We said before the indirect negotiations between Iran and the US in Oman last Saturday that an agreement was unlikely. Statements by Trump’s chief negotiator Steve Witkoff as well as a planted story leak about a Trump situation room meeting before the second round this week confirm our assessment.
If you have been following this story, there was a brief moment we thought was too good to be true and turned out to be. The earlier hope, stirred by positive noises from both Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and US envoy Steve Witkoff right after the first session, has been dashed. Witkoff had made a moderate statement about what the US wanted to happen on Fox News, presumably consistent with what he had told Araghchi. Although it was very general, it sounded as if the US was prepared to accept an agreement similar to the JCPOA that Trump had exited, with some face-saving measures, like more stringent inspections and a new end date for the snapback provisions, which now expire on October 18.1 Once the snapback is gone, Iran is not exposed to UN sanctions for non-compliance.
Trump had taken a very hard line and consistent position about Iran, which had been formalized in a memo on February 2. The Trump demands extended beyond assuring that Iran steer clear of nuclear weapons development, as it has so far, to also curb its ballistic missile program and stop backing groups the US deemed to be terrorists. Statements by Trump and other US officials about what Iran had to do to placate the US were deemed by many US experts to be tantamount to asking Iran to surrender its sovereignity. As we wrote:
There are already reasons to think the US will continue to make demands that amount to Iran giving up not just its military and civilian nuclear programs, but also its missiles and its alliances with the so-called Axis of Resistance, which is tantamount to rendering itself defenseless. Alastair Crooke and Douglas Macgregor, among others, deemed this to be clearly unacceptable.
Macgregor, in a Judge Napolitano talk mentioned in the segment above, ventured that these provision were designed to be unacceptable and rejected, just as Austria-Hungary’s ultimatum to Serbia after the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was overreaching by design, and meant, as it did, to serve as a pretext for going to war.
Hence the surprise of Trump wanting to start his insistently mis-represented “direct” negotiations.
Keep in mind that the memo authorized what it called a maximum pressure campaign, as in even more stringent economic sanctions. As we outlined in our earlier piece, it is possible that rather than backing an Israel attack on Iran, the US instead will use the snapback provisions in the JCPOA, which would need to be triggered by sometime in June so as to complete the process before they expire on October 18. Even though the US is no longer a party to the JCPOA, as a Security Council member, it can veto any favorable findings out of the snapback process (that Iran indeed, as the US intel agencies all agreed with a high degree of confidence in its last assessment, is not developing a nuclear weapon). The result would be to re-institute the very stringent sanctions on Iran before the JCPOA.
However, some commentators, such as Larry Johnson, argue that the bluster about Iran’s nuclear enrichment program is a pretext, just like WMD in Iraq. Trump badly needs a win. The Iran hawks, and Trump is surrounded with them, believe that Iran is militarily weak and will collapse like Syria if attacked. That is despite the failure the last attempt, when Iran engaged in successful, despite having been pre-negotiated, retaliatory strikes resulting from Israel’s assassinations of Hamas’ political chief Ismail Haniyeh while a guest of the Iran government and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. Israel used that attack as the justification for bombing Iran. Credible accounts indicate that Israel had planned 3 waves of strikes. But the pilots in the first wave detected that Iran’s air defensive system was tracking their supposedly stealthy F-35s. They fired their missiles at a safe distance. The next two waves were aborted. Despite loud Western noises that this limited air strike had inflicted great damage, Iran and independent sources maintained the impact had been limited, such as to the radars of some air defense systems and a weapons factory.
We’ll turn the mike over to Daniel Larison of Responsible Statecraft for the current state of play. From Iran Isn’t Going to ‘Stop and Eliminate’ Its Nuclear Program:
The president’s Middle East envoy has repudiated the idea that the U.S. might be open to a reasonable compromise with Iran:
United States special envoy Steve Witkoff has said that Tehran “must stop and eliminate” its nuclear enrichment programme to reach a deal with Washington, seemingly raising the bar of US demands ahead of another round of talks with Iranian officials.
