Are the Iran deal talks just a grift? - analysis

The basic issue in Vienna is whether the West will beg Iran not to build a nuclear weapon and provide sanctions relief in exchange for some kind of deal.

Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali Bagheri Kani and members of the Iranian delegation wait for the start of a meeting of the JCPOA Joint Commission in Vienna, Austria November 29, 2021. (credit: EU DELEGATION IN VIENNA/HANDOUT VIA REUTERS)

Iran’s Fars News asked on Saturday: “what is the point of the Iran and P5+1 negotiations?” Indeed, Iran’s media knows there is no point, and it appears that only Westerners think there is a real point to the endless discussions in Vienna.

The P5+1 refers to the UN Security Council's five permanent members which include China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, plus Germany. This includes the three European countries, of the current E3.

The basic issue in Vienna is whether the West, and particularly the US, will beg Iran not to build a nuclear weapon and provide sanctions relief in exchange for some kind of deal. It’s not clear if Iran actually can and will build a bomb, but it holds this up as blackmail to get things it wants.

There is a narrative among the pro-Iran lobby in the West that tends to see US policy – of having gotten into a deal with Iran in 2015, and then leaving the deal and then going back to Vienna to talk some more – as being a failed one in which America is always at fault.

In this narrative, the US needed a deal in 2015 or there might be “war” with Iran. The deal was supposed to stop the Islamic Republic from building nuclear weapons – which it claimed it didn’t even want and wasn’t supposed to build anyway.

Former US President Donald Trump left the deal. But for some, this is evidence that Washington and Tehran then came to the “brink of war” and that Iran was then forced to destabilize the Middle East through its proxies in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen. It therefore had a right to expand its nuclear program, since the US had left the deal.

The logical fallacy of the Iran discussions talking points is always the same. The US broke the deal. Iran wants more talks. If the talks fail then a nuclear-armed Iran will emerge and there will be war to stop that eventuality. Either a bomb or war are the only two options presented.

This becomes sort of a grift because it hinges on the theory that Iran’s leadership would actually construct a device and test it in a nuclear explosion. After all, that’s the way countries get beyond nuclear-threshold status – they have to actually build the weapon and see if it works. That is what the US did in 1945, after prevaricating since 1944. That is also what Pakistan and India have done.

So the Iran talks have so far had no progress. Fars News knows this and it reflects the regime narrative. It says that the “story goes back to the end of Mr. Rouhani's government. Less than five months before the end of the government's eight-year term, prudence and hope remained. There were less than two months left until the presidential election. Only the government was stoned, and negotiations with the Americans and Europeans could not save the country from economic problems.”

Fars continues: “Summing up this round of negotiations, it can be said that the main issue was the laying of the groundwork for an agreement. Iran has presented its initial plan, and now the Western parties must consult with their capitals to respond to these two documents and the proposal of the Iranian team.”

The definition of a “grift” is a form of small scale swindling. Grifters are people that swindle others, sometimes systematically over many years. There are many things in the US these days that can be described as grift, especially in political commentary.

There is no doubt that a nuclear-armed Iran is a serious threat. However the discussion about the Iran deal and the endless negotiations that go nowhere, as well as the 2015 deal itself, appear more like a grift than a serious discussion. This is because there won’t likely be a “war” with Iran, at least not a war between the US and Iran. There may be attempts to prevent Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon or reaching a certain level of enrichment. But the idea that is presented as “either war or a nuclear Iran” is likely a false narrative.

It’s unclear if the Islamic Republic’s partners in Russia and China would accept a nuclear Iran or want one. As such, it may continue grifting – and try to get concessions from the West while knowing it doesn’t want a real nuclear weapon.

Source: Jerusalem Post

NATO Foreign Ministers Meeting In Latvia Amid Tensions Over Russian Military Buildup, Migrant Crisis

NATO Foreign Ministers Meeting In Latvia Amid Tensions Over Russian Military Buildup, Migrant Crisis NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg (left), the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen (center), and the president of Lithuania, Gitanas Nausėda on November 28 in Latvia.

