US own goal hands Iran diplomatic win

[Iron]

It's not a diplomatic win. It's a show of contempt for the Trump administration, since they are all certain it's about to be over in a couple of months. Even if they don't keep the treaty, but the US keeps its sanctions, they can't do business with Iran without suffering sanctions. All of the international banking system is in a choke-hold by the US. The SWIFT banking system is omnipresent, and the US will sanction the crap out of anyone that goes against its own sanctions against Iran. Even now, trade with Iran is done through barter (usually for metal or oil).

 

[Agema]

I disagree. Right now the US is sanctioning Iran, the other countries are honoring the agreement, except Iran who is violating the treaty in basically every measure.

It's more complex than that. The US imposed sanctions on a Iran on a way which threatened non-US companies, thereby de facto causing Iran to come under much wider sanctions than just the USA's. The EU and others have been developing ways to work around the US sanctions to protect their companies and trade with Iran, but in the meantime Iran is losing out. Because that's just how shitty and unilateral the USA was about it: "we're pulling out and btw we're fucking you guys who want to try to make the deal work as well". Iran then spun up its centrifuges.

The international community is holding fire in the hope that the current White House incumbent loses his job and is replaced by someone who has the faintest idea what he's doing, because then everyone might back down and get the workable treaty working again.

 

[Iron]

It's more complex than that. The US imposed sanctions on a Iran on a way which threatened non-US companies, thereby de facto causing Iran to come under much wider sanctions than just the USA's. The EU and others have been developing ways to work around the US sanctions to protect their companies and trade with Iran, but in the meantime Iran is losing out. Because that's just how shitty and unilateral the USA was about it: "we're pulling out and btw we're fucking you guys who want to try to make the deal work as well". Iran then spun up its centrifuges.

The international community is holding fire in the hope that the current White House incumbent loses his job and is replaced by someone who has the faintest idea what he's doing, because then everyone might back down and get the workable treaty working again.

True, they are hoping Biden will win. The US has nothing to gain from lifting the sanctions. Iran will not do business with US firms, so the only ones that gain from a "deal" would be France, Germany and the UK. Iran needs a lot of mechanical and electronic items. They are denied because they are considered "dual-use", which means they can be used for their weapons industry. Their civilian planes are relics from the 60s, their cars as well. It's not as bad as Cuba, but the general "blockade" Iran had imposed on it since the 80s puts it at a great disadvantage. The nukes (their "nuclear potential") are just a playing card in trade negotiations, similar to how N. Korea handles it.

 

[Aegix Drakan]

But the Iran deal wasn't going to keep them from getting a nuke for any more than a decade.

The deal could then be extended.

As opposed to NOT having a deal and they could get a nuke in LESS than a decade if they really wanted to.

The deal was crap, and they aren't interacting with the rest of the world in a more positive manner. If anything, it allowed for stronger Iran-China relations by pulling some of the stigma away from China dealing with Iran.

The deal was better than nothing, and better than further antagonizing them. Also, china could easily ignore the sanctioning because taking any kind of economic action against them right now is impossible due to their stranglehold on manufacturing, so, honestly, I find this point a little moot.

And you say "was following", with full awareness that they aren't now.

The US full-on violated the deal first. If someone makes an agreement with you, then proceeds to FLAGRANTLY break it, and then later straight up murders one of your nationally-beloved anti-ISIS generals, not only is it irrational to think you'd still follow the obviously busted agreement, but also it would be impossible to justify to your people.

Like, how on earth could Iran's leadership justify to their people "Yeah we'll still follow the treaty despite the fact that it's been completely broken, but the US has done an act of war and killed one of our top military guys, whom you all love because he's been really good at killing ISIS"? If they did still follow it, the people would be screaming that their leaders are "US puppets/cucks" etc etc.

 

[Silvanus]

I disagree. Right now the US is sanctioning Iran, the other countries are honoring the agreement, except Iran who is violating the treaty in basically every measure.

