The end of the deal, hopes, delusions and treasons

[BlessedKingOfLonging]

What makes you think US foreign policy is strictly about US economic interests? Sanctions on 400+ million people does not help us economically. We would be far better off doing business with all the countries we are sanctioning. But we are ruled by a zio military indurstrial complex. The interests of the zios and the weapons makers rule.

If your economic interests are not tied to sanctions relief why are you trying to make a deal after being stabbed in the back? Even after sabotages and assassinations you still want to make a deal, with no demands for restitution for crimes against you. Why not just go about your business not caring how many sanctions are put on you? Why did you waste 2 years naively hoping that the EU would defy Washington unilaterally pulling out of the JCPOA, only realizing later that you have been played and the sanctions were being clamped back on? Even Russia put sanctions back on you. I think you have done better than most countries would under similar circumstances, but from your leadership it looks like you still want a deal for sanctions relief. Which will do you no good in the end.

Hard agree on all points.

 

[aryobarzan]

Wow don't be "Mola Loghtai" 500 or 1M the point is the will to respond which lacked under Rohani administration and FYI that 500 was just a respond to passing resuscitation in IAEA no other issue ... if such a response or a chain of them was done back in 8 may 2018 Trump would have thought it twice to reimpose sanctions as American 11 deadlines got them nowhere since new talks started.
It could be defined under "Negotiation Nibbling":

​

The most common tactic used on salespeople in negotiation is called “nibbling”. The same way a mouse might nibble at a piece of cheese with small bites until it’s completely gone, 'nibbling' is asking for small items, one at a time, and getting agreement on each until you’ve gotten a lot. No matter what you sell, or who you sell to – it’s in your world. ?? Because each request is small, it’s very easy for you to give in.​

Iran managed to decrease one year breakout to 3 weeks for 3 bombs by this tactic, made a new salon in Natanz under mountain and increase enrichment to 60%.

By your plan all EU, Russia and China would stand next to the US and support it as they would have excuse to blame Iran. On the other hand if Installing enough centrifuges to have 190K SWU or rebuilding IR-40 was the key to economical growth then NK nukes should have made it 1st economy in the Asia and made the US to remove its sanctions which we know didn't happen.
What I know is except in basic and fundamental issues, the quality of social life of individuals and the foreign relations of governments are based on the two concepts of right and expediency. Diplomacy is a bridge that is built for optimal and practical connection between these two concepts so governments do not fall into the valley of war. Based on this, a diplomatic negotiation reaches a desired result when the so-called negotiation succeeds in creating a logical combination between these two aforementioned concepts. Considering each of these two concepts as absolute causes loss or deadlock in diplomatic negotiations. the JCPoA itself had serious flaws be it SDN list, U-turn, 90 days period of Waivers, lack of guarantee and most importantly dealing over what pushed American to negotiations as the deal's guarantee so once it was dealt with, no reason left for the other side to stay in it.
IR has been trying to address some of these flaws while I neither am on negotiation team nor know what they done except what has leaked.

Some other over here just wanna have bomb with no clear plan for economy for the next 2 decades .. Mao once said "Power comes from the barrel of a gun" which later realized it comes out of growth rate.
از سال 96 تا حال حجم اقتصاد نصب شده

So you gotta percent me with your so called plan for economy for the next 2 decades with or without JCPoA or any other vision than you have then I could tell my views .. bashing around or calling them delusional is not the way to debate. All people are looking at the issue by their own views of future that may not be in the line of yours so first ask them their views then tell yours.

As I said before on bomb:

"...How long is it gonna take to have 100 nukes and a decent delivery system like an ICBM next to it ? I mean the idea of having nuke is tempting but the process, time and investment that it needs is huge ,,, making a bomb is something and its proliferation is whole another story.​

And do you really think others would stand idle looking at you to fill this gap and built up your arsenal?​

Practically we've paid the price and for sure American would not remove the sanction but as I said before the sanctions are economical and making a bomb which is military in response doesn't make sense at all ... our nuke is 100k Hezbollah accurate missiles ... to have real deterrence build up Iran economy , talk to the people, connect our economy with BRICS and have direct financial ties with all countries , remove Yarane and pay it directly to people, structural changes in the banking system ...."​

I just quoted what they said and then added:

"However I dunno how on earth they are so sure about Biden ... besides there is no talk about U-turn ..."​

All the points you raised about having good economy rather than a bomb are valid if US was a good faith negotiator...They were not in 2015 and they will not be in 2022..

The failure of Iran receiving economic benefits this time around will be on the door step of Supreme Leader alone...

