According to a report from Reuters, the Biden administration is considering an option for its Iran policy that would require both the US and Iran to take small steps towards the 2015 nuclear deal, known as the JCPOA.
Citing three sources “familiar with the matter,” the Reuters story says this option would mean Tehran scaling back or pausing some of its nuclear activity while the US gives some sanctions relief. These small steps would be short of full compliance and are intended to buy more time.
As it stands, the US and Iran are far from reviving the JCPOA. Iran is calling on the Biden administration to lift sanctions to come back into compliance with the agreement since the US was the party that violated the JCPOA. In an interview that aired Sunday, President Biden said he would not lift sanctions until Iran reduces nuclear activity to comply with the limits agreed to in 2015.
If the US doesn’t give Iran sanctions relief by February 21st, Tehran will limit some UN inspections of its nuclear program. The US could be looking to avoid this by buying more time with some economic relief. One source told Reuters that an IMF loan was a possibility being discussed.
Last week, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif suggested that the EU could help coordinate the actions needed to be taken by the US and Iran to revive the JCPOA. The US initially rejected the idea, but some reports say the Biden administration is also considering this option.
“intended to buy more time” for what?
For Trump’s policy to work? It won’t.
To avoid creating any new policy? Can’t face Israel and know what Israel demands won’t work, so hide?
Stand pat, Iran!.. They’re starting to crack!
Yes, a stronger nuclear Iran,
that’s the ticket to peace in the ME, sarc off.
Deterrence… Tried and true since 1949!
With most of the region lining up against them,
maybe that plan fell apart 2 decades ago.
HA!.. Some lineup, they couldn’t even whup Yemen.
“They” weren’t involved, just the Sauds.
Meanwhile, Iranians haven’t “whup” much in Syria, Iraq, the gulf or Lebanon.
Saudi and the EAU – not to mention the US and Britain…
Meanwhile the Shia Crescent stands solid from the Gulf of Oman to the Mediterranean Sea.
Better brush up on your Farsi!
“They” were primarily supplying the Sauds, you know MIC business.
How’s Soleimani these days? Ooops.
Still a martyr.. Still immortal.
Yes, he is leading the way for the rest of the regime, that is fo sure.
What’s leading the regime are the sanctions and that’s right a nuclear armed Iran.
Nice goin’, neocons.
Have you read nothing for years??? Iran is NOT the aggressor, has no wish for nukes, wants peace in the region (Israel has the only nukes) and has kept to the rules and been certified as correct by the IAEA.
Sure, that’s why they foment conflict in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Lebanon
and nobody with common sense believes their nuke programs are not
focused on warheads for their intercontinental missile system.
Have some more purple kool-aid, dull the pain.
“Sure, that’s why they foment conflict in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Lebanon”
Clearly you’re here to spread the old worn out propaganda well known to the most initiated. I suggest you start reading the news instead of allowing Fox or similar networks to brainwash you to feeble mindedness! US attacked & almost destroyed Iraq. Saudis in a coalition with the West & other Arab countries attacked & blockaded Yemen. A US. Israel, France, Turkey & possibly other Gulf Arab countries Armed the oppositions & along the way created the perfect condition for ISIS to form, spread its wings & destroy Syria cities. Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, & later attacked it again in 2006. & you really believe that Iran fomented those conflicts in those countries? Unbelievable!
It was a devastating and foolish decision to invade Iraq and
even more so to stay.
The US should not be involved in any kinetic action in the ME.
I oppose any US presence in the ME including SA
but support sanctions on Iran until
a peaceful agreement is established btw Iran and IT’S neighbors.
Does that sound like FOX News to you?
You might try something else to shake off your CNN brainwashing, hoyt.
But claiming that Iran fomented conflicts in the region & Nuke warheads for missiles, certainly does sound like it.
Iran has no legitimate business in Syria or Iraq, Yemen or Lebanon,
but there they are.
Neither does the US, or NATO.
Mind you that 60% of Iraqis are 12-Imam Shias like Iranians & share almost 1600 kilometers of border, plus interconnected cultures, as well as many inter-marriages. They sure have a bit more legitimate right than the West, with absolutely no connections at all. Syrian gov’t invited Iranians to help them because they have a long-standing friendly relationship. Iran is NOT in Lebanon. Hezbollah get support from Iran in training (done in Iran), & arm them to defend themselves. & Houthis are also Shias that have been persecuted for generations, & now attacked by a much stronger coalition force. Iran helps them to defend themselves against the barbaric attackers which the US & UK are also part of, I’m ashamed to say! At the end of the day, it is Iran’s neighborhood, not the US’s or the NATO’s!