The foreign ministers of NATO’s member states, including U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, are set to meet on November 30 in Latvia to discuss a Russian military buildup near its border with Ukraine and a migrant crisis on the alliance’s eastern flank fueled by Moscow ally Belarus. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has repeatedly voiced concern over the buildup of Russian soldiers near the Russia-Ukraine border and has warned of "consequences" if Russia chooses to use force against Ukraine. "There is not clarity about the Russian intentions, but there is an unusual concentration of forces for the second time this year," Stoltenberg told AFP. "We see heavy armor, drones, electronic warfare systems, and tens of thousands of combat-ready troops." Additional support for Ukraine's military and the potential of strengthening NATO forces arrayed along the alliance’s eastern border are topics expected to be on the agenda at the meeting in Riga, Latvia’s capital. Ukraine, which aspires to become a member of NATO, is sending Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba to the two-day meeting. Kuleba told foreign media on November 29 that Russia had amassed 115,000 troops and heavy weapons near his country's border, on the occupied territory of Crimea, and in parts of the two eastern Luhansk and Donetsk regions of Ukraine occupied by Russia-backed separatists. "It's better to act now, not later" to "deter Russia," Kuleba said. "What we are seeing is very serious." Ministers are expected to discuss contingency plans should Russia invade. The alliance is looking to show the Kremlin it will face severe costs if it threatens Ukraine, while stopping short of provoking Moscow into further aggression. Russia, which seized Crimea from Ukraine in 2014 and backs separatists fighting in eastern Ukraine, has denied it is plotting an attack and blames NATO for fueling tensions. Blinken will emphasize the strength of the transatlantic relationship, NATO’s ongoing success in safeguarding the transatlantic community, and the Biden administration’s commitment to the alliance and its allies, the State Department said in a statement on November 29. The statement reiterated that the U.S. commitment to the collective defense doctrine enshrined in Article 5 of the NATO treaty is “ironclad” and said the alliance is deterring and defending against a wide range of security challenges. These include “escalating Russian aggression, terrorism, hybrid and cyberthreats, emerging and disruptive technologies, and the way the climate crisis is affecting the threat landscape.” The gathering in Riga is also expected to address the migrant crisis, which for weeks has plagued NATO members Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia. The European Union has accused Belarus of funneling thousands of mainly Middle Eastern migrants to its borders with Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia in retribution for EU sanctions against Minsk. Belarusian President Alyaksandr Lukashenka rejects the accusation. NATO has expressed "solidarity" with its eastern members, and Stoltenberg and EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on November 28 pledged to step up cooperation against the migrant challenge. Von der Leyen said the EU would increase border-management funding for the three countries. The tensions have eased since Iraq began flying some migrants back to the country, but Warsaw and Vilnius insist the crisis is far from over. The foreign ministers also will discuss NATO’s operations in Afghanistan, reflecting on lessons learned, and NATO’s master strategy document, known as the Strategic Concept, which will guide the alliance as it addresses current and emerging challenges, the U.S. State Department statement said. The new Strategic Concept is being prepared for adoption at the NATO summit in Madrid in June 2022.

Source: RFERL

Turkey rescues 91 migrants pushed back by Greece

Turkish coast guards yesterday rescued 91 migrants who were pushed back by Greece towards Turkey's coastal city of Canakkale.

Local sources told Anadolu Agency that the coastal teams spotted "several rubber boats carrying migrants off the coast of the Canakkale's town of Ayvacik district." The sources added that the migrants were of "different nationalities."

"After reaching the Turkish territory, the migrants were referred to the local directorate of immigration," the sources pointed out.

Ankara and human rights groups have repeatedly denounced Greece's practice of pushbacks.

Irregular migrants, who want to reach Europe through Greece, arrive by dingy along the coastal border in the Ayvacik district of Canakkale, Marmara region on 28 February 2020. [STRINGER/Demiroren News Agency (DHA)/AFP via Getty Images]

Source: MEMO