 

[raptor22]

All the points you raised about having good economy rather than a bomb are valid if US was a good faith negotiator...They were not in 2015 and they will not be in 2022..

The failure of Iran receiving economic benefits this time around will be on the door step of Supreme Leader alone...

I neither said having a bomb is good nor bad what I asked was the plan after getting the so-called bomb and how long does it take to make a decent arsenal that could repel American arsenal for instance? are we able to finance it? and how it would help us to have a better growth? it's been 2 decades that Iran's time, energy and money has gone for this technology either IR wanna have bomb or not whatever is its decision conclude it and get it done at least it's better than this cat and mouse game. our FM instead of finding new markets has been merely negotiating over security matters day and night . I really have no clue what would be IR plans for the next year or next 5 years or next 4 decades but by this rate of growth we may never be able to be what we were 5 years ago let alone to catch and pass others which itself is a security problem worse than anything else.
No matter what you sign as deal good or bad be handed to you in golden plate it's up to you what to do with it ... JCPoA in its worse conditions could have provided us with some sort of time to build bridge with others and we missed it .. IR signed it and instead of going after national interests all started to fight over the deal itself rather than its positive parts and nation's interests ... some glorified it some shit it ... The point has never been that American would implement the deal in good faith or not .. the world ain't a holy shrine with good boys its a jungle there is no guarantee .. base on "Raison d'État" or "مصلحت ملی" :

Raison d'état (much less frequently in the English reason of state) dates from arguments in international law at the time of the formation of the modern states‐system in the seventeenth century. It means that there may be reasons for acting (normally in foreign policy, less usually in domestic policy) which simply override all other considerations of a legal or moral kind. Raison d'état is thus a term which fits easily into the language of political realism and realpolitik. As those doctrines have declined in acceptability the term raison d'état declined with them.​

All countries would go after their own interests as we went after nuke under AMAD despite being a signatory of NPT .... So the point is you have to make them to respect your interests no one would give it to you in a deal easily and the fact that 80% of our economical problems are internal which tempted and helped the American to put more sanctions on us.

The Q is how bomb could solve our problems and again I don't see any plan.

 

[aryobarzan]

I neither said having a bomb is good nor bad what I asked was the plan after getting the so-called bomb and how long does it take to make a decent arsenal that could repel American arsenal for instance? are we able to finance it? and how it would help us to have a better growth? it's been 2 decades that Iran's time, energy and money has gone for this technology either IR wanna have bomb or not whatever is its decision conclude it and get it done at least it's better than this cat and mouse game. our FM instead of finding new markets has been merely negotiating over security matters day and night . I really have no clue what would be IR plans for the next year or next 5 years or next 4 decades but by this rate of growth we may never be able to be what we were 5 years ago let alone to catch and pass others which itself is a security problem worse than anything else.
No matter what you sign as deal good or bad be handed to you in golden plate it's up to you what to do with it ... JCPoA in its worse conditions could have provided us with some sort of time to build bridge with others and we missed it .. IR signed it and instead of going after national interests all started to fight over the deal itself rather than its positive parts and nation's interests ... some glorified it some shit it ... The point has never been that American would implement the deal in good faith or not .. the world ain't a holy shrine with good boys its a jungle there is no guarantee .. base on "Raison d'État" or "مصلحت ملی" :

Raison d'état (much less frequently in the English reason of state) dates from arguments in international law at the time of the formation of the modern states‐system in the seventeenth century. It means that there may be reasons for acting (normally in foreign policy, less usually in domestic policy) which simply override all other considerations of a legal or moral kind. Raison d'état is thus a term which fits easily into the language of political realism and realpolitik. As those doctrines have declined in acceptability the term raison d'état declined with them.​

All countries would go after their own interests as we went after nuke under AMAD despite being a signatory of NPT .... So the point is you have to make them to respect your interests no one would give it to you in a deal easily and the fact that 80% of our economical problems are internal which tempted and helped the American to put more sanctions on us.

The Q is how bomb could solve our problems and again I don't see any plan.

My point...Country spent the $$ and suffered the hardships.. it is time to harvest the fruit..and the fruit is the bomb...right or wrong that is what the leadership did 42 years ago.

Enough talking and negotiating...bite the bullet go your own way..Full economic and security independence.. as you said 80% of economics issues are internal..solve that instead of talking and talking.

 

[raptor22]

My point...Country spent the $$ and suffered the hardships.. it is time to harvest the fruit..and the fruit is the bomb...right or wrong that is what the leadership did 42 years ago.

Enough talking and negotiating...bite the bullet go your own way..Full economic and security independence.. as you said 80% of economics issues are internal..solve that instead of talking and talking.