Witkoff’s remarks on Tuesday appear to contradict his suggestion a day earlier that the US would be satisfied with Iran enriching uranium at a low level to produce energy.
Witkoff is restating the extreme and unrealistic demand that the administration has been making for weeks. Nothing has been added to the president’s earlier ultimatum. It is the same brain-dead maximalism that we have seen on display from Trump and his advisers for years. There have been some hints that Witkoff was open to talking about a nonproliferation agreement not so different from the original nuclear deal, but the White House has given him no support when he says things like this. Iran hawks are predictably pleased that Witkoff has been forced to fall in line.
This change also amounts to retrading the earlier proposal, which is deadly to negotiations even when the two sides trust each other. The only way you get away with that is to grovel like crazy and make a concession, which is na ga happen.
Aside from Witkoff changing his position, another bad sign for the hopes of a settlement was the planted New York Times story, Trump Waved Off Israeli Strike After Divisions Emerged in His Administration. Note this confirms what Alastair Crooke had said that Monday on Judge Napolitano, that Israel and the US had agreed on a US strike package against Iran, and Netanyahu was blindsided when Trump said in their White House press conference that he was entering into [actually not] direct talks with Iran (recall the meeting was instigated by Netanyahu to get tariffs relief and a Trump criticism of Erdogan, which Trump quickly rejected). From the story:
Israeli officials had recently developed plans to attack Iranian nuclear sites in May. They were prepared to carry them out, and at times were optimistic that the United States would sign off. The goal of the proposals, according to officials briefed on them, was to set back Tehran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon by a year or more.
Almost all of the plans would have required U.S. help not just to defend Israel from Iranian retaliation, but also to ensure that an Israeli attack was successful, making the United States a central part of the attack itself.
For now, Mr. Trump has chosen diplomacy over military action.
Given that Trump has been all on board with Israel’s genocide, I would not attribute this effort to noble motives. With Trump’s self-branding as the world’s greatest negotiator looking mighty threadbare with respect to ending the Ukraine war2 and now having over-estimated his position vis-a-vis China in the tariffs row, this attempt may be more about his ego as opposed to risk aversion. And that’s before Trump not wanting to play into Netanyahu’s efforts to maneuver him.
The New York Times continues with a tale of Israel’s prowess and Iran’s weakness:
Israel has long planned to attack Iranian nuclear facilities…
But support within the Israeli government for a strike grew after Iran suffered a string of setbacks last year.
In attacks on Israel in April, most of Iran’s ballistic missiles were unable to penetrate American and Israeli defenses. Hezbollah, Iran’s key ally, was decimated by an Israeli military campaign last year. The subsequent fall of the government of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria eliminated a Hezbollah and Tehran ally and cut off a prime route of weapons smuggling from Iran.
Air defense systems in Iran and Syria were also destroyed, along with the facilities that Iran uses to make missile fuel, crippling the country’s ability to produce new missiles for some time.
This is pure, unadulterated Male Bovine Excrement (I think I have to pay Ray McGovern royalties every time I use his artful phrase). The authors of this piece are repeating propaganda about Iran’s April 2024 attack. Iran announced it in advance and did not use its most sophisticated missiles. Strangely, the authors ignore Iran’s October 2024 attack, which featured hypersonic missiles and completely skunked Israel’s air defense system.
The authors double down on stupid by asserting that Iran’s “air defense system” was destroyed in the October 27 attack. If US and Israeli military planners genuinely believe that this is the case, they are making a huge mistake… their assumption is wrong. It is akin to believing that if you tie a sheet to your back you can fly like Superman. I tried that when I was eight years old, but I jumped from the top of an eight-foot shed. Gravity won out over my imagination.
