Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Iran Demands Immediate Total Sanctions Relief As Biden Admin Practically Begs For Nuke Deal Talks

Iran Demands Immediate Total Sanctions Relief As Biden Admin Practically Begs For Nuke Deal Talks

As talks start next week, Iran Foreign Ministry announces: “No step-by-step plan is being considered. The definitive policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran is the lifting of all U.S. sanctions.”

President Joe Biden’s administration and the Iranian regime have agreed to resume the nuclear talks as early as next week seeking a return to the Obama-era agreement. The Biden White House and Tehran “will begin indirect negotiations with intermediaries next week to try to get both countries back into compliance with an accord limiting Iran’s nuclear program,” the Associated Press reported Friday.

Iran on Saturday rejected Biden’s proposal of “step-by-step” easing of restrictions. Iran wants all U.S. sanctions lifted ahead of talks in Vienna Reuters reported.

“No step-by-step plan is being considered,” Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh told state TV. “The definitive policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran is the lifting of all U.S. sanctions.”

The move could result in billions of dollars in foreign investment and revenue flowing into Tehran’s coffers, a regime rightly classified by the outgoing Trump administration as the biggest state sponsor of terrorism.

The Wall Street Journal reported the resumption of talks between the Biden administration and the Mullah regime:

The United States and Iran will take part in talks next week in Vienna aimed at reviving the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement, the most extensive effort to shore up the accord since President Biden took office in January, diplomats said Friday.

Senior officials from all participants in the accord—Iran, France, Germany, the U.K., Russia, China and the European Union, as well as top U.S. officials—will gather in the Austrian capital starting Tuesday.

For now, Iran has ruled out direct talks on nuclear matters with the U.S. However both countries will attend the gathering, which is aimed at breaking a stalemate over Iranian compliance with the agreement and U.S. sanctions against Tehran.

A face-to-face meeting between officials from the two countries over the nuclear agreement would be the first since late 2017, months before the Trump administration withdrew from the deal in May 2018.

As the new phase of nuclear negotiations are kicked off between the U.S. and Iran, the European Union, China and others will act as “mediators,” Germany’s state-run DW News confirmed.

Next Week, the EU, China, France, Germany, Russia, Britain, and Iran will meet in Vienna, Austria to coordinate the lifting of sanction on Tehran and restoration of the nuclear deal. The Vienna summit is being hosted “in order to clearly identify sanctions lifting and nuclear implementation measures,” the participants declared in a statement on Friday.

The resumption of negotiations comes after Tehran rejected Biden administration’s offer to restart the talks twice in the span of almost four weeks. As part of the bid, President Biden rolled back major sanctions on the regime, including Trump-era enforcement of the UN sanctions and international weapons embargo.

Iran matched Biden’s desperate offers with more demands. Iran called for an end to all U.S. sanctions and a trillion dollar in punitive “reparation” for the Trump-era “Maximum Pressure” campaign aimed at the jihad and terrorism sponsoring regime.

“We have a lot of patience and we are not in a hurry.” Iran’s Shia-Islamic ruler, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, told the Biden White House on March 21.

The Biden administration responded to Iran’s humiliating rejections and blatant demands with presenting a “road map” to restore the nuclear deal. President Biden’s move appears to be in direct compliance with the demand for a “road map” made by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi just days ago.

The timing of the announcement suggests that the goal of the talks is to rally political support for a nuclear agreement ahead of the upcoming sham presidential election in Iran. “The aim is to reach an agreement within two months, said a senior official with the European Union, the coordinator of the deal. Iran holds elections in June,” the Reuters reported.

The Biden team and the mainstream media commentators are foolishly pinning their hopes on the Iranian “election” to bring a “moderate” leadership at the helm. No real opposition figures is allowed to contest in Iran’s presidential election — or any other election for that matter, and only the regime loyalists are selected run for the public offices.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

I was in a position to follow the “negotiations” very closely, the first time around. I’ve also had first hand experience negotiating with Middle Eastern businessmen (men, never women) in the past. Some takeaways that Kerry and his team never grasped back then and Biden will no doubt blow this time too.