I reminded of this on Brexit:

Could u please explain what would happen after getting the so-called bomb? economically ? national security? you spent money to develop a technology which has been achieved beside you have the capability to make a bomb ... which I think is the fruit .. from now on things would be harder ,, with what money you tend to build your own arsenal?how long?

Enough talking and negotiating? you wanna isolate Iran? for what purpose? negotiations could serve your interests as much as your missiles if you'd be able to cash them.

Bite the bullet go your own way? as if we live in a void ... then other would go after own ways too.

There is no full economic and security independence .. no such a thing exist you don't have "water" need to import things like wheat which means no independence.
80% internal problems would be addressed when you could damp or at least control its inflationary consequences which for sure would not happen under current sanctions regime like what happened recently by wheat. And I am glad to see them get vanished but you gotta ask IR about its hesitation ...

All these argues just take place for one reason no one knows what is the plan for the future, what we've planed to be in 2 decades .... clarify it and join forces to go after it,

 

[Stryker1982]

I reminded of this on Brexit:

Could u please explain what would happen after getting the so-called bomb? economically ? national security? you spent money to develop a technology which has been achieved beside you have the capability to make a bomb ... which I think is the fruit .. from now on things would be harder ,, with what money you tend to build your own arsenal?how long?

Enough talking and negotiating? you wanna isolate Iran? for what purpose? negotiations could serve your interests as much as your missiles if you'd be able to cash them.

Bite the bullet go your own way? as if we live in a void ... then other would go after own ways too.

There is no full economic and security independence .. no such a thing exist you don't have "water" need to import things like wheat which means no independence.
80% internal problems would be addressed when you could damp or at least control its inflationary consequences which for sure would not happen under current sanctions regime like what happened recently by wheat. And I am glad to see them get vanished but you gotta ask IR about its hesitation ...

All these argues just take place for one reason no one knows what is the plan for the future, what we've planed to be in 2 decades .... clarify it and join forces to go after it,

Negotiations can yield very good results if their can be some guarentees that it will be long lasting, and as long research and development can continue and the deal actually works fianancially.

It really comes down to what is negotiated.

Keeping research and development wide open.
Keeping IR-6s in storage but not destroyed.
Centrifuge research continues
No blocking of nuclear energy projects.
Keeping enriched uranium in storage inside Iran.

As long as IR-1's are installed in Fordow and Natanz, and enriched uranium can be monitored by the IAEA, then for them, their is no threat of Iran with nuclear weapons for a while. Surveillance by IAEA for all these things are fine.

Iran get's financial relief, and international trade, it would be quite worth it to make a deal. . If they fail to continue the deal, then Iran can punish them deeply by snapping back it's IR-6s and still keeping it's enriched uranium inside Iran. As for tearing up this deal though, I think it would be very hard for the next US administration to do so under this threat. It put's Iran in a good position where it can react to it well.

In the last deal, which was poorly negotiated due to Iran's bad position, we shipped all our uranium to Russia, never to be seen again, and destroy Arak, among other things. I think they will negotiate a more advantageous deal this time, where they can make it hard to tear up the deal due to the costs, which are far higher today than they were in 2016 for the US. Of course, the US has to guarantee that Iran can free trade with the rest of the world.

 

[Stryker1982]

I neither said having a bomb is good nor bad what I asked was the plan after getting the so-called bomb and how long does it take to make a decent arsenal that could repel American arsenal for instance? are we able to finance it? and how it would help us to have a better growth? it's been 2 decades that Iran's time, energy and money has gone for this technology either IR wanna have bomb or not whatever is its decision conclude it and get it done at least it's better than this cat and mouse game. our FM instead of finding new markets has been merely negotiating over security matters day and night . I really have no clue what would be IR plans for the next year or next 5 years or next 4 decades but by this rate of growth we may never be able to be what we were 5 years ago let alone to catch and pass others which itself is a security problem worse than anything else.
No matter what you sign as deal good or bad be handed to you in golden plate it's up to you what to do with it ... JCPoA in its worse conditions could have provided us with some sort of time to build bridge with others and we missed it .. IR signed it and instead of going after national interests all started to fight over the deal itself rather than its positive parts and nation's interests ... some glorified it some shit it ... The point has never been that American would implement the deal in good faith or not .. the world ain't a holy shrine with good boys its a jungle there is no guarantee .. base on "Raison d'État" or "مصلحت ملی" :

Raison d'état (much less frequently in the English reason of state) dates from arguments in international law at the time of the formation of the modern states‐system in the seventeenth century. It means that there may be reasons for acting (normally in foreign policy, less usually in domestic policy) which simply override all other considerations of a legal or moral kind. Raison d'état is thus a term which fits easily into the language of political realism and realpolitik. As those doctrines have declined in acceptability the term raison d'état declined with them.​

All countries would go after their own interests as we went after nuke under AMAD despite being a signatory of NPT .... So the point is you have to make them to respect your interests no one would give it to you in a deal easily and the fact that 80% of our economical problems are internal which tempted and helped the American to put more sanctions on us.