Back to Larison:
Some of the reporting this week claims that the administration is sending “mixed messages” on what it wants from Iran, but aside from occasional stray remarks from Witkoff the message from Washington has been consistent and terrible. If anyone is confused about what the administration is really after, that is the result of ignoring what Trump and his allies have said and done for the last three months. The president has made some very clear and disturbing threats: unless Iran yields to a far-reaching ultimatum that requires sweeping concessions, the U.S. will attack them. That is deranged and illegal, but it isn’t confusing.
Witkoff’s “stop and eliminate” comment confirms how far apart the U.S. and Iranian sides are. Many Americans don’t appreciate that the Iranian government believes that they have a right to enrichment under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Our leaders don’t have to agree with this position to understand that is extremely important to them. Telling Iran’s government that they have to give up something they consider theirs by right is never going to work. The only reason to demand such a painful concession is to provoke an angry rejection in order to create a pretext for conflict….
The administration’s national security team is full of hardliners, and they were never going to tolerate a serious effort at diplomatic engagement. While Witkoff may have been willing to consider a compromise, he isn’t in charge and he isn’t setting administration policy. As usual, Trump is siding with the most aggressive Iran hawks, and there was never any reason to expect anything else.
And the hardliners have become even more aggressive, if such a thing were possible. During his Trump meeting and afterwards, Netanyahu has been advocating the Libya solution
As one of my friends often says, if you want a happy ending, watch a Disney movie.
_____
As October 18, 2025, approaches – the tenth anniversary of the JCPOA and the deadline for deciding whether to terminate or extend UN Security Council Resolution 2231 – the snapback mechanism outlined in the resolution has once again drawn attention in Iran.
UN Security Council Resolution 2231 was adopted after the JCPOA agreement was reached, and it annulled six previous Security Council resolutions regarding Iran’s nuclear program and most of the UN sanctions.
However, it included a provision that if the Islamic Republic fails to comply with the JCPOA, the sanctions could quickly be reimposed.
Britain has said it is prepared to trigger the snapback mechanism against Iran over violations of the nuclear deal.
How Does the Snapback Mechanism Work?
Any of the current members of the JCPOA – France, the UK, Germany, China, and Russia – can invoke the snapback mechanism if they claim Iran has violated the agreement.
The United States, having withdrawn from the JCPOA and reimposed sanctions during Donald Trump’s presidency, has lost its political leverage to use snapback.
However, it can request its activation through other countries. The U.S. government failed in its attempt to invoke snapback during the first term of Trump’s presidency.
Four of the JCPOA member states that are permanent members of the UN Security Council can directly activate the mechanism.
Germany, which is not a member of the Security Council, must seek activation through one of its permanent members.
In the first step, one or more JCPOA member states must send a letter to the UN Secretary-General and the president of the Security Council about Iran’s non-compliance with the terms of the agreement.
Once the letter is submitted, the president of the Security Council must inform the other members of the warning.
The Security Council has 10 days from the formal receipt of the letter to vote on a draft resolution regarding the continuation or termination of the suspension of Security Council sanctions on the Islamic Republic.
No veto power exists, and the time frame is only 30 days.
In the Security Council’s vote on the resolution, veto power was removed following a proposal by Russia, meaning no country could block the draft resolution or prevent the return of sanctions on Iran using a veto.
If a country uses its veto, it would effectively veto the continuation of sanctions relief for Iran, leading to the immediate reimposition of UN Security Council sanctions on Iran’s nuclear program.
The continuation of sanctions relief can only be approved if nine votes in favor are achieved in the Security Council, with no permanent member vetoing it.
2The US has been unable to so far to unfreeze Russian embassy checking accounts in the US and return its diplomatic property, when Russia has said that normalizing diplomatic operations was the first step. YouTubers have said that the US side came to the negotiations unprepared, with no papers and not even any understanding of what they were asking for, such as when they asked to restore the so-called grain deal. Even though Witkoff has been making happy noises about progress, the Washington Post has called out the Trump team for exaggerating. John Helmer, in latest talk with Nima, called him a hustler, which I suspect reflects how some Russians view him.
