The two sides had a ginormous chasm between their positions. Iran had not reason to either trust the US or make large concessions. The badly-enbubbled US leadership seems to believe one or both of two things. First, that the US has won and/or is winning, so (in a variant of “the Russians are running out of weapons”) if they can keep pressure on, Iran will soon fall into a heap. Second, that the continuation of the conflict will benefit key interest groups aligned with the Administration, such as fossil fuel players, defense contractors, and Silicon Valley. The latter view is as nutty as the first. As the wags say, the cure for high oil prices is high oil prices. They eventually kill economic activity and lead to low oil prices. The futures market expects that, with longer-dated contracts trading more in line with old normal prices.
The talks lasted 21 hours. Recall Iran had set a one-day limit. Iran in a show of seriousness sent a massive team, including technical, military, security and banking experts. This was likely intended to stand in contrast to the lightweights America dispatched.
"We are disappointed with how US behaved. Netanyahu's call to Vance during the meeting shifted the focus from US-Iran negotiations to Israel's interests. The U.S. tried to achieve at the negotiating table what it could not achieve through war. We came here with good faith, the press conference by Vance before he left Pakistan was unnecessary, we are committed & prepared to safeguard our nation's interest and sovereignty"- Iran FM Seyed Abbas Araghchi
First, the US position is that Iran would not accept its terms, strongly implying that the US did not intend to negotiate. Vance depicts the main sticking points as Iran refusing to commit never to build a nuclear weapon. That is code for no enrichment, even for medical purposes, a position Iran has consistently rejected.
Second, you may have noticed that Vance by implication saying Iran had to negotiate from the US position amounted to a disagreement over process, or what in Vietnam War negotiations was called the shape of the table. Iran had repeatedly maintained that it had preconditions for negotiation, such as the return of all of its frozen assets, an end to hostilities on all Middle East fronts, and acceptance of its sovereign control over the Strait of Hormuz. The Vance framing indicates that the US puts its fingers in its ears and said, “Nyah nyah nyah” to Iran’s procedural requirements.
You’ll see in the Aljazeera segment a bizarre amount of cope about how the negotiations might restart later. IMHO this is impossible absent big and undeniable changes in facts on the ground, and/or regime change in Israel or the US.
Iran quickly made clear why the interaction went nowhere. The Iran Foreign Ministry spokesman cited an atmosphere of mistrust…
The Speaker of the Parliament, MB Ghalibaf, similarly said, “…the opposing side ultimately failed to gain the trust of the Iranian delegation in this round of negotiations.””
It looks as if, true to form, the Trump Team was unable to contain its bad impulses. It engaged in a show of macho by sending two destroyers to the Strait of Hormuz while the talks were underway. More on this soon, but the US predictably tried making noise about the vessels getting through the Strait of Hormuz, when this was in fact a bad-faith action. Iran would not shoot as the ship as it normally would absent the pow-wow. Instead, parties in Iran contacted their negotiators. They informed the US side that if the destroyer did not exit in 30 minutes, it would be attacked. It beat a retreat.
Larry Johnson provides additional intel in Trump Refuses Exit Ramp, War with Iran will Continue:
Second, you may have noticed that Vance by implication saying Iran had to negotiate from the US position amounted to a disagreement over process, or what in Vietnam War negotiations was called the shape of the table. Iran had repeatedly maintained that it had preconditions for negotiation, such as the return of all of its frozen assets, an end to hostilities on all Middle East fronts, and acceptance of its sovereign control over the Strait of Hormuz. The Vance framing indicates that the US puts its fingers in its ears and said, “Nyah nyah nyah” to Iran’s procedural requirements.
You’ll see in the Aljazeera segment a bizarre amount of cope about how the negotiations might restart later. IMHO this is impossible absent big and undeniable changes in facts on the ground, and/or regime change in Israel or the US.
Iran quickly made clear why the interaction went nowhere. The Iran Foreign Ministry spokesman cited an atmosphere of mistrust…
The Speaker of the Parliament, MB Ghalibaf, similarly said, “…the opposing side ultimately failed to gain the trust of the Iranian delegation in this round of negotiations.””
It looks as if, true to form, the Trump Team was unable to contain its bad impulses. It engaged in a show of macho by sending two destroyers to the Strait of Hormuz while the talks were underway. More on this soon, but the US predictably tried making noise about the vessels getting through the Strait of Hormuz, when this was in fact a bad-faith action. Iran would not shoot as the ship as it normally would absent the pow-wow. Instead, parties in Iran contacted their negotiators. They informed the US side that if the destroyer did not exit in 30 minutes, it would be attacked. It beat a retreat.
Larry Johnson provides additional intel in Trump Refuses Exit Ramp, War with Iran will Continue:
As I expected, the negotiation between the US and Iran failed to reach an agreement. Although JD Vance headed the US team, he was never in control… I have heard from someone who was directly involved with this circus in Islamabad that Israeli agents — Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner — made certain that JD Vance would not follow his instincts and accept the deal that Iran had laid on the table. Israel’s role in sabotaging the US delegation was evident in Vance’s statement announcing the failure of the negotiations, when he falsely accused Iran of refusing to give up its alleged quest for a nuclear weapon. This is just a rehashed piece of Zionist propaganda.