The Q is how bomb could solve our problems and again I don't see any plan.

The main problem with the bomb idea is likely the full Isolation of Iran. I do not think China or Russia wants Iran with nuclear weapons and might be angry if it does make them. This would be the killing blow to the economy. Iran needs a way that it can trade with the rest of the world and in 10-20 years time, build an arsenal if they want to. But that may not be possible.

So the alternative is to keep this capability in the freezer, and if needed (in the event of a war with any nation), rapidly take your 60% uranium under surveillance, and build 1 or 2 bombs within 1 month time, depending on how advanced Iran's warhead research has become. This should be the main goal. A latent nuclear weapons nation is being 1 year from making a warhead, Iran needs 1 month capability. The fortunate thing about Iran's intelligent move is that it had continued nuclear research during the sanctions (to create bargaining chips) and will likely continue more research. This will make production and construction very faster.

I will be completely satisfied without any nuclear warhead as Iran technically doesn't need an arsenal. The value of a growing economy and wealth generation is more important than nuclear warheads, but the threat for the west about Iran's extensive knowledge in this sector has to remain for them to respect this deal at all. Destroying all your capability, means highly likelihood of attack! In other words, Iran needs to maintain the capability to build a nuclear warhead rapidly in case of attack. Continuing more research imposes higher costs of withdrawing from a deal as well. In which case I will be happy with this state of affairs. If they tear up this deal again, then the whole world will blame the US, and more importantly, the Russian or Chinese will no longer cooperate for an JCPOA.

This Russia war, has been a god-send for Iran. Part of the deal I believe may require Iran to fulfill oil shipments to the EU, also making it harder to withdraw for the next US admin. If this deal similar to these demands and ideas is signed, this could be a new era for Iran's future with the rest of the world. Russia will be furious at this state of affairs.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1561240023478968320

 

[SalarHaqq]

What makes you think US foreign policy is strictly about US economic interests? Sanctions on 400+ million people does not help us economically. We would be far better off doing business with all the countries we are sanctioning. But we are ruled by a zio military indurstrial complex. The interests of the zios and the weapons makers rule.

I was referring to those private interests, not to the well being of the American people. I'm aware that US policy is in pursuit of the former rather than the latter.

If your economic interests are not tied to sanctions relief why are you trying to make a deal after being stabbed in the back? Even after sabotages and assassinations you still want to make a deal, with no demands for restitution for crimes against you. Why not just go about your business not caring how many sanctions are put on you? Why did you waste 2 years naively hoping that the EU would defy Washington unilaterally pulling out of the JCPOA, only realizing later that you have been played and the sanctions were being clamped back on? Even Russia put sanctions back on you. I think you have done better than most countries would under similar circumstances, but from your leadership it looks like you still want a deal for sanctions relief. Which will do you no good in the end.

A factor you left out is that there are two main political factions in Iran with diametrically opposed agendas: the revolutionary one, which is loyal to the anti-imperialist principles of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, and a liberal camp which surfaced in the 1990's (composed of two distinct elements - reformists as well as moderates), and intends to do away with this revolutionary legacy and to reinstate the geopolitical conditions which prevailed under the ousted monarchy, in other words to subject Iran to western and zionist imperialism once again.

There was and is no naivety about the nuclear deal on the part of the revolutionaries, which include the Supreme Leader himself. Imam Khamenei is on the record for stating right at the beginning of the initial JCPOA negotiations under Rohani, that he has no faith in the US regime and suggested he expects the Americans to violate any deal reached. Since the moderate Rohani administration was enjoying a popular mandate, the Leadership had to allow them to negotiate. However, the system is well enough designed to place inherent limits on how far the liberals can go.

Also revolutionaries and liberals have fundamentally different takes on the JCPOA: liberals consider it as a springboard towards JCPOA's II and III meant to neutralize Iran's missile program and regional presence (i.e. ending Iran's support for Hezbollah, Palestinian Resistance etc) and thereby make the Islamic Republic capitulate to the west; revolutionaries on the contrary consider nuclear negotiations as a means for a temporary boost in hard currency revenues which they intend to use in such a way as to strengthen Iran's economic self-sufficiency even more (whereas the liberals do not believe in domestic industries and seek to make Iran economically dependent on the west after resumption of full fledged ties with the latter).