It’s crucial to read if you want to be informed.
I agree that the US and NATO should not be there and I’m all in with PEACEFUL cultural, religious and marriage interactions across boundaries.
BUT—that includes Iran.
Military adventures by Iran should be condemned the same as those of all other outside forces, no exceptions.
Sorry, we’re talking 2 different tongs!
Same “tong”,
both sides have to deescalate and work toward a peaceful solution. Maybe you prefer your CNN bias.
No, that doesn’t sound like Fox News. It sounds like something I didn’t know existed: Something even dumber than Fox News.
40 years of sanctions haven’t brought Iran to its knees. Why would 41 years, or 42 years, or 43 years, do the trick?
The only thing sanctions have accomplished is making damn sure the mullahs aren’t overthrown.
FOX and MIC want more kinetic conflict. I do not.
Cutting off supplies to your opponent is standard military practice.
The mullah’s are to blame for any needless suffering at home and the needless suffering caused by their endless attempts to dominate the region.
The US should only deal with Iran when it’s neighbors agree that they do not pose a continuing threat. Otherwise you feed the instability.
Iran’s neighbors will never agree that Iran does not pose a “continuing threat,” because Iran is, and will remain, a major regional player. It has the second largest population in the region after Egypt, and its regime enjoys support among Shiites in several other countries in the region. The Arab regimes want the US to play the game of “let’s you and him fight” for them because they don’t want regional balance or stability, they want a major player removed from the board.
“Cutting off supplies to your opponent is standard military practice.”
In other words, you’re talking out your ass when you say you want to “walk away.” You just want perpetual war by other means.
What would have been better, normalized relations with Nazi Germany or ostracizing them early on?
Iran is THE major de-stabilizer in the region,
that should carry a penalty.
Let the region go to blows if they want, the US should let them
do what they want while NOT increasing the strength of the major antagonist.
The US should have zero military operations in the region,
that is “walk away”.
While ostracizing those who energize tensions and conflict.
To do otherwise only makes matters worse.
In other words you prefer the status quo,
the 75 year insanity of the ME conflict, financed by blind-free trade, to continue forever!
“Iran is THE major de-stabilizer in the region”
Not even close, but …
“that should carry a penalty”
If so, let the countries in the region impose that penalty instead of the US doing so. The only real interest the US has in the region is keeping oil prices high (in part by trying to keep Iranian oil off the market) so that US shale oil can be artificially profitable. That’s not a worthwhile interest.
When Iran has been antagonistic toward the US (and yes, it has), the obvious explanation for that antagonism has been the US attempting to run Iran instead of letting the Iranians run it. And keeping the mullahs in power by providing a convenient foreign bogeyman instead of minding its own business has been part of that.
Meddling in Syria and Lebanon
(which provokes Israel),
in Yemen
(which provokes the Sauds) and
Iraq which
(provokes the US)
is de-stablizing to the region.
Abolishing sanctions would only embolden and increase their revenue stream, and appetite for more!
0bama’s example has already shown that appeasement, self-debasement and bribery have no positive effect on their behavior,
actually quite the reverse.
Therefore, maintaining sanctions has the benefit of hobbling their mischief and that coupled with removing the US from the equation would leave the region uninhibited to either work toward accommodations and concessions or just slugging it out. Trying to sort out centuries and eons of issues btw Arabs, Israelis and Persians is a mad-dog fools errand.
Let them stare into the abyss and decide, deal or die.
Who made it possible for them to “meddle” in Iraq?
The Saudis decided to try to add Yemen to their orbit. How’s that working out for them?
Syria and Lebanon have significant Shiite populations (and Lebanon open political factions) who are more comfortable aligning with Iran than with e.g. the Saudis. Who was it, I wonder, who cut the Middle East up into countries that fit their colonial needs better than the needs of the population involved?
“Trying to sort out centuries and eons of issues btw Arabs, Israelis and Persians is a mad-dog fools errand.”
Exactly. Walk away and let them sort it out. No more war for preferred factions. No more sanctions to keep a finger on the scale. Not our circus, not our monkeys.
“Who made it possible… “, please,
we’re talking about the ME, Arabs, Israelis and Persians.
How far back do you want to go?
That Gordian knot is impossible to untangle. Just cut it.
Many countries share religious affiliations across borders but without organizing and supplying militias to attack another country.