The shame is that there is a deal to be made sitting on the table for Trump to pick up and finally get a win on the board. Iran gets to do 20% enrichment for their medical needs and they agree to be fully monitored. They also agree never to develop nukes and this is an easy win as they have already signed an agreement with Russia actual guaranteeing this. The sanctions get lifted but in exchange, the Iranians throw the US some red meat in the form of good contracts for trade. The pieces for a solid deal are all there waiting to put in place but unfortunately you have the normal ratbags in Israel and the US who want to attach conditions that will mean that Iran agrees to be the next Libya. Thing is, back in 2015 when Iran signed the first deal they were pretty isolated. Now? They have China and Russia firmly behind the who will not let them fall and the Russians have already sent all sorts of military equipment to Iran to bolster their defenses. So I say let the Israelis go for it. Let them fly their F-35s over Iran and see what happens. It will be a change of pace for them from their normal job of bombing unarmed civilians.
I have to agree with you that a failed attempt to bomb Iran is the only thing that will change attitudes in the West. The whole world saw that the west was not invincible when the Ottoman empire destroyed their armies at Gallipoli. They knew the age of colonialism was over but the western elite didn’t get the memo. They still live in delusion, as when Karl Rove said “make our own reality.” It gets better, now they boast they can manipulate time and space. He could be a salesman for Microsoft. Head in the clouds, the edge of the cliff draws nearer. . .
Israel’s mania is the product of the religious remains of a bronze age culture. They are eagerly trying to measure up to the modern West. After going to war to protect the rights of Belgium in WW II, the allies put an embargo on food going to Germany. Belgium was controlled by the Germans so they were starved too. At least 760,000 German civilians starved to death in four years, half of the total combat losses of France. The Zionists are well on their way to matching that mark and may prove yet to be even more ‘civilized’. /s
And if the retaliation destroyed Israeli airports and, better still, a lot of the ready Israeli air force (given the pace over the last year+, readiness will be well below the normally poor levels of Western military gear), the genocide will have a pause or at least a significant slow down, while the record numbers of Israeli’s unwilling to show up for the IDF will grow more rapidly than it already is growing.
I suspect a relevant target for the Iranians are the large Boeing 707 and Lockheed C130 used for transport (up to 27 airplanes) or refuelling (up to 15). More difficult to hide, and their destruction would definitely hamper the resupply of ammunition from European bases, resp. hamper long-range Israeli operations.
It’s not really about nukes. I haven’t seen any mention of Israel’s expansion in negotiations.
Or maybe better stated as …Israel’s expansion doesn’t appear to be on the table for negotiations currently happening anywhere.
Yesterday Andrei Martyanov on “Dialogue works” in the end mentioned an official Iranian letter delivered to Moscow. Of course we don´t know what it is in there.
He speculates that it could be a step to reintroduce closer military cooperation with RU which as he puts it Iran has been very sensitive of so far simply because they do not want war.
Including no military installations on their territory.
TC: 49:20 – (last 3 minutes)
https://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2025/04/nima-and-me_16.html
The word used in Russian media is “message”, delivered by Iranian foreign minister from Khamenei to Putin. Araghchi will meet Lavrov on 18th, so maybe we’ll find out something soon enough.
According to TASS Iran is interested in “strengthening and expanding cooperation between the two countries at all levels”.
According to Russian foreign ministry issues “related to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)” will be included in the oncoming talks.
thanks
so the word of interest would be all
p.s. While Pentagon is churning out various war games of how the scenarios would play out and relay those to Trump´s people and “negotiations´ team”. Someone in the Administration must be reading those reports. Even if it´s just the unknown twenty-something legal counselor who graduated recently. Trump being three times her/his age?
p.p.s. When I was going through the insane Russiagate report issued for the Senate Foreign Intelligence Committee with it´s 1000+ pages I wondered who in those offices did every read that BS? So millions of Americans spoke about a document which 5 people had actually read. None of them in any position of power. The bottle-neck mechanism of how intelligence (whether legit or not) gets to the executive “brains” is crazy.
