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Thomas J said:

Why bother to negotiate. 

You have Iran who even if they promised, they would not keep their end of the bargain.  When two people or countries negotiate and put into writing their respective responsibilities, that agreement is only as good as the character of the people or country who signed it.  

Iran like North Korea is bent on having a nuclear capability.  Even if they agreed to stop the program, without intensive rigid inspections the agreement to stop is only a collection of words on a piece of paper.  



Hitler and Stalin negotiated a non-aggression pact.  How did that work out. 

 

quote "You have Iran who even if they promised, they would not keep their end of the bargain.  When two people or countries negotiate and put into writing their respective responsibilities, that agreement is only as good as the character of the people or country who signed it. "

 

Iran kept to it fairly well until Trump pulled the USA out of the agreement. This is another example of the damage that Trump caused in 4 years. It is probably repairable over time but many other countries who were affected by Trump's rampage will also be keeping a weather eye open.

 

In this particular case it was the USA under President Barack Obama who signed the treaty but the USA under ex President Trump who reneged on the agreement,

 

Now a third US President, President Joe Biden wants to return to the agreement, which IMHO is the right thing to do.

 

The best way, again IMHO, is to find a neutral country such as Sweden or Switzerland to host the talks between Iran and the USA. Then when the agreement ready to be signed pick a time and get both sides to sign at the same time. That way neither is first or second and face is saved all round.

Link to post
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

quote "You have Iran who even if they promised, they would not keep their end of the bargain.  When two people or countries negotiate and put into writing their respective responsibilities, that agreement is only as good as the character of the people or country who signed it. "

 

Iran kept to it fairly well until Trump pulled the USA out of the agreement. This is another example of the damage that Trump caused in 4 years. It is probably repairable over time but many other countries who were affected by Trump's rampage will also be keeping a weather eye open.

 

In this particular case it was the USA under President Barack Obama who signed the treaty but the USA under ex President Trump who reneged on the agreement,

 

Now a third US President, President Joe Biden wants to return to the agreement, which IMHO is the right thing to do.

 

The best way, again IMHO, is to find a neutral country such as Sweden or Switzerland to host the talks between Iran and the USA. Then when the agreement ready to be signed pick a time and get both sides to sign at the same time. That way neither is first or second and face is saved all round.

 

"In this particular case it was the USA under President Barack Obama who signed the treaty..."

 

Only Obama did not have the required political support to push it through, and thus the legal status (from the US legal/procedural/whatever point of view) is less than it ought to be. Unlike other agreements, it has to be ratified by the President every six months, for example. Now, all this was known prior to the JCPOA being launched, and yet Obama went ahead with it anyway. Whether it was the right choice can be debated, and so is the assertion that it represented US views, rather than the administration's.

 

In the same way, the current Iranian legislation barring surprise inspections and withholding surveillance tapes, represents a hardliner faction, not necessarily the Iranian government's preferred choice.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lift sanctions and the balls in Iran's court,  if they don't comply put the sanctions back on again or it's gonna be another brexit. 😂

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

Lift sanctions and the balls in Iran's court,  if they don't comply put the sanctions back on again or it's gonna be another brexit. 😂

 

 

Lift sanctions, and what Iran's leadership will know how to play the next crisis. US allies in the region will see it as weakness as well. I get it (from a recent topic), that you don't care about such things - but obviously the Biden administration does.

 

The 'put the sanctions back' is more easily said than done. Once they are  off, and trade resumes, there will be more pressure to avoid reintroducing them. That was the reaction when Trump reintroduced sanctions, or when his administration tried to expand them.

 

Brexit got nothing to do with this.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Maybe the US and Israel could start with destroying their nuclear weapons before demanding other countries to not engage in it, especially since it’s them who are the biggest warmongers in this world.  

 

Maybe you should stick to facts. Or work on new deflections.

 

It is not only the 'US and Israel', there are European signatories to the JCPOA, Russia, China and basically most of the world (if one takes the NPT as representing views on such matters). Iran was an NPT signatory member, and was found to be in a non-compliance situation. Israel is not a signatory to any such agreement, hence not in violation of international treaties on this score. I don't see you going on about the UK, France, Russia, China. Or for that matter, India, Pakistan and North Korea.

 

Further, dealing with countries already possessing military nuclear capability is proven to be troublesome, at best. The more efficient way to deal with nuclear proliferation is to address it before it becomes an actual issue. The logic of "accepting" new countries to have them because others do does not make sense, either than in tit for tat kinda way.

 

Biggest warmongers? Might apply to the US, depending on how one construes things. As for Israel, not even close.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, from the home of CC said:

assassination is not diplomacy and the world is full of hypocrites..

 

Indeed...

 

France bomb plot: Iran diplomat Assadollah Assadi sentenced to 20 years

Quote

An Iranian diplomat has been convicted of a plot to bomb a big French rally held by an exiled opposition group.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-55931633

Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Indeed...

 

France bomb plot: Iran diplomat Assadollah Assadi sentenced to 20 years

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-55931633

a historical perspective of US hypocrisy..

 

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/h/humfig/11217607.0004.202/--explaining-american-hypocrisy?rgn=main;view=fulltext

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, from the home of CC said:

 

More like a sociological one (haven't read, but somewhat familiar with the author's work, and the theory cited). Treating it as a historical, or factual account is more of a political statement. Anyway, quite beyond the scope of the current topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...