Perhaps there is a genuine reason for the US to consider that the negotiated deal wasn’t being adhered to by Iran before Trump intervened?
The deal was agreed 2015 which is when Biden was still VP (although, maybe he wasn’t in favour of it?) and backing out was a Trump decision, so easy for Biden to have support for overturning.
I presume one of the other parties to the deal can probably help find the middle ground which will enable both parties to move forward.
Seems more like a diplomatic move to me. Trying to gauge how willing Iran is to come to the table with no prior concessions.
What you inherit is what you inherit and you do the best you can with it.
Then why didn’t anyone else (EU, UN) mentioned anything about Iran not adhering to the deal? It’s been what, two years since Trump pulled out!!! What have the other parties (EU, UN) said so far? Any mention of (including USA and it’s allies) not adhering to the deal???
I haven’t followed it, so I don’t know. I was merely speculating and would like to understand the situation better myself. In answer to your question, two things come to mind - The EU may not have access to the same information that the US does, and I think France may have had close ties with Iran possibly inhibiting an EU position?
What?
Is that because PSA have a tiny production site there?
Or are they supplying high grade uranium and plutonium?
Equally, I think it is for domestic consumption. Only a few extreme GOP Congress members object to the idea of negotiations with Iran, but easing sanctions with no quid pro quo would open up an early avenue of attack. By stating that they will not do so, they provide cover for re-opening the dialogue. They could reinstate substantially the same deal, a concession to Iran here and there in exchange for a change in monitoring arrangements, both sides declare victory.
I really don’t get this. Everyone, even Iran has said (multiple times) that they will abide the deal (handing over enriched uranium, pulling-off centrifuges) like before if the sanctions are lifted.
If Biden did not believe that, he would not be reopening discussions. But if he lifts sanctions, he is ‘soft on Iran’. If Iran agrees to a token change to reinstated international monitoring, Biden is insulated from criticism from the yahoo right, and can point to the compliance that Iran is agreeing to. The White House will of course expect that there will have to be some reciprocity, so Iran can also claim victory.
A classic example of how exactly you put shit back into the horse. All very unnecessary, but everyone has to to do the dance to undo the damage.
Watch out Sweden!
No, I was thinking there had been a long term relationship between the two countries, and in more recent times a close tie between many businesses particularly in the oil industry,
Yes long and complicated but not close. in fact much friction. Sarkosy was a particular thorn in Iran’s side.
I couldn’t tell you how that compares to other countries however the extraterritorial behaviour of the USA with their trade embargo created difficulties for a number of French companies that had or where installing some production in Iran. The main problem being that the US market being so much more important than the tiny market Iran offered. Iran was a very long term strategic option taken by these companies. Only PSA really got a mention though as they tried negociating with the US for leniance. As for oil I remember Total Fina Elf getting some contracts but that was yonks ago (I couldn’t tell you where they stand now). Certainly wasn’t influenced politically mind diplomatic relations between France and Iran is yoyo country and Macron certainly doesn’t hold any favor or offer any to Iran.
What get’s me is this type of trash is often portrayed in certain English media, particularly the Torygraph, it’s blatantly anti France and hasn’t a leg to stand on. UK journalism is just so crap (Btw the French aren’t much better less influential though as it hasn’t the audience).
Yeah Iran-France relation took a nosedive during Sarkozy and isn’t much better under Macron. Think the relationship was best during François Mitterrand.
Interesting thread - author thinks there is a 60%+ chance of the JCPOA agreement being back in place by Summer.
Not even as the open and willingness of France to harbour exiled and self exiled personnes, and that goes for practically any nationality, created very complicated relations. No ‘benefit’ was apparent for having harboured the Ayatolla all those years was observed and the subsequent harbouring of the ‘exiled’ Shah regime caused much tension.
I do get the feeling there’s some feeling of regret in France that they weren’t able to be of greater influence in the region though there is no shame either. Not even Sarkozy created unrepairable damage and since the USA has taken center stage everyone else is just in limbo state on the issues.
It’s a mystery that France and Iran didn’t forge a good working relation after the Revolution. I understand many, including the Foreign Minister in post revolution government, were educated in France.
Is there a western government that can boast better and more cordial relations? (Just throwing that out there)
Also would any western government wish for better and more cordial relations?
The real requirement is influence and after the revolution that just wasn’t possible for any western government, was it? even if france was hopeful. Once it was apparent influence wasn’t on the cards cordial is nice.
That’s problem all along. Western countries never tried to influence Iran by building relationship. They never even expected this regime to survive, specially when Saddam went marching into Iran. It’s really funny how entrenched has Iran’s influence has become in countries previously in Western influence.
Another post colonial fuck up just because well being self rightious is just so important.