Reports on Friday said the Biden administration has begun discussing Iran policy and ways to approach the 2015 nuclear deal, known as the JCPOA.
The US has been demanding that Iran act first and return to commitments it agreed to in 2015. But since the US is the party that violated the deal, Tehran is calling on President Biden to come into compliance with the JCPOA and lift sanctions first.
According to The Washington Post, the Biden Administration is considering if trading “US actions for Iranian ones” is a way to revive the deal. Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif floated this idea earlier this week, suggesting the EU could help coordinate the actions needed to be taken by both sides.
While the US initially dismissed Zarif’s idea, the Post said European nations favor the plan. Secretary of State Antony Blinken reportedly discussed Iran with his counterparts from the UK, Germany, and France on Friday. The French foreign minister said the envoys had an “in-depth and important conversation on Iran.”
The idea of trading actions could bring Iran to the table, but the Post story said the US is also considering whether or not they want the JCPOA as it is or a stricter deal that “goes beyond Iran’s nuclear program.” Any demands for a new deal would be a non-starter for talks with Iran.
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki stressed that no decisions were made at today’s meetings. “This is not a decisional meeting. It’s not a meeting where policy will be concluded, and it’s not a meeting the president of the United States will be attending,” she said.
Psaki also repeated the stance of the administration. “If Iran comes back into full compliance with the obligations under the JCPOA … the United States would do the same, and then use that as a platform to build a longer and stronger agreement that also addresses other areas of concern.”
Axios reported that a National Security Council meeting on Iran convened on Friday. Sources told Axios that one thing up for discussion was whether or not the US would act on the JCPOA now or wait until Iran’s June presidential elections, a sign that the administration is in no rush to lift crushing economic sanctions on Iran.
It is indefensible to defend repressive, aggressive regimes. Tell the Saudis to end the war on Yemen, or our alliance is over. Tell the Israelis to stop their terrorist actions and allow democracy for the Palestinians, or we will call for a nuclear free middle east and close our bases in the region. Suddenly, getting along with Iran would be easy if those itching to fight Iran to the last American learned that diplomacy is a two-way street.
So then why do you defend the repressive, aggressive Iranian regime?
No, the real question is why the US supports some repressive regimes and wants to over throw others.
Extremely relevant question.
YOUR opinion, not your business at all.
In , other worlds, free speech only for yourself and those who think like you-I am a guest at this forum-so are you–I’m making my business -just exposing your bias.
I don’t, I’m just against being completely adversarial towards them. And my tax money doesn’t pay them to be more aggressive, so I care less about what they do.
BWAHAHAHAHA! Iran has not attacked another country in over 200 years.
Speaking of being aggressive, you do remember the coup in 1953, don’t you? Green lighted by Ike, enhanced by the CIA. Radical Islam was born from that fiasco.
Then, there was the original 9/11. On 9/11/73, we were involved in the coup in Chile (which is the country we just sold a bunch of weapons to).
We do not have to discuss the “war on terror”, unleashed against Iraq and Afghanistan.
So, who is aggressive?
JCPOA is not about the Iranian regime.
US deplomacy can be summed up in 4 words , DO AS WE SAY.
Or, “can we sell you some weapons?”
What’s to “mull?” We get back in compliance, they get back in compliance. Done. Anything further, hold discussions.
Keep Israel the h*ll out of it.
First get rid of the illegal sanctions, then Iran may be ready to talk. As for “other issues”, perhaps the USA could come in to international law now that nukes are illegal, and get rid of US nukes!!! That could lead to real nuclear disarmament in the other “nuclear nations” and Israel, and we would all be much safer. Iran is NOT the problem.
maybe in some other sensible world…
Yes, the US is not in compliance with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) by not promoting nuclear disarmament.
NPT — Article VI
Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control. . . here
Iran will proceed with their internal repression and external aggression. with or without nukes-no heroes here.
Please explain the external aggression. As for internal matters, that is their business and the USA is hardly a model for treating its population fairly.
Correct.
It was YOU who introduced the term “repressive”, setting the boundaries for this discussion.As far as external aggression-numerous terrorist acts throughout the world-attacks on Bulgarian Bus full of tourists,openly threatening to destroy Israel, two terrorist attacks on Jews in Argentina, and killing of regime opponents abroad.Oh, by the way, providing insurgents in Iraq with IEDs, and creation of the worlds largent terrorist army-Hezbollah.
Per Jane’s, Hezbollah only boasts 25,000 full-time fighters and 20-30k reservists.
Not only is that not the world’s largest terrorist army, it’s not even the largest terrorist army in the region (the Israeli Defense Forces boast 170,000 active terrorists and 465,000 reserve terrorists).
So anyone, anywhere,who happens to be in military service, a terrorist?
According to you, yes.
And we are so very peaceful and we sell weapons to whoever, and, give the keys to the bomb to. We promote h*ll the world over, for $$$$$$$$$$$$$.
Nukes are regretable, not illegal
Immoral. Ask the Japanese who survived. Ask the families of the POWs that we cremated with our bomb.
Ask the victims of the rape of Nanking who were killed with primitive bayonets-or the victims of Japanese medical experiments-was that any more humane?Ask any.Ask any ww2 Veteran if he wanted to go home, or waste his life invading Japan. Ask POWs who were tortured under German and Japanese rule how sorry they are for the US use of nukes.
War is a crime, especially against defenseless civilians and more especially women and children.
“Trust us. Would we lie to you?”
That is the US insisting that Iran go first.
That is the Administration telling Americans we will no longer assist the Saudi war crimes against Yemen.
The mostly hidden real issue now is the precision missiles that Iran and Hezbollah could use to destroy US Gulf installations and ships, and Israel cities. Iran doesn’t need nukes to eliminate local enemies. So Iran says go ahead with the JCPOA again, who needs nukes when we’ve got the missiles. Meanwhile Iran plays the West like a fiddle — it’s got them by the short hairs.
Which justifies Israeli efforts to weaken Hezbollah in Syria.By the way, despite heavy suffering, massive bombing campaigns, both the people of Britain and Germany persevered during WW2.
Iran would be asking for a death wish for its culture.
The Goreh-Jask pipeline project in Iran will be completed next month, allowing Iran to send petroleum through a pipeline to the Gulf of Oman, outside the Gulf. This would permit Iran to shut down the Gulf to petroleum shipments from other Gulf countries, and take up the slack with Iran oil. This is a part of the current focus of plans between Iran and China to boost short-term oil production as part of the two countries’ 25-year plan.
Big mistake, I trust the Iran like I trust Putin and Ivan the terrible.
” the envoys had an “in-depth and important conversation on Iran.” ”
The European trio received Netanyawho’s instructions via the US
If Biden does not go back to JCPOA it would show that he approves of Trump reneging on the deal. Unless he goes back to the original deal, he will be obvious that someone other than him is making the decisions. The question will then be who?
Feb 7 developments–
> Biden said the U.S. will not lift sanctions against Iran unless the country stops enriching uranium. .here
>Khamenei made it crystal clear that Iran will reject any offer to revive the deal without giving Iran a verifiable sanctions relief. . .here