Every country still on that treaty except Iran is currently honoring the economic incentives offered and getting literally nothing except for continued inspections, which do nothing but broadcast Iran saying "Oh yeah, you can see all our violations. We're stockpiling the crap out of this stuff."

IIRC, the IAEA was verifying that Iran was largely abiding by the treaty before the US withdrew and reimposed sanctions. It's since then that they've stockpiled above the limit, and denied entry to sites.

If the treaty is dead, the US struck the mortal blow-- and accomplished nothing but the nuclear proliferation of its enemy. And for what? Sabre-rattling?

 

[Thaluikhain]

If the treaty is dead, the US struck the mortal blow-- and accomplished nothing but the nuclear proliferation of its enemy. And for what? Sabre-rattling?

Might almost wonder if it's to justify another "IRA_ has WMDs" war. I don't think it's that well planned, though.

 

[Aegix Drakan]

Might almost wonder if it's to justify another "IRA_ has WMDs" war. I don't think it's that well planned, though.

Considering John Bolton ranted in his book how Trump had a frankly miraculous crisis of conscience (or realized starting a hot war with Iran would make him very unpopular) and called off the strikes on Iran, I would not be the LEAST bit surprised if the Neocons were totally on board for a "IRA_ has WMDs" ground-troops war.

 

[Buyetyen]

If the treaty is dead, the US struck the mortal blow-- and accomplished nothing but the nuclear proliferation of its enemy. And for what? Sabre-rattling?

Pretty much. America is still in love with the idea of itself as divinely-ordained superpower. Diplomacy is the domain of weaklings. What's the point in having power if you can't abuse it? That's the American way.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Considering John Bolton ranted in his book how Trump had a frankly miraculous crisis of conscience (or realized starting a hot war with Iran would make him very unpopular) and called off the strikes on Iran, I would not be the LEAST bit surprised if the Neocons were totally on board for a "IRA_ has WMDs" ground-troops war.

On board for the war, sure, but as for setting up the justification, probably just a happy accident.

 

[Agema]

If the treaty is dead, the US struck the mortal blow-- and accomplished nothing but the nuclear proliferation of its enemy. And for what? Sabre-rattling?

1) Wrecking a treaty Obama had a big hand in, because fuck Obama and everything he did.
2) Because the USA is now Israel's and Saudi Arabia's hired thug in lieu of having its own independent foreign policy
3) Just to maintain a "useful enemy" for domestic politics posturing and rhetoric.

Scrapping the JCPOA seems to me replacing a potentially useful plan with literally no plan at all, just a holding pattern of pointless antagonism. I am totally unclear what advantage the USA's sanctions are for the USA over Iran. The USA has already tried pressuring Iran with sanctions: it failed last time and it will fail now. A "boots on the ground" military action is a non-starter. It can try bombing it into the stone age for... I have no idea what, except the satisfaction of Israel and the Saudis.

I think it should engage constructively with Iran. Iran is partly troublesome partly out of ambition, but partly out of insecurity that an Arab alliance, plus backing from the USA, is a threat to it (Iraq-Iran war and all) - plus of course the concern over Israeli nukes. At some point, I suspect what Iran wants is in large part guarantees of its own security. If it gets them, it will be less inclined invest so heavily in its own, both in terms of weaponry and funding violence across the Middle East and in the long run tensions might just drain away anyway. There's a big fog of distrust to grope through, but I don't see why it's not possible.

 

[Iron]

I'm going to put the last post here since nobody bothered to answer me till now.
Iran doesn't want or need nukes. It had been within arm's length from a nuclear arsenal prior to the sanctions on it in 2014. It only needed the option to fabricate a nuke in a few days while everything goes to hell in a hand-basket. It's guaranteed by the Russians and the Chinese, but if something unreal happens and it's left alone, fabricating a nuke would be the only bargaining chip they'd have left. The reason why they wouldn't become actual nuclear powers is due to their patron's unwillingness to allow it. The ME can't go into a nuclear arms race, it must remain a playing grounds for outside powers.

