According to a report from Middle East Eye, the US and Iran are near a deal that would reduce Iran’s uranium enrichment in exchange for sanctions relief, although it’s not certain that a final agreement will be reached.
Sources told MEE that direct talks between US and Iranian officials have been taking place on US soil, which marks a significant diplomatic development between the two nations as previous negotiations were indirect and took place in Vienna.
President Biden’s special envoy for Iran, Robert Malley, has been leading the US delegation. The Iranian delegation has been led by Amir Saeed Iravani, the Iranian ambassador to the United Nations.
The MEE report said that the US wasn’t interested in restoring the original 2015 nuclear deal, known as the JCPOA, but an interim agreement is on the table. The deal would involve Iran stopping enriching uranium at 60%.
Iran would also have to continue cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Iran and the IAEA have recently resolved several outstanding issues, and Tehran has a history of being very transparent about its nuclear program despite US and Israeli claims.
In exchange for the Iranian steps, the US would allow Iran to export up to one million barrels of oil per day, and Tehran would be able to access some of its frozen funds. Haaretz first reported the US and Iran were close to a deal and said Tehran would be able to access about $20 billion of its assets held in South Korea, Iraq, and at the International Monetary Fund.
The deal is not finalized as both sides need the approval of their leadership. President Biden is already coming under pressure from hawks in Congress who are against any sort of diplomacy with Iran or sanctions relief for the Islamic Republic. US sanctions on Iran have done nothing to change the government but have had a devastating impact on ordinary Iranians.
I hope this deal gets done…..
Making a deal is something… Fully implementing it is another…! Especially with US being on one side of it…!
Um..no they’re not. Iran’s UN mission has already denied this.
Too funny, so we scrap a deal that held them to 20% and now we are happy to be stopping them at 60%. Maybe we should have stuck to the first deal. Did I get that right?
Munich 1938 was heralded as the hope for peace. So a lot could still unravel. It appears logical that Washington would like to see more oil flowing from Iran and perhaps pull Tehran out of Moscow’s orbit. As history shows, the more countries that can start a war the more likely a war becomes: eventually running out of ways to avoid it. Reaction from the Saudis or Israel – indeed Russia – might scupper any deal.
https://patternofhistory.wordpress.com/
” It appears logical that Washington would like to see more oil flowing from Iran”
Why, after 40 years of a foreign policy aimed in large part at ensuring less oil flows from Iran, why would Washington suddenly want to see more oil flowing from Iran?
One of the main jobs of any US administration is to keep oil prices high (while publicly wailing about how high oil prices are and promising to do something about it), so that expensive-to-extract US shale oil can compete with cheap-to-extract Saudi, etc. oil. And one of the main ways of keeping oil prices high is making it hard for Iran to export oil.
I could be wrong on that point. I am only surmising. But equally if the the flow of oil/gas from the Persian Gulf was to be cut off completely it would not suit US interests as many of its allies depend on it. A friendly Iran would be preferable in that situations – I surmise. What is historically true is that loyalties change on the basis of interests.
And ‘old’ Europe is frantic for cheap energy.
A US-Iran rapprochement would indeed be good for pretty much everyone.
But there seems to be a thing — a “pattern of history,” one might say! — where one regime gets a bit in its teeth and never lets go until either it collapses or the bit breaks. Sort of like the Cold War. While there was a little detente here, a little friendly interchange there, it was pretty much the US treating the Soviet Union as bogeyman until the Soviet Union collapsed (or, in an alternative universe, the US collapsed).
The US has spent the last 45 years, ever since the overthrow of the US-puppet Shah, in what amounts to a Cold War with Iran. That ongoing Cold War has done a lot of damage, but it has also fed certain powerful interests. One of those interests being domestic US “Big Oil,” which would rather not have Iran fully free to compete with it on price. And moving even half an inch off the well-marked path of “Iran is an enemy/threat” isn’t something most politicians are willing to do. Some of them constantly double or triple down on it, others go along silently. It seems like it would take some kind of very large event to change that.
While I say “loyalties change on the basis of interests”, and that is true, I should also add that often nations do not change course when to do so would be in their best interests – why they end up with the war they want to avoid – their own defeat. You hit the nail right on the head when you say so many vested interests are not for “moving even half an inch off the well-marked path”. I agree that is the problem.
“”…often nations do not change course when to do so would be in their best interests …””
i think because nations are led by individuals who make the rules which invariably benefit their persons instead of their nations
one might say! — where one regime gets a bit in its teeth and never lets go
Israel, one might say.
“”One of the main jobs of any US administration is to keep oil prices high (while publicly wailing about how high oil prices are””
and another elephant in the room
Why, after 40 years of a foreign policy aimed in large part at ensuring
less oil flows from Iran, why would Washington suddenly want to see more
oil flowing from Iran?
Same reason the US is all of a sudden making nice with Venezuela. We’re coming up to an election year and they don’t want prices too high.
If both Hitler and Chamberlain had been asked on that day to honestly identify their most dangerous opponent, both would have answered “Stalin”. Peace was needed to build a wall against the SU. At that time, Chamberlain would have gladly joined Hitler for an invasion of the Soviet Union.
That my friend is a perfect example of what our own, Mark (the truth) Thomason, previously described as floating trial balloons. Since then, it has been officially added to the “Political Dictionary” at: https://politicaldictionary.com/words/trial-balloon/
*Ring*,*Ring*. Joe, it’s Bibi on the line.
lol
“Tehran would be able to access about $20 billion of its assets held in South Korea, Iraq, and at the International Monetary Fund.”
Wow. I didn’t know that the U.S. controlled South Korea, Iraq, and the IMF (sarcasm). This is the hegemony that we accuse China of doing.
Projection is the primary neocon/neolib psychological trait.
Trade part of their nucleur activities for sanction relief?
That sounds like a venue for a complete reopening of relations so obviously we will make mess of it with some help from our neocons who will see a chance of a war slipping away from them.
They’ll immediately call this a bad deal and begin work to stop it.
Reopening of relations will never happen as long as the whole congress remains devoted to Israel…! This is just business on papers…!
and there it is, the elephant in the room
Yet we are talking to Iran aren’t we? Sometimes people just get tired of yelling at each other and this may be a case of that.
Just how many people who were in charge when this all started are even around anymore?
Those that are, have to be getting tired of this constant “going at each other” if they are even cognizant of their surroundings.
there are always hawks in Congress. Get on with it, old Joe
The USA is being left behind in the Persian Gulf as many of the Arab states continue to normalize with Iran, and Syria too.
U.S. has a bad reputation of breaking treaties and ignoring previous promises. Are Iranians naive enough to fall for this again?
No, they are not…!
https://www.indianpunchline.com/palestine-is-ripe-for-chinese-mediation/
Palestine Is Ripe for Chinese Mediation