Were Iran ever so foolishly to agree to dismantle its defence systems in good faith, you can better the ranch on Israel launching bombers, missiles and drones on Iran before the ink was even dry on the signed agreements.
Israel is even less agreement capable than the US.
Iran must have learned from Libya example that getting rid of a nuclear program, per USA guidance, only leaves a nation vulnerable to USA conventional military operations.
North Korea has maintained their nuclear program and the USA has not destroyed it, unlike Libya.
It seems inconceivable that master negotiator Trump cannot look at the situation from the other party’s point of view.
Maybe the expiration date on his cognitive abilities was only slightly behind Genocide Joe’s?
A case be made that Iran’s fake pretend attack backfired and put her in a worse position than had she actually retaliated honestly. Now if Iran’s delusional leadership would focus on getting nukes then she’ll be safe.
How so?
I’ve noticed you tend to favor an aggressive version of an eye for an eye approach to almost all conflicts, which frankly scares the family blog out of me. It’s a good way to end the world.
Strategy should always account for the qualities of one’s opponent. When facing a relentlessly aggressive opponent, for example, pusillanimity can in itself be a provocation.
Is the American-Israeli Axis such an opponent?
While they butcher the helpless with impunity they have always stopped short of war with Iran. However, both nations (in the axis) are destabilizing, with constitutional and economic crises and heads of state who are arguably already outlaws. Just how desperate is everyone, really?
The Iranians have chosen to play for time, where other states have selected the ‘security’ of a warm nuke. I doubt there’s a right answer, more like wrong ones with varying degrees of risk attached.
“The New York Times continues with a tale of Israel’s prowess and Iran’s weakness:”
When I read that article earlier today, I wondered what had convinced me that Iran had fairly easily penetrated Israeli defenses, even after announcing “an attack foretold.” The war hawks will go to any length to start another war, and thinking Trump has gone human is contradicted in Yve’s article that points out he’s all in with genocide in Gaza. We need to hold our collected breath and hope these maniacs don’t obliterate the planet.
The New York Times, to their everlasting shame, were also the primary amplifiers of the “Iraq has WMDs” myth that was falsely used to justify attacking Iraq. For some reason, that publication has a long, bloody history of printing falsehoods in support of waging war.
An attack on Iran would signal the end of Trump’s reign of error. The turmoil in oil markets plus the prospects of another Iraq/Afghanistan ground war would reduce Republican political chances to near zero. No amount of AIPAC money could offset the political damage.
Imo there’s no chance of a ground war with Iran, whether by the us or by us/israel/coalition of the willing. We can’t field what we did in the second gulf war today, and that took 6 months to get the stuff in position.
If we can’t win an air war using our f35’s, which imo looks doubtful, imo the only option would be ICBM’s.
I assume any war will stop all traffic thru Hormuz, and might take out the fields and pipelines, too. Granted, that would stop oil co’s griping about low prices.
But there are other factors at play and most especially what Russia has to say about the notion of an attack and subsequent chaos. In fact one might almost say that a brazen attack for no reason could even be seen at an attack against detente with Russia. Of course this too is a goal of Rubio and Waltz.
Larison is making a firm prediction of an ever shifting situation based on a comment by Witkoff and a NYT story that may be sourced to never reliable Israeli sources who join Rubio and Waltz in trying to game Trump. I’d say we just have to wait and see what happens and if it does happen Larry Johnson is certainly correct that Trump will certainly regret it just as he likely regrets his tariff tantrum. Bear in mind that the attack as described by the NYT would be a whole week of bombing including attempts to kill the Iranian leaders. It wouldn’t be some one and done overnight strike.
No, this is not an “ever shifting situation”. Trump has been consistent in wanting to bring Iran to heel. Read the February 2 statement to which I linked. The idea that a JCPOA 2.0 would ever work is not on. That is why I was flummoxed at how cheery Araghchi was after the first round. Although with indirect talks, >2 hours = only about 1 hour equivalent of face to face, so not all that much could have been said.
