The Nuclear Deal Disintegrates - With Iran While Many See It As A Biden Misstep

[ouch]

This piece written by the American Conservative's senior editor has struck a serious cord. How close President Biden is to making a huge mistake with Iran and the JCPOA. At a time when most Iranians feel dissed by America thanks to the previous lying con in chief. I truly hope that Biden is able to bring Tehran to the table and negotiate a JOPOA II asap. Anything beyond 6 months may be too late. By too late might mean a nasty fireworks show. My concerned thoughts are with you Joe Biden.


The Nuclear Deal Disintegrates While Biden Dawdles | The American Conservative
The Biden administration is about to make a serious mistake in its handling of the nuclear issue with Iran:

The U.S. is asking other countries to support a formal censure of Iran over its accelerating nuclear activities, a signal that the Biden administration wants to turn up the diplomatic heat on Tehran as it looks to restore a crumbling 2015 accord.

Biden and his team have squandered too much time already. Moving to censure Iran at the IAEA is the wrong move at the worst time. The Iranian government just went out of its way to show flexibility on continuing to allow international inspections. Just before the February 23 deadline when Iran was supposed to suspend its implementation of the Additional Protocol according to a new law passed by the Majlis (a law that has the support of 73% of Iranians), the Iranian government and the IAEA struck a bargain for the next three months that would permit more inspections than would have been possible otherwise.

Rouhani and his government bought the U.S. time to make good on Biden’s promises, and practically the first thing that Biden is going to do after that is complain to the IAEA about Iran’s supposed intransigence. Whatever the technical justification the administration might offer for this, it is politically and diplomatically tone-deaf. It signals to Iran that their patience and willingness to remain in the JCPOA are not going to be rewarded, and it suggests that the U.S. isn’t serious about honoring its commitments. Salvaging the nuclear deal was bound to be difficult, but the Biden administration has needlessly complicated its own task by taking one misstep after another.
... snip...

 

[bomberfox]

Wish the government knew how to negotiate in good faith...

 

[Mircea]

Most Iranians support complying with the agreement in the event that the U.S. provides promised sanctions relief, but anyone who thinks that the Iranian government can make more extensive concessions on security issues is deluding himself.

The US knows Iran has a nuclear energy program but no nuclear weapons programs.

The government insists the US Media use more propagandistic terms like "nuclear program" or "nuclear activities" (first time I've seen that one) in order to confuse the simpletons who can't understand the difference between a nuclear energy program and a nuclear weapons program and automatically assume the propaganda term "nuclear program" means nuclear weapons program.

The deal with inspections is the US has no interest in nuclear sites of any kind, but does have a very keen interest in what conventional weapons systems and technology Iran has and how those particular units are ogranized and wants to be on those facilities so it has a bird's eye view of what Iran has.

 

[ouch]

The US knows Iran has a nuclear energy program but no nuclear weapons programs.

The government insists the US Media use more propagandistic terms like "nuclear program" or "nuclear activities" (first time I've seen that one) in order to confuse the simpletons who can't understand the difference between a nuclear energy program and a nuclear weapons program and automatically assume the propaganda term "nuclear program" means nuclear weapons program.

The deal with inspections is the US has no interest in nuclear sites of any kind, but does have a very keen interest in what conventional weapons systems and technology Iran has and how those particular units are ogranized and wants to be on those facilities so it has a bird's eye view of what Iran has.

I suspect that 'our guys' are looking at Iran's hard line mentality behind any nuclear technoloy of theirs by fearing any potential use and intentions with said nuclear technology. The Iran Deal of 2015 had the US and Iran on the correct path to possible peace and cooperation until (S/I/T) Trump screwed and scrapped that deal on US's end of it. Who really knows why, unless he thought in his sick mind that it would possibly please Putin or Kim Jong-un.

 

[RAMOSS]

Well, of course the 'american conserative' is going to bash any democratic president. I take extremist reporting as just that, extremist reporting.

 

[Grandpappy]

I don't think there are any more pallets of cash to give them. Sorry, Joe. I know that's your big play.

 

[Rexedgar]

I don't think there are any more pallets of cash to give them. Sorry, Joe. I know that's your big play.

The “pallets” of cash are being distributed on the home front, right now..........USBEP on 24 hour shifts!

 

[Khayembii Communique]

The biggest mistake regarding the JCPOA was Trump leaving it.

It signals to Iran that their patience and willingness to remain in the JCPOA are not going to be rewarded, and it suggests that the U.S. isn’t serious about honoring its commitments.

LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO the fact that right wingers are saying this is just yet another example of how moronically hypocritical they are.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Huh.

Last I heard, they said they were still going to enrich uranium no matter what.

Sounds flexible as hell.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

The biggest mistake regarding the JCPOA was Trump leaving it.



LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO the fact that right wingers are saying this is just yet another example of how moronically hypocritical they are.

The “JCPOA” was never a commitment to them. The US constitution lays out a specific process for the senate to ratify treaties. No senate=no promises. Simple as that.

 

[Rostocker]

The “JCPOA” was never a commitment to them. The US constitution lays out a specific process for the senate to ratify treaties. No senate=no promises. Simple as that.

Thats quite irrelevant, since treaties with USA usually are not worth the paper they are written on

 

[phoenix2020]

The “JCPOA” was never a commitment to them. The US constitution lays out a specific process for the senate to ratify treaties. No senate=no promises. Simple as that.

Unfortunately the Senate is a broken body that only votes on partisan lines nowadays and only to score political points. If Schumer put up a statement that the Earth revolves around the sun, McConnell would rally his caucus to vote unanimously against it after rallying the GOP around an Earth First, anti-Sun policy. If McConnell suggested the Senate acknowledge the importance of hurricane preparedness, Schumer would rally his caucus to vote against the acknowledgment unless it included a minimum wage increase and gun restrictions. It's just completely broken.

If I'm Iran, I know that formal U.S. treaties are a pipe dream, but unilateral U.S. military action is also going to become increasingly unlikely due to the political paralysis. It literally would take one prime time speech by Obama advocating for military action against Iran for the entire GOP to immediately pivot away from military action simply because Obama favored it... that's how partisan things are today... which means it's pretty easy to manipulate the U.S. into paralysis and inaction. So, at this point Iran should just do what it thinks are in its best interests and in alignment with European, Russian and Chinese equity holders. The U.S. is going to be increasingly irrelevant to the conversation. The USD and U.S. financial system are the only things still giving us clout, and I'm fairly certain Russia and China have Iran's back in that area.

The one-two-three-four punch of Iran, TPP, Paris and WHO significantly diminished U.S. credibility at the very moment China was accruing it at a growing rate. This IMO will be the ultimate legacy of the prior administration - by pulling out of agreements seemingly for no other reason other than their association with his predecessor's name (e.g. "repeal and replace" without even a passing effort to "replace") our standing is junk for a generation to come. After all, why deal with the United States when China represents a much more stable, predictable and committed trading partner?

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

The “JCPOA” was never a commitment to them. The US constitution lays out a specific process for the senate to ratify treaties. No senate=no promises. Simple as that.

Is the nuclear deal really a "treaty" though?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Is the nuclear deal really a "treaty" though?

It is not, therefore there is no reason for anyone to consider it a permanent agreement