You need to take this factor into account. But as long the revolutionary core of the Islamic Republic remains in control with a Supreme Leader aligned on the founding ideology of the Revolution, liberals will fail in their attempt to hijack the system from within and change its very nature.

 

[Ich]

https://www.rt.com/news/561196-iran-demand-nuclear-deal-us-guard-corps/

 

[Daylamite Warrior]

https://www.rt.com/news/561196-iran-demand-nuclear-deal-us-guard-corps/

It's okay, that means their CENTCOM will be seen as a terrorist entity as well and IRGC members wont be able to go to Disneyland. Not a big deal because if the yanks act upon it then concussion and oil fields burning will become a reality. Everyone knows this. So it's just a silly childish label as far as both countries are concerned.

 

[mohsen]

https://www.rt.com/news/561196-iran-demand-nuclear-deal-us-guard-corps/

Well, while had the FTO label, IRGC commanders went to Qatar exhibition, right in the face of Americans (drank tea, nibbled dates...) and made their deals, now civil companies will be excluded too. I don't know if bunch of morons are running US policies or they really enjoy of their laws being mocked!

 

[mohsen]

Dr Marandi, (advisor to the negotiations team):
I've said for MONTHS, removing the Guards from the FTO is not a precondition. No deal will be implemented before the IAEA Board of Directors PERMANENTLY closes the false accusations file. Iran's nuclear program will not be dismantled.


Mohammad Jamshidi (director of the president's office for political affairs):
1. Delisting the IRGC from the FTO (but remaining under the sanctions) was an American offer to the former Iranian administration to incentivize Iran to accept Regional & Missile negotiations. The US firmly believed that without it there will be no return to the agreement. The Raisi team rejected it.

2. US then said, removal from FTO in return for forgetting those responsible for the terror attack on General Soleimani. Iran said NO. They then offered 3 alternatives for the security of their personnel. Iran rejected them and the US backed off. So who is Dropping their Demands?


---

https://twitter.com/x/status/1562024390140854274

https://twitter.com/x/status/1562049667059310592

 

[Daylamite Warrior]

Dr Marandi, (advisor to the negotiations team):
I've said for MONTHS, removing the Guards from the FTO is not a precondition. No deal will be implemented before the IAEA Board of Directors PERMANENTLY closes the false accusations file. Iran's nuclear program will not be dismantled.


Mohammad Jamshidi (director of the president's office for political affairs):
1. Delisting the IRGC from the FTO (but remaining under the sanctions) was an American offer to the former Iranian administration to incentivize Iran to accept Regional & Missile negotiations. The US firmly believed that without it there will be no return to the agreement. The Raisi team rejected it.

2. US then said, removal from FTO in return for forgetting those responsible for the terror attack on General Soleimani. Iran said NO. They then offered 3 alternatives for the security of their personnel. Iran rejected them and the US backed off. So who is Dropping their Demands?


---

https://twitter.com/x/status/1562024390140854274

https://twitter.com/x/status/1562049667059310592

Yep I'd rather IRGC be labelled a "sT8 spunsur Ov Terur" than have our only influence and power taken away from us. Smart move by Raisi if true!

 

[Abid123]

Prepare to receive 10x the amount of tactical nukes in return.

Nuclear war (even tactical) with an adversary that has thousands upon thousands of nukes, is not a wise military decision.

And there is also this:

Full-Scale Nuclear War Could Kill 5 Billion People, Study Shows

(Bloomberg) -- Five billion people would die in a modern nuclear war with the impact of a global famine -- triggered by sunlight-blocking soot in the atmosphere -- likely to far exceed the casualties caused by lethal blasts.Most Read from BloombergSaudi Billionaire Made $500 Million Russia Bet...

www.yahoo.com

Reason why nukes are mostly obsolete outside of desperate last stand to hold your territorial integrity in the face of overwhelming defeat.

So you are gonna live in fear like that? Putin has said that Russia is going to use tactical nukes in a war against Nato.

Forget Russia, even North Korea is most likely going to use tactical nukes against US bases in South Korea and Japan in the early phases of war.

The only US enemy that does not need to use tactical nukes is China.

 

[BlessedKingOfLonging]

Forget Russia, even North Korea is most likely going to use tactical nukes against US bases in South Korea and Japan in the early phases of war.

No, they're developing hypersonic ballistic missiles and supersonic cruise missiles for that to evade interception.