Moreover, the YouTubers who follow this closely and are Ukraine and Israel skeptics to a person say Russia would not support Iran save providing materiel and intel (Russian real time surveillance no doubt is better than Iran’s). So what “Russia has to say” is not operative. Even Professor Marandi has said Iran will defend itself and does not need Russian assistance. Note additionally that Alastair Crooke has said that Iran would not want Russia to act as a mediator in negotiations (and he said that with the authority of having heard that from well placed sources).
The neocons would note that Russia did not intervene to try to save Syria, when Russia has been active there.
It has also been well reported that a large contingent advising Trump believes that Iran could be knocked over as easily as Syria. that it would take very little. And they also believe that the population would rise up. Of course this is silly but they are bending Trump’s ear.
As for the notion that the Witkoff talk with Putin meaningfully featured Iran, I highly doubt it. The US team has demonstrated itself to be so incompetent (proposing the revival of the grain deal without even looking at its terms! You cannot make this up) that Putin almost certainly had his hands full trying to educate Witkoff without looking like he was insulting him. Any discussion of Iran would have been limited.
While there is substantial opposition, for very good reasons, to the mullahs’ regime, the idea that a Muslim population would desert a regime defending itself against two countries carrying out a genocide against Muslims is absurd. It makes the Iraq war planners of the Bush administration, who thought Iraqis would leap at a chance to open their country to neocolonial subordination, look like serious social anthropologists. These idiots so often proclaim themselves to be religious. If they are, it’s a religious version of fast fashion.
I saw only now the reports above of an Araghchi-Lavrov meeting today. Most experts had pointed out that the recent “Comprehensive Partnership” between Iran and Russia did not include mutual defense provisions but did have one that included cooperation on nuclear non-proliferation, which was taken to signal that Iran and Russia were on the same page in preferring that Iran not develop nukes….which would not happen unless Iran faced a close to or actual existential threat.
The problem is that even if Russia agreed to provide more meaningful assistance than envisioned in its just-signed pact, Trump is insane and forcefully rejects any attempts to pressure or even talk sense into him. If if Russia were to clear its throat and try to tell Trump that an attack on Iran would lead them to act, and/or would jeopardize the Ukraine talks, that could easily egg Trump on.
That kinda sounds like the Nixon-Kissinger routine where Kissinger as SecState would tell countries that they had better do what President Nixon wants as he is so crazy who knows what he will do.
Its not just Russia though is it? China depends on the oil flowing from the Persian Gulf and those joint ‘practice sessions’ with navies weren’t just for show. Its likely that China now realises that the hot proxy war follow up to sanctions ( sorry ‘tariffs’) is only a matter of time and not much of that.
I dunno. Reports are Iran isn’t Iraq. If a bunch of f35’s get shot down the us might rethink. Meanwhile Iran might attack israel… dangerous times arrive when you’ve got nutty leaders.
I don’t see evidence teflon Don has regrets about tariffs, there’s been no negative consequence for him. Whatever happens is just motive for him to follow his next “greatest idea ever” until something directly affects him.
The players being who they are, I’m consigned to FAFO being the only way through this.
There’s some probability no one makes it out, no one knows enough to know what that probability is though.
NATO is doubling down on making moves that keep Russia preoccupied with making territorial advances in Ukraine.
During the Iranian Hostage Crisis Chicago shock jock Steve Dahl along with his backing band Teenage Radiation recorded and released a parody of The Knaack song “My Sharona” called “Ayatollah” and made on the air prank calls ordering buckets of chicken for the hostages in the U.S. Embassy, which later the State Department reprimanded him for.
Not sure if Antony Blinken was in Dahl’s band.
There’s a willful bad-faith refusal by the Iran war hawks to ignore the history and politics of Iran’s nuclear program, which also highlights a sobering reason why the bizarre idea of a global nuclear power revival should be an obvious non-starter.
