SalarHaqq
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2019
- Messages
- 4,569
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
As if we didn't witness how much blindness it takes to assume Washington intends to respect any of those clauses in good faith.
Not just under Trump, Obama himself started slapping additional sanctions on Iran in violation of the JCPOA. Simultaneously, agents of the USA regime were actively threatening third parties, in particular their EU vassals, to refrain from trading with or investing in Iran or else.
You talk of increasing leverage through continued 60% enrichment after the USA left the nuclear deal, yet it wasn't the Rohani administration you're trying to exonerate which proceeded with such. Instead, Rohani went on about the supposed necessity to keep negotiating, calling it "the revolutionary thing to do" in a speech before students. Likewise Mar'ashi, leading figure of the technocratic-liberal Kargozaran party just weeks ago declared that Iran should have negotiated with Trump!
In addition to the fact that 60% enrichment and already accumulated stockpiles do provide ample leverage in and onto themselves, Iran is now in possession of far greater leverage than she used to when the JCPOA was implemented.
More fundamentally though, the major issue lies not in the amount of leverage but in the flawed belief of the likes of Rohani that the starting point and precondition to any fruitful endeavor is a comprehensive agreement with the west. A mindset clearly not subscribed to by the present administration. Hence their ad hoc approach to negotiation topics coupled with their adamant refusal to return to the JCPOA unless Washington offers tangible guarantees.
This sheds doubt on the very concept of leverage in this context and begs the question, what exactly would Iran need it for? A "grand bargain" with western regimes, which contrary to the liberal narrative is neither feasible nor desirable? The Rai'si administration's move towards deepening of ties with alternate emerging powers is the only way to go.
That doesn't justify nor explain the Rohani cabinet's mind-boggling preparedness to content itself with the strictest envisageable minimum in the negotiations.
The JCPOA was not beneficial to Iran given that she reaped next to nothing from it while conceding a whole lot.
Because Rohani enjoyed a popular mandate which the Supreme Leader did not wish to ignore.
Inform yourself about the theological tenets of Shia Islam: infallibility is a property exclusive to the Fourteen Ma'sumin.
This said, the term hero definitely describes seyyed Khamenei (h.A.) far better than the liberals. If it wasn't for seyyed Khamenei (h.A.) and Sepah, JCPOA's II and III would have been imposed on Iran by now and there would have been very little left of Iran's regional and military prowess you take pride in on a daily basis.
Simply put, the USA regime knows perfectly well that under the present Iranian administration it stands no chance of extracting through negotiations, the sort of concessions it ultimately seeks from Iran, whereas liberals in charge would offer Washington those same concessions on a silver platter. Dwelling in denial about this is absurd.
Equally absurd is the twin contention that acquiescing to <5% enrichment is somehow an achievement but 60% enrichment is capitulation.
It's all over the liberal press and recurrent in statements from liberal politicians. One example among countless others being Rohani's 2016 Noruz address during which he expressed hope of concluding JCPOA's II and III soon after.
You claimed they were aiming for a more unfavorable version of the JCPOA. This of course is entirely counter-factual since Ra'isi's negotiating team is on the record for insisting upon additional implementation guarantees from the USA, without offering the slightest thing in return. A fantastic display of principled steadfastness at the service of both the national interest and haqq.
Moreover, it should have been clear as day to any seasoned observer that the Biden regime would naturally reject such conditions. In other terms the Ra'isi administration conducted talks for a hypothetical revival of the JCPOA in such a way as to guarantee their failure beforehand. Knowingly so, in all probability.
Protests were insignificant so they wouldn't likely have such an impact. As far as the violent riots are concerned, they were actively encouraged by the USA regime's propaganda, psy-ops and intelligence apparatus with the aim of bringing Iran to her knees. It failed miserably, given the resoluteness of the Leadership, of the revolutionary people of Iran and of the current administration, which cannot be blackmailed through such means.
Liberals however are known to instrumentalize such events like these in order to push through their defeatist foreign policy. Historically, the so-called "Green movement" fitna of 2009 was capitalized upon by Rafsanjani and his protégés to pressure the system into moving towards what would then result in the JCPOA.
Iran is enriching at 60% as we speak, a right liberals were more than glad to negotiate away with no intention of reversal after Trump tore the JCPOA.
And again your comment obfuscating the essence of USA policy towards Iran. Iran simply reducing the pace of her 60% enrichment - which remains to be proven by the way (enough lies about the prisoner exchange were debunked so far), is nothing to write home about from Washington's perspective. What they're obviously after is neutralization of Iran's nuclear break out capability, which the JCPOA provided them to a large extent but which Iran's current enrichment policy (complete with the building of new underground facilities) obviously does not. In other terms the USA today are much further away from their goal than during the Rohani years.
Furthermore Washington always considered the JCPOA as a springboard toward follow-on deals whereby the Islamic Republic's network of regional alliances as well as her missile power would be dismantled. The idea was to stop short from implementing their JCPOA engagements while having Iran implement hers, and then keep formulating demand upon demand all the while of dangling the fallacious prospect of sanctions relief, up until the point where Iran would be deprived of the bulk of her deterrence assets. As opposed to principlists and revolutionaries, liberals were and are enthusiastic about playing along.
As a matter of fact reformists / moderates are advocating such deals all the time, and through the JCPOA they were about to entrap Iran into a mechanism which would inevitably have led to this very outcome, had they had way. Thankfully though the Ra'isi administration understands NATO objectives and contrary to reformists and moderates it harbors no nostalgia for Iran's pre-revolutionary state of neo-colonial submission, which is why it will never adhere to such a dangerous mechanism in the first place. The JCPOA was conceived of as a comprehensive process to be expanded upon in other areas step by step. The recent prisoner exchange isn't. It's literally like night and day, something no informed and honest person can possibly deny.
Last edited:
