Moon of Alabama<\/p>\n
Today the third round of the current negotiations between the U.S. and Iran is taking place in Geneva. After three hours the talks were paused to allow the negotiators to communicate with their governments. They are supposed to continue later today.<\/p>\n
Iran continues to offer reductions in its nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of sanctions. Iran\u2019s Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei\u00a0insists<\/a>\u00a0on tangible outcomes:<\/p>\n \u201cToday\u2019s discussions were very serious, and we hope that in the talks taking place tonight, we will see a continuation of the dialogue on the lifting of sanctions and nuclear issues\u2014this time in a more operational manner, with practical proposals and executable initiatives,\u201d Baghaei said.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Baghaei insisting on those is a sign that the conditions the U.S. delegation has offered were vague and lacking specifics.<\/p>\n Before today\u2019s round started the\u00a0Wall Street Journal<\/i>\u00a0published a list<\/a>\u00a0(archived<\/a>) of \u2018tough\u2019 demands the U.S. is making to Iran. These are:<\/p>\n In exchange for that the U.S. would offer \u2026 nothing tangible:<\/p>\n The U.S. is offering only minimal sanctions relief to Iran as part of a deal, \u2026 The U.S. wants to see Iran comply with the terms for an extended period and, if judged to be sticking to the agreement, it could in time ask for more sanctions relief and other benefits, the officials said.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Why does the U.S. believe that Iran might be willing to give up all for nothing?<\/p>\n If the demands the\u00a0WSJ<\/i>\u00a0published are real the negotiations will go nowhere as these are in breach of several of Iran\u2019s red lines.<\/p>\n The Trump administration will thus miss another potential off-ramp from its\u00a0self-defeating threat<\/a>\u00a0of bombing Iran.<\/p>\n In consequence the Zionist lobby will increase the pressure on President Trump to regime change the Islamic Republic.<\/p>\n But the Trump administration has no public support for such an endeavor. To make the \u2018politics\u2019 around a strike look better it is pushing Israel\u00a0to fire the first salvo<\/a>\u00a0in a new war:<\/p>\n As the administration mulls military action in Iran, officials argue it\u2019d be best if Israel makes the first move.<\/p>\n \u201cThere\u2019s thinking in and around the administration that the politics are a lot better if the Israelis go first and alone and the Iranians retaliate against us, and give us more reason to take action,\u201d said one of the people familiar with discussions.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Iran has promised to respond to any strike, be it by the U.S. or Israel, with severe retaliation strikes against both. Israel will not attack Iran without U.S. support or knowledge nor would the U.S. strike without warning Israel to get ready for a response.<\/p>\n It is thus doubtful that the question of who did the first strike on Iran, Israel or the U.S., would change the public perception of a new conflict.<\/p>\n\n