First, unlike North Korea (which accumulated its weapons-grade material from reprocessed commercial reactor waste), Iran has significant uranium ore deposits of its own. The idea that anyone gets to tell another sovereign nation that it is not allowed to dig up and use its own resources is patently absurd.
Second, Iran first started developing its uranium mining, nuclear power and medical isotope initiatives with the enthusiastic support of the United States in the 1950s, as part of the Atoms for Peace campaign during the Eisenhower administration. Iran was also an early and enthusiastic supporter of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Most Iraqi citizens, across the political spectrum, are genuinely horrified by the morally repugnant idea that Iran would ever develop weapons of mass destruction, period. But they are justifiably proud of Iran’s civilian nuclear programs, which are world-class. Unilaterally banning Iran’s commercial nuclear industry is a political non-starter.
Third, RevKev is right: there is an obvious, stable, enforceable win:win deal to be made here, right now. Iran is ready. That deal would seriously erode the capacity of the Revolutionary Guard to seize political control and steer Iran towards an existential war.
The problem is that Israel, Trump, and the Iran war hawks have zero interest in a stable, enforceable win:win deal. Unlike Israel and the United States, Iran has been consistently good about abiding by the nuclear non-proliferation and enrichment monitoring commitments that they make. The problem has never been Iran acting in bad faith. It has been the US repeatedly throwing its toys out of the crib and arbitrarily changing the rules.
And now we get to the dealbreaker for a global nuclear power revival: enrichment centrifuges are enrichment centrifuges. The literal machines that you use to enrich uranium for nuclear power and nuclear isotopes are exactly the same ones that you use to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. Any increase in the number of nuclear power plants in the world means more centrifuges in more countries that can be used to make nuclear fuel, or nuclear weapons. Pervasive nuclear power equals pervasive nuclear proliferation, in an increasingly dangerous world.
I happen to be convinced that while the Iranian Revolutionary Guard would love to build nuclear weapons, the civilian government and religious leaders (and vast majority of the Iranian population) remain resolutely opposed, despite the obvious lessons of Iraq, Libya, and Ukraine. But the brutal reality is that there is no way to truly know what a given nation’s intentions are, because there is literally no difference in the infrastructure it takes to make fuel for energy and fuel for weapons. Any significant global expansion of nuclear enrichment and fuel reprocessing capacity to advance nuclear power is an existential threat to world peace.
I think America will try a different approach than not alienating Venuzala to get their oil.
I am confident that the excellent international law experts at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation shall, if requested to do so, provide a more than adequate interpretation of UN Security Council Resolution 2231 to demonstrate conclusively that its “snap-back” provision does not apply under the circumstances suggested in the IranWire discussion. For example, Bona Fide is a fundamental principle of interpretation in International Law, and prohibits an interpretation (in this case that of the UK, France, and the U.S.) that twists a resolution seeking peace into justification for warlike acts. The Ministry supposedly had a major role in drafting this provision, and is therefore an authority on its application. It is of the essence that the withdrawal of the U.S. from the JCPOA lies at the heart of the actually existing situation, and the projected invocation by its vassals of the terms of 2231 that seeks to carry out the JCPOA is, in fact, a move to destroy it.
Two of the five permanent members of the Security Council think otherwise.
And pray tell, why should the UN accept Russian opinion? What is the forum for adjudicating this difference of views?
Precisely. There is no such adjudicative forum, though the General Assembly, as in the ‘Uniting for Peace’ resolution of 1950 is an alternative forum on the larger question, if not for determining the meaning of a Security Council Resolution. Only the Security Council itself can do that. And in this case would be unable to act. Would the Secretary General be “the UN” in this case? If he were to side with Israel and the U.S. (and the UK and France) against Russia and (presumably) China, would that have any consequences other than to weaken yet further his office? In short, my guess is that an attempt to invoke the “snap-back” would leave the actual situation among the powers as it would be if it were not invoked. The only consequence might be internally in the EU in the debate over standing with Israel and the U.S./UK against Iran on sanctions.