1. We are infidels and non-believers. Islam does not recognize any agreements with infidels as legitimate. Handshakes and signatures on paper mean nothing to Iran but are binding on us.

2. Any deal that we are willing to sign signals to the Iranians that they are leaving something on the table and they will always come back for more even when Biden thinks he has a deal. They did this day after day. Kerry reported to the press that a deal was reached at the end of the day and the next morning another demand would be raised by the Iranians.

3. Even after number two is finally reached, see number one. Consider the refusal to allow IAEA inspectors into the most suspect facilities. The requirement to notify when the inspectors are coming followed by convoys of trucks leaving as inspectors were entering. The required payment of hundreds of billion of Swiss Francs to get our hostages back in the dark of the night. The continued testing of ballistic missals banned by the agreement (see 1 above).

4. Iran has no motivation to do anything this time around. Last time they were coming off the Arab Spring catastrophe (catastrophic for it’s people that actually thought Obama cared), international sanctions were strangling them, and the Iranian leaders and their people were literally starving. In addition, their nuclear program was still pretty much in its infancy. This time, the Chinese and Russians are backing them, The EU wants a deal at all costs. The Iranian leadership is in complete control of the population. The American’s sanctions are toothless. Their facilities are further fortified. And the Iranians are only months away from a bomb.

This time around the starting point is no requirements for Iran and total removal of sanctions just to get a seat at their table. Since they’ve already blown the many hundreds of billions they were given in the last round, they will want trillions in “reparations” just to get back to number one above.

Biden, like Obama and Kerry, are just stupid enough and certainly desperate enough to consider this. And the Mullahs know it.

DanJ1: Handshakes and signatures on paper mean nothing to Iran but are binding on us.

It was the U.S. that reneged on the deal. (And, in the 1950s, the U.S. was implicated in the overthrow of Iranian democracy.) This history is making the prospect of the U.S. reentering the deal problematic. Why should the Iranians trust the U.S?

DanJ1: The required payment of hundreds of billion of Swiss Francs to get our hostages back in the dark of the night.

The hostages were released in 1981. The U.S. had agreed to binding arbitration concerning money owed to Iran. It was their money that was returned to them as required by the Algiers Accord.

DanJ1: Iran has no motivation to do anything this time around.

Sanctions are still in place, and they are far from “toothless.” However, there is a limit to what sanctions can accomplish.

Frankly, the atom bomb is 1940s technology. Any country that makes a concerted effort can build one. The only reason a country won’t is because they find it in their own self-interest not to do so. There is no indication that the Iranian regime will collapse on its own, so the options are war or negotiation.

    Lucifer Morningstar in reply to Zachriel. | April 3, 2021 at 4:28 pm

    It was the U.S. that reneged on the deal.</b.</blockquote.

    There was no deal to renege on. Obama admitted the JCPOA wasn’t a treaty, an executive agreement or even a “signed document” and wasn’t legally binding on the Iranians or the United States for that matter.

    Source:
    https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/iran-nuclear-deal-not-signed-document-not-binding/

      Lucifer Morningstar: There was no deal to renege on. Obama admitted the JCPOA wasn’t a treaty, an executive agreement or even a “signed document” and wasn’t legally binding on the Iranians or the United States for that matter.

      While not a treaty, it was an agreement by Iran and the P5+1 (China France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States).

        Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Zachriel. | April 4, 2021 at 7:26 pm

        It was not an agreement with the United States. The president is not a king. An actual agreement requires ratification and adoption by the Senate. This was an agreement between Iran and Obama, and is not binding on any successor. It was a farce from first to last.

          Brave Sir Robbin: The president is not a king. An actual agreement requires ratification and adoption by the Senate.

          Enabling legislation can make an agreