Today the third round of the current negotiations between the U.S. and Iran is taking place in Geneva. After three hours the talks were paused to allow the negotiators to communicate with their governments. They are supposed to continue later today.
Iran continues to offer reductions in its nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of sanctions. Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei insists on tangible outcomes:
“Today’s discussions were very serious, and we hope that in the talks taking place tonight, we will see a continuation of the dialogue on the lifting of sanctions and nuclear issues—this time in a more operational manner, with practical proposals and executable initiatives,” Baghaei said.
Baghaei insisting on those is a sign that the conditions the U.S. delegation has offered were vague and lacking specifics.
Before today’s round started the Wall Street Journal published a list (archived) of ‘tough’ demands the U.S. is making to Iran. These are:
- dismantling its three main nuclear sites—at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan
- delivering all of its remaining enriched uranium to the U.S.
- accepting permanent restrictions with no sunset clauses
- zero enrichment, with potential allowance of low enrichment for medical purposes
In exchange for that the U.S. would offer … nothing tangible:
The U.S. is offering only minimal sanctions relief to Iran as part of a deal, … The U.S. wants to see Iran comply with the terms for an extended period and, if judged to be sticking to the agreement, it could in time ask for more sanctions relief and other benefits, the officials said.
Why does the U.S. believe that Iran might be willing to give up all for nothing?
If the demands the WSJ published are real the negotiations will go nowhere as these are in breach of several of Iran’s red lines.
The Trump administration will thus miss another potential off-ramp from its self-defeating threat of bombing Iran.
In consequence the Zionist lobby will increase the pressure on President Trump to regime change the Islamic Republic.
But the Trump administration has no public support for such an endeavor. To make the ‘politics’ around a strike look better it is pushing Israel to fire the first salvo in a new war:
As the administration mulls military action in Iran, officials argue it’d be best if Israel makes the first move.
“There’s thinking in and around the administration that the politics are a lot better if the Israelis go first and alone and the Iranians retaliate against us, and give us more reason to take action,” said one of the people familiar with discussions.
Iran has promised to respond to any strike, be it by the U.S. or Israel, with severe retaliation strikes against both. Israel will not attack Iran without U.S. support or knowledge nor would the U.S. strike without warning Israel to get ready for a response.
It is thus doubtful that the question of who did the first strike on Iran, Israel or the U.S., would change the public perception of a new conflict.