Iran on Wednesday warned the US against “moving the goalposts” after US envoy Steve Witkoff suggested the Trump administration was seeking a deal to eliminate Tehran’s civilian nuclear program.
Witkoff said in a statement on Tuesday that any deal must “eliminate its nuclear enrichment” program. The statement came after he suggested the US would be happy with a deal that limited Iran’s nuclear enrichment to 3.67%, which drew backlash from Iran hawks.
“Moving the goalposts constitutes a professional foul and an unfair act in football. In diplomacy, any such shifting (pushed by hawks who fail to grasp the logic/art of commonsensical deal-making) could simply risk any overtures falling apart,” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei wrote on X.
“It could be perceived as lack of seriousness, let alone good faith. We’re still in testing mode,” Baghaei added.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi also responded to Witkoff’s comments, saying Iran’s nuclear enrichment program was non-negotiable. “Iran’s enrichment is a real, accepted matter. We are ready to build confidence in response to possible concerns, but the issue of enrichment is non-negotiable,” he said.
Iran is currently enriching some uranium at 60% and 20%, which is still below the 90% needed for weapons-grade. Tehran has made clear it’s willing to reduce enrichment levels, but eliminating its nuclear program altogether is a non-starter. The 2015 Iran nuclear deal, known as the JCPOA, which President Trump withdrew from in his first term, capped Iran’s enrichment levels at 3.67%.
Trump has been threatening to bomb Iran over its nuclear program, even though US intelligence agencies recently said in their annual threat assessment that there’s no evidence that Tehran is building a nuclear bomb or that Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has reversed his 2003 fatwah that banned the production of weapons of mass destruction.
Aragchi and Witkoff are set to lead delegations for another round of negotiations this Saturday. The two officials spoke briefly after holding indirect talks in Oman, marking the first direct engagement between high-level US and Iranian officials in recent years.
What makes this really pathetic is that there are plenty of people in the administration who want to make a deal and they are the majority, but Trump is so beholden to Zionist interests that the warmongers, who are in the minority like Waltz and Rubio, have the final say in what happens.
At this point, Trump is quite close to becoming even worse than Biden. If he goes ahead and attacks Iran, which will then result in every US base in the region and possibly elsewhere getting obliterated, he will go down as the worst US president in history.
Not to mention the economic fallout from his tariffs
What makes this really pathetic is that there are plenty of people in the administration who want to make a deal and they are the majority
I respectfully disagree with you. Unless you're talking about the "deal" that would have Iran basically give up their sovereignty and be subject to any and all of US/Israel demands.
That's why Trump is 'pissed" at Putin now because Putin did not go along with the emperor's deal. Remember the great "cease fire deal" for peace between Israel and Palestinians?
A deal made with Israel adn the USA means absolutely nothing for the other country. The US and Israel will break the deal when they so desire and then blame it on the other party as having broken the deal.
Was trump supposed to end the Ukraine war in one day? Did he not inherit a ceasefire between Gaza and Israel, which has now collapsed?
Worse than Wilson and Biden combined.
"Trump is quite close to becoming even worse than Biden" The day trump decided he wants to kick the Palestinians out of Gaza he passed Biden. And now Israel is preparing to do just that.
From Caitlin Johnstone:
Same movie, different soundtrack. That’s Gaza under Trump.
The Biden administration backed a genocide while occasionally making noises about humanitarian concerns, and now the Trump administration backs a genocide without making those noises.
All that’s changed is the noise.
US sanctions have prevented Iran from buying the basics of nuclear medicine, for treatment of things like cancer. They must make those things for themselves. They do. They also sell them, in international competition with the Western monopoly.
So yes, they do need enrichment. That is even before the reactors they operate, and are entitled to operate, the better to export their oil and gas for cash.
The idea that they only want a bomb is willful refusal to see.
Above all it's their right to enrich for medicine…!
A higher concentration of Uranium translates to more daughter isotopes produced for nuclear medicine. The IRI has a large (~15% out of ~92 million) population of people aged 55+, a demographic most likely to require isotopes for cancer treatments and imaging.
No nuclear medicine reactors that I know of requires 60 % enrichment. Do you know any? Iran has a successful nuclear medicine industry but it does not require near weapon grade uranium. And those medicine grade reactors don't use a lot of fuel. It would be a shame if Iran lost that industry in attacks on Iran's nuclear systems. Clearly those reactors would be destroyed to prevent them from being modified to produce plutonium.
One can operate power generating nuclear reactors by buying the fuel rods available from the West, from Russia, from Japan or from China. One does not need their own enrichment plants. And enrichment needed for power plants, depending on design, ranges from 3.7 to 5 %
As for exporting oil and natural gas for money, Iran does not burn their oil for electricity. They burn the natural gas which in Iran is a by product of oil production. There is so much gas produced with oil production that even after generating nearly all of Iran's electricity, Iran flared 721 billion cubic feet of excess gas in 2023. It makes no business sense to build and operate expensive nuclear power plants while you have free natural gas to power gas turbine based electrically. The capital cost of a new nuclear 1000 MW power plant is 15 billion dollars and takes about 10 years build. A gas power 1000 MW power plant cost 1/2 billion dollars takes three years to build. So much for the argument that Iran nuclear electricity power plant makes money for Iran.