Anyone care to name the “Iran war hawks”, the “extreme hardliners” around The Don? Rubio? Waltz? others? Do these “war hawks” actually know anything about Iran? Do they actually know anything about what attacking Iran will evoke in response? I am skeptical on both counts as the US has a well-documented history of charging into conflicts only to get smacked upside the head with the fruits of their ignorance and false assumptions about the “enemy.” I cite Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon in1983, and last, by no means least, Ukraine. Why would one expect any different outcome given this record?
I don’t and nobody else should, but due to ‘American exceptionalism’ and Jewish hatred for humanity they’ll keep trying, and trying. There’ll never be normal peace until the end of this or any Jewish state and the end of America Rome style. Complete collapse into separate states and countries in the centuries to come.
Given that the hard-line Zionists surrounding Trump, and the rabidly messianic, nihilistic and genocidal Zionists running Israel all seem to seriously underestimate Iran’s capabilities, even after Iran’s telegraphed retaliatory strikes, an attack on Iran by Israel and backed by the US seems more likely than ever. What is most worrisome is what Israel does if (when?) its initial attacks fail, and Iran’s counterstrikes are devastating in response. Then does the question become not if, but when Israel decides to use its Samson Option? It’s easy to lament the fact religious fanatics are so influential both here and in Israel, but recall that Golda Meir–Zionist to the core–said she’d not hesitate to use nuclear weapons if the state of Israel were threatened. The Rev up above points out how easily Trump could take a win on a diplomatic solution. While the hardliners are determined to poison pill such a solution. We really are ruled by sociopaths.
Iran is number 7 of 7 on the list described by Wesley Clark in 2001. I think it is a bipartisan project and I suspect donors are eager to seize the moment before US relative power diminishes. And as Pat Lang commented on his blog from time to time, not everything in foreign policy has economic motives or is guided by reason.
I do not think an USA-Israeli attack on Iran will succeed unless nuclear weapons are deployed. Iran is not 1990 Iraq. I think the Trump crew would think they could keep the reverberations contained.
Hopefully I am wrong.
I agree with this. A war with Iran is likely to go nuclear, especially if Iran responds forcefully to initial attack.
At the end, Helmer’s latest appearance on Dialogue Works is mentioned.
Helmer called people’s attention to a research paper to read.
https://therussiaprogram.org/russia_and_syria/
Russia and the Collapse of the Assad Regime
Whether it’s what the Western establishment believes, what they want people to believe, or what happened, it’s an interesting read. I’m just going to file it away and compare later to how events continue to unfold.
There is a more recent example of Serbia being given an overreaching ultimatum as a pretext for war, but by the United States: the 1999 Rambouillet Accord proposing NATO occupation of all of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. https://archive.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/djhnstne.htm https://www.jstor.org/stable/23607665
A thead about it, from few days ago:
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2025/04/us-iran-negotiations-why-an-agreement-looks-unlikely.html#comment-4202319
The ultimate goal of Israel is a ruined Iran, like Iraq or Syria. An Iran that if allowed to sell its oil, must direct all the proceeds through New York banks. A ruined and divided Iran. All else is an excuse to accomplish this thing, which on medium term will allow Israel to finish the Palestinian problem, efectuate genocide/ethnic cleansing, expand in Lebanon and Syria and penetrate fully the GCC information routes.
And of course, eliminate the proposed route from russia through Iran to India and make itself the node, the ultimate rentier nation in the Western Asia.
For this Iran must be regime changed and immiserated, and put in a state of continuous civil war, like Syria.
So, it is not the nuclear enrichment, but the missiles that protect Iran from being turned into a Syria, which is Israel’s heart desire. Of course the Turcic populations bordering Iran would claim Turcic speaking Iranian territories for themselves. A feats like the end of the Ottoman Empire.
One can dream, no?!