 

[stroopwafel]

1) Wrecking a treaty Obama had a big hand in, because fuck Obama and everything he did.
2) Because the USA is now Israel's and Saudi Arabia's hired thug in lieu of having its own independent foreign policy
3) Just to maintain a "useful enemy" for domestic politics posturing and rhetoric.

Scrapping the JCPOA seems to me replacing a potentially useful plan with literally no plan at all, just a holding pattern of pointless antagonism. I am totally unclear what advantage the USA's sanctions are for the USA over Iran. The USA has already tried pressuring Iran with sanctions: it failed last time and it will fail now. A "boots on the ground" military action is a non-starter. It can try bombing it into the stone age for... I have no idea what, except the satisfaction of Israel and the Saudis.

I think it should engage constructively with Iran. Iran is partly troublesome partly out of ambition, but partly out of insecurity that an Arab alliance, plus backing from the USA, is a threat to it (Iraq-Iran war and all) - plus of course the concern over Israeli nukes. At some point, I suspect what Iran wants is in large part guarantees of its own security. If it gets them, it will be less inclined invest so heavily in its own, both in terms of weaponry and funding violence across the Middle East and in the long run tensions might just drain away anyway. There's a big fog of distrust to grope through, but I don't see why it's not possible.

In theory tensions could be relieved. The horrendous proxy conflict in Yemen could be settled. Support for Hezbollah in Lebanon could be withdrawn. The ayatollahs could cease support of the Syrian puppet regime. But even when the U.S. is fully cooperative with the nuclear treaty it still wouldn't happen because of that perpetual Sunni vs Shia schism. Similarly as the hatred between the Arabs and 'the zionists'. That is the rotten foundation on which any agreement is build. So any success should always have modest expectations. That Obama managed to broker a deal about Iran's nuclear program that dramatically slowed down it's production of enriched uranium was a major accomplishment in itself. He had some of the best negotiators. Getting back to that point alone will take many, many years.

 

[Agema]

In theory tensions could be relieved. The horrendous proxy conflict in Yemen could be settled. Support for Hezbollah in Lebanon could be withdrawn. The ayatollahs could cease support of the Syrian puppet regime. But even when the U.S. is fully cooperative with the nuclear treaty it still wouldn't happen because of that perpetual Sunni vs Shia schism. Similarly as the hatred between the Arabs and 'the zionists'. That is the rotten foundation on which any agreement is build. So any success should always have modest expectations. That Obama managed to broker a deal about Iran's nuclear program that dramatically slowed down it's production of enriched uranium was a major accomplishment in itself. He had some of the best negotiators. Getting back to that point alone will take many, many years.

I think the basic idea would be some arranging some "rules".

Give everyone a framework to operate in where the can deal with each other and compete in various ways, but within strict limits that keep violence and more destabilising activities to a minimum. So for instance Iran can still fund Hezbollah up the wazoo if it wants, but it doesn't give Hezbollah arms, and makes its support for Hezbollah contingent on no terrorist attacks or firing rockets at Israel, etc. Israel stops jetting Mossad around the Middle East to murder people. And so on. Of course this also means the international community needs to act as a sort of "guarantor", who are expected to take action against breaches. Their involvement also must have agreed limits. For instance, a maximum of US military presence that Iran agrees to, a limit on military aid to any Middle Eastern states parties from external powers, etc.

In return, everyone gets the benefits of a bit more peace, stability and mutually beneficial trade. And hopefully, maybe, they'll gradually find less reason to kill each other.

I agree there are some major faultlines in the region. However, I think we can be optimistic: to take Israel as an example, several of its one time bitter enemies (e.g. Egypt) have already effectively accepted it. They might not like or trust each other much, they might grumble and mildly obstruct and say mean things, but they agree to get along. It is proof it can be done: there is no reason the same cannot be accomplished with Iran.