Iran does that more than anybody in the ME. And being “nice” to them, ala 0bama, just makes them more aggressive.
So we agree that the US should pack up and exit and
we disagree on sanctions. Fine.
But that “finger on the scale”, sanctions, is there to slow the advent of a nuclear exchange in the ME.
Unless you’re into that kind of thing.
The USA broke the deal, cannot be trusted and now wants to make conditions. STOP the sanctions-illegal, cruel, unjustified, then see if Iran is ready to go ahead.
If I’m to gauge the upcoming north Arabian Sea military exercises with Russia, China, and Iran with any clarity, I might interpret the JCPOA is problematic for three interested nations. Russia and China are JCPOA signatories.
Three nations with immense economic power in manufacturing and oil production.
That’s barely scratching the surface.
After the recent Navalny-inspired Russian protests, the Hong Kong and
Chinese protests of 2019-2021, and the Iran sanctions-induced riots and mass deaths from COVID, few doubts exist over the Deep State’s penchant for global domination.
re:. . . the JCPOA is problematic for three interested nations . .That’s barely scratching the surface.//
Yes. Let’s scratch the surface–
There is a fundamental problem extending beyond the JCPOA which is serving to enhance Iran’s financial and military ties with Russia and China, and possibly North Korea. This includes using local currencies for financial transactions, thus dumping the dollar, and naval exercises in the Indian Ocean near Russia friend India.
Among the anti-Iran forces there is a growing consensus, both in the US and Europe, also in Israel and its new Arab allies, that it is not possible to go back to the original deal, signed just six years ago. The rationale is that Iran’s military advancements, including precision ballistic missiles, along with its “malignant terrorist activities” in the region, have reached intolerable levels, constituting a new and significant threat to the interests of the US and its allies.
Time goes on, as it always does. That makes the JCPOA — so yesterday.
Perhaps, but that is the fault of the nation that withdrew.
Ballistic missiles were never part of the agreement- it was alleged to be about fears of an Iranian nuke. I suppose Iran is not allowed to have any defense.
Yes and no. Yes, Russia/China, not Biden/Macron & JCPOA.2, is Iran’s safety. But Time has come to a stop, and Iran is in the cold until it gets back on its feet. Saudis & Israel see this as a unique window of opportunity, and they have the US locked in. Not just a matter of electoral viability -this is Biden’s last hurrah- all three are blood initiates in a crime that dare not speak its name (tho not hard to guess). So their good cop/bad cop routine is mere dumb show to the tune of the old “decent respect to the opinions of mankind”.
Iran noticed the B52’s and that both the Mossad chief and Defense Minister visited Biden last week, and they justly fear something is imminent. As always, it will require a false flag preliminary, pending which Iran is allowed a breathing space allowing for Zharif to (frantically) demonstrate Iran’s forward-leaning good faith in his turn, making clear to the world who the aggressor is.
Iran is on its feet and it is not scared. Iran has experienced war, with the US against it, with heavy casualties, and knows what war is. Iran is much stronger now in many ways, including precision ballistic missiles that greatly concern the anti-Iran countries. That’s especially the US, with heavy presence in close range. That includes 20 bases with 50,000 troops around the Gulf, also ships at sea.
Why hasn’t the US attacked Iran before this? That’s why.
Into this equation add Hezbollah with its tens of thousands of missiles, plus China and Russia. Israel would be history.
Notice how Israel is still pretending it, alone, could attack Iran! For 25 years Netahyahu has been moaning about the danger to poor little undefended Israel!!
I agree; but what I meant was “Time” (better have said “the times”) needs to get back “on its feet”, i.e. recover from economic depression and pandemic that severely restrict Iran’s ability to resist and China/Russia (et. al.) ‘s ability to assist.
And you’re also right, Iran would not roll over like Iraq. Even if ultimately defeated, it has the capacity to create a helluva mess, and US/Israel are averse to fighting anyone who can fight back.
Still, they’re not contemplating all-out war. They’re doing probe & thrust -sanctions, econ warfare, MEK, murders of Soleimani and Fakrezadeh, pirating commercial vessels on high seas, cyber attacks, biological pathogens to destroy crops and herds- to see where the tipping point is, always fighting shy of major response, …attritive debilitation. The “Corrida” method.
And Mossad appears to be arguing for the final thrust now.
Sadam fought Iran for 8 years to a standstill, it shows that both Armies were were bellow average, Iran still is. Right now Iran couldn’t defeat anybody in the middle east right now. The only thing Iran learned in the war against Iraq is how not to win.