There were three Iranian conditions that the US refused to accept: Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz, an end to Israel’s attack on Lebanon and Hezbollah, unfreezing of Iran’s assets and retaining sovereignty over its supply of enriched uranium. I have said repeatedly this past week during various interviews on the subject that Iran’s position on these issues was non-negotiable.
Here is the statement just released by the Iranian government:
The American enemy, which is vile, wicked and dishonest — attempted to achieve on the negotiating table what it could not achieve through war.
Among these demands are handing over enriched uranium and opening the Strait of Hormuz without confirmed Iranian sovereignty over it.
Iran has decided to reject these terms and continue the sacred defense of its fatherland by any means necessary, military or diplomatic.’
Reports from the Iranian side suggest an additional layer of spin via the focus on the “nuclear weapsons” issue, that of the US refusal to pressure Israel to halt attacks on Lebanon was a big no-go for them...
It was also clear, via the provocation as the talks were on of the US trying to send a destroyer through the Strait of Hormuz. The US propagandists make much of the claim that it “got through”. This sort of dick-wagging in fact reveals the weakness of the US position, that it is desperate to score what it can present as wins to hide its fundamental defeat.
Patrick Henningsen, in a discussion before the talks broke down, describes why he was confident they would fail.... [video]
There’s a lot of important insight here, so I urge you to listen to the entire segment. Henningsen says the Iranians did not seem to think an agreement was possible but nevertheless treated the process seriously to show they were a “normative power”. He describes Trump’s terrible track record as a negotiator and that he, Witkoff and Kushner seem unable to conduct themselves in a way that fosters productive long-term relationships. And aside from the posture of the Trump Team, Israel stood ready to sabotage any deal. Henningsen aligns with Alastair Crooke in seeing the US and Israel as trying to stoke civil war in Lebanon.
Nima cites a CNN report that China has been arming Iran. Henningsen believes China like Russia has been preparing for the worst.
Max Blumenthal, in a discussion with Glenn Diesen, effectively dashes any hope of what Joe Kent described as the only hope for an early-ish end of the Iran war, that of the US cutting Israel loose. Blumenthal describes long form the deep ties between Trump and the Zionists, going back to his father Fred Trump. Blumenthal lists many figures in Trump’s inner circle, some of whom may not be familiar to readers, as well as his family’s investment in a network of Zionist influencers. [video]
Patrick Henningsen, in a discussion before the talks broke down, describes why he was confident they would fail.... [video]
There’s a lot of important insight here, so I urge you to listen to the entire segment. Henningsen says the Iranians did not seem to think an agreement was possible but nevertheless treated the process seriously to show they were a “normative power”. He describes Trump’s terrible track record as a negotiator and that he, Witkoff and Kushner seem unable to conduct themselves in a way that fosters productive long-term relationships. And aside from the posture of the Trump Team, Israel stood ready to sabotage any deal. Henningsen aligns with Alastair Crooke in seeing the US and Israel as trying to stoke civil war in Lebanon.
Nima cites a CNN report that China has been arming Iran. Henningsen believes China like Russia has been preparing for the worst.
Max Blumenthal, in a discussion with Glenn Diesen, effectively dashes any hope of what Joe Kent described as the only hope for an early-ish end of the Iran war, that of the US cutting Israel loose. Blumenthal describes long form the deep ties between Trump and the Zionists, going back to his father Fred Trump. Blumenthal lists many figures in Trump’s inner circle, some of whom may not be familiar to readers, as well as his family’s investment in a network of Zionist influencers. [video]
In another valuable exchange, Alastair Crooke tells Chris Hedges that the Iranians view the ceasefire as what they would call a hudna (which seems even more provisional) and offers some key high-level observations. [video]
From a mildly cleaned-up machine transcript starting at 9:25:
Crooke: I mean in a nutshell the objectives of Iran are to blow blow up the existing paradigm. That is a revolutionary objective, to blow it up completely, in order that they can escape if you like from the cage in which they’ve been held for 48 years of surrounded by US military forces, besieged by tariffs, by restrictions, UN resolutions, political isolation, economic, cultural if you like boycott. So this is what they are trying to break out from break out. It’s not the same cage that the Hamas and the Palestinians are in in Gaza, which is a literal fence and drones and monitoring of it. But Iran is intent on breaking the paradigm and the key to breaking that paradigm of course is the Hormuz and their control over the Hormuz which is um the uh centerpiece of their strategic objectives.And at 12:20:
Crooke: Iran doesn’t have air dominance but instead of which they have created missile dominance overthe airspace um of the whole region and including Israel Um the damage to their missile capabilities has been grossly overstated by the old tactic of just counting, this goes back to Vietnam, counting air strikes. And one of the things that has been most notable in this period is before the war, Iran bought from China a huge number of decoys, decoy planes, decoy missiles. And one of the things um not only are they very effective in their appearance, but I didn’t know until recently is they have a heat source in them. So they are hot. And so of course that shows up on the American sensors and the Israeli sensors as a real target, a real plane, a real missile um when it’s really only a decoy.Crooke also describes how the underground missiles operate, the Iranian demand that GCC states expel major US corporations like Microsoft if they are to have a relationship with Iran, and Israel’s objectives in Lebanon.
by Yves Smith, Naked Capitalism | Read more:
Image: X