 

[dreng3]

In theory tensions could be relieved. The horrendous proxy conflict in Yemen could be settled. Support for Hezbollah in Lebanon could be withdrawn. The ayatollahs could cease support of the Syrian puppet regime. But even when the U.S. is fully cooperative with the nuclear treaty it still wouldn't happen because of that perpetual Sunni vs Shia schism. Similarly as the hatred between the Arabs and 'the zionists'. That is the rotten foundation on which any agreement is build. So any success should always have modest expectations. That Obama managed to broker a deal about Iran's nuclear program that dramatically slowed down it's production of enriched uranium was a major accomplishment in itself. He had some of the best negotiators. Getting back to that point alone will take many, many years.

I think that if there are to be any chance of relieving tensions the US would have to take the first step, either by easing sanctions or by providing some very explicit guarantees backed by other UN members. Amongst many nations in the middle east there is, for good reason, a distrust of the US, and I think the Trump presidency is only exacerbating the issue. While the foreign policy of the US was always subject to change every four to eight years it never changed as radically as it did within the last four.
By now everyone looking to enter a treaty with the US should insist on payment up front, because if it takes more than two years there is a serious risk that congress, senate, or president might change which can render any agreement moot.

 

[Satinavian]

That Obama managed to broker a deal about Iran's nuclear program that dramatically slowed down it's production of enriched uranium was a major accomplishment in itself. He had some of the best negotiators. Getting back to that point alone will take many, many years.

It could be pretty easy. The US just has to admit that it was a mistake to withdraw from the treaty and put a hold on all the santions. Pretty much everyone else is willing to renew the treaty and the Iran could sell it internally as diplomatic victory.

Of course Trump would never do that. So if he gets reelected, there won't be better relations with Iran for at least four more years.

 

[stroopwafel]

I agree there are some major faultlines in the region. However, I think we can be optimistic: to take Israel as an example, several of its one time bitter enemies (e.g. Egypt) have already effectively accepted it. They might not like or trust each other much, they might grumble and mildly obstruct and say mean things, but they agree to get along. It is proof it can be done: there is no reason the same cannot be accomplished with Iran.

Indeed but that peace deal was agreed upon between Begin, Sadat and Carter. The stars really aligned with that one. I don't see that happening again anytime soon.

 

[stroopwafel]

It could be pretty easy. The US just has to admit that it was a mistake to withdraw from the treaty and put a hold on all the santions. Pretty much everyone else is willing to renew the treaty and the Iran could sell it internally as diplomatic victory.

Of course Trump would never do that. So if he gets reelected, there won't be better relations with Iran for at least four more years.

Yeah, that's really not how it works in international relations. It would be such a humiliation that any demands would be incredulous. The deal would be a dead letter which is arguably even worse than no deal. Not to mention the nascent effects of the U.S. having lost all credibility in the region.

 

[Satinavian]

The US already lost all credibility in this region.

And it won't get a better treaty than the old one. Accepting that would mean that breaking the old treaty was the right thing to do. That is nothing any other signatory can give the US. Reinstating the old one is the best the US might ever get.

Furthermore, the deal would still hold. Because Iran still has little incentive to violate it (they don't plan around nuclear weopons) and much to gain (economic-wise).

 

[Agema]

Yeah, that's really not how it works in international relations. It would be such a humiliation that any demands would be incredulous. The deal would be a dead letter which is arguably even worse than no deal. Not to mention the nascent effects of the U.S. having lost all credibility in the region.

The US already lost all credibility in this region.

It's got at least some: brute economic and military force is a sort of credibility in and of itself.

I think a new president could go back and reinstate their involvement in the treaty, upon the reasoning that Trump was an aberration.

Trump has certainly dealt the USA considerable, lastng credibility damage, though. The problem of precipitously withdrawing from treaties like that is that it severely degrades trust in a country to keep its word. The key is going to be whether a country can be assured that Trump really was an aberration: they'll have to worry that it'll be a Trumpist or Trump-a-like such as Pompeo or Cotton in '25 or '29 who wants another reversion.