Iran keeps rejecting the Trump administration’s unrealistic demands on the nuclear issue:
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said U.S. demands that Tehran stop enriching uranium are “excessive and outrageous”, state media reported, voicing doubts whether talks on a new nuclear deal will succeed.
“I don’t think nuclear talks with the U.S. will bring results. I don’t know what will happen,” Khamenei said, adding that Washington should avoid making “nonsense” demands in the negotiations, four rounds of which have been held.
The administration has no interest in bridging this gap. The indirect talks between the U.S. and Iran are not likely to go on much longer at this rate. The writing has been on the wall from the start of this farcical process that the U.S. is not seriously committed to making these negotiations work. Trump and his allies want to be in a position where they can claim that they tried diplomacy and blame Iran for the failure of the talks. This is why they pile on demands that they know Iran will never accept even when there is a straightforward compromise available that would produce a real diplomatic breakthrough.
A new nonproliferation agreement would be in the best interests of all concerned. It would resolve the nuclear issue for the foreseeable future, reduce tensions, and eliminate the hawks’ favorite excuse for starting a war. It could also serve as a foundation for more sustained engagement later on. That is why Trump’s approach to the negotiations is so terrible for the U.S. and Iran. It is not a serious attempt to reach a diplomatic solution. It is an exercise in hawkish posturing, and it always has been. That not only dooms negotiations now, but it also poisons the well for diplomacy in the coming years.
When our government practices pseudo-engagement, it undermines the credibility of the diplomatic option. Going through the motions of a negotiation without having any intention of finding a compromise is how hawks seek to discredit engagement by making it seem useless. It is usually easy to distinguish between pseudo-engagement and the real thing by looking at the nature of the demands that the U.S. is making. If the demands are far-reaching and the proposed offer is meager, that isn’t a real attempt to resolve through negotiations. It is setting the stage for conflict or permanent sanctions.
Read the rest of the article at Eunomia
Daniel Larison is a weekly columnist for Antiwar.com and maintains his own site at Eunomia. He is former senior editor at The American Conservative. He has been published in the New York Times Book Review, Dallas Morning News, World Politics Review, Politico Magazine, Orthodox Life, Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week. He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter.