No nuclear medicine reactors that I know of requires 60 % enrichment.
And he didn't say they did. And Iran has never said they needed 60% enriched Uranium for "medical reactors". I know it's been pointed out why they're enriching to 60% but you seem to ignore that.
And enrichment needed for power plants, depending on design, ranges from 3.7 to 5 %
And they were actually under that range at 3.67%. In other words, they were in compliance and stated they would immediately go back into compliance if the US would do the same.
I don't ignore that fact one bit. 60% is just below the threshold of bomb grade. And not very far below. There is no civilian reason to go to 60% unless one is planning to go to bomb grade. That is what I am pointing out. I don't know if they will execute the last step, but they are close. Trump created this whole mess in his first term and he is unlikely to clean it up in his second term.
“There is no civilian reason to go to 60% unless one is planning to go to bomb grade.”
There’s absolutely a civilian reason to go to 60% other than planning to go to bomb grade. That civilian reason is to get the other parties to the JCPOA to decide they’d rather go back to honoring the deal than risk a new nuclear power joining the club.
It's typically 20% enrichment for medical isotopes. The 60% enriched uranium could be downblended if the negotiations are successful, but I don't see Iran going back to the restrictions of the JCPOA that, lest we forget, Trump abrogated. Indeed, the Iranians are only now obligated to follow the terms of the NPT.
OK, back to blocking you.
Quiz
1) Has iran signed the NPT?
a) yes
b) no
2) Has israel signed the NPT?
a)yes
b) no
Bonus questions:
1) What is 'Rule of Law'?
2) Who decides 'Rule of Law'?
Oooh lemme try ! I recently scored High on a drug test (read that off a hydrovaccer's hardhat the other day) so I should do good.
1 = a.
2 = b.
B1 – Traditionally the mutual agreement among Parties to respect and observe those codified sets of international treaties, declarations, laws, and related doctrines of mutual benefit previously negotiated and established for the best interest of all and the advantage of none.
B2 – In modernity, whoever has the most guns.
Real estate developer turning politician…! Deception is the way to go…!
"Moving the goalposts constitutes a professional foul and an unfair act in football" LOL. This guy clearly knows zero about American football. How the H does one move the goalposts during a game? LOL. One would think that the Iranian Foreign Ministry would get someone with some knowledge of the American language to check his comment. LOL.
Wow, Americentric much ? Everywhere else in the world, your "socc-er" is referred to as football.
Also don't assume that the statement was meant for exclusively an American audience. The Persians are shrewd; they're advertising American duplicity to the entire world.
I don't know how shrewd they are, but if your going to send a tweet out for Americans to read, at least don't make it look foolish.
It could also be a dig at American football. Play a dozen games a “season” & NFL acts like it f**king accomplished something.
But like I said elsewhere – it’s less for the Americans to read than the Europeans, Chinese, Africans, anyone else potentially negotiating with a fundamentally dishonest postmodern United States of America.
Do you realize that Canada use same terminology for the two games.
But that not the point, the point it is a stupid explanation of the term. Actually funny. Certainly not need and made him look like the court jester who clearly did not understand the true meeting of the term.
And for the record, American Football is richest sport in world, about 2.5 times greater than International Football (AKA soccer). In fact Baseball and Basketball also each produce more revenue that International Football. But don't feel bad, International Football does out perform Hockey, but not by much.
I immediately got his meaning since the "moving the goalposts" comment is quite common right here in the US.
Yes, it is a common statement which does not need an explanation. However he decided it did and his explanation made be laugh. What is next? "It is rainy cats and dogs". I would love to hear explain that one.
The problem is whatever passes for “thought” in Trump's mind is not consistent or sustained. The goal posts are subject to wherever he wants to set them down—depending on what? his emotions, his poll ratings? at a particular moment. Witkoff is obviously no check on the man, just the errand boy of the moment. Trump must keep listening to the tumult he's causing.
He said a long, long time ago that he does best under pressure and when he is challenged. So he invites those challenges by creating chaos. Not to forget it also keeps him in the media and forefront at all times.
His best in not very good.
In my view he's risking going way over the top with this approach. Look at everything he currently has "on his plate." I fancy he wakes up every morning with "was I tough enough yesterday?" But this posing is increasingly turning him into a joke, an amusement. And this is why he's so dangereous.
"Moving the goalposts constitutes a professional foul and an unfair act in football."
More importantly (as deflating the football is/was more of a concern to the average American), Moving The Goalposts is a logical fallacy, one which renders the rebuttal to an argument invalid and an illegitimate defense.
MMeanwhile continuing to ignore the real elephant in the room, Israeli nuclear weapons.
And don't forget the US nuclear weapons who is the only nation that has already used them twice on civilians.
War criminal (oops wrong article, I was referring to Defense Minister Katz reaffirming the total food blockade on Gaza, the one that our MSM doesn't care about)
Is my phone or browser going weird, or are there new frontpage articles on this site dated Oct 2024 or thereabouts that cannot be Commented on ?
I’m not seeing anything like that.
OK, probably just me.
They’ve taken the posts completely off the field IMO.
The time it takes Witkoff to move the goal posts is a direct measure of how long it takes for the demands to get from Israel to Trump's ear, and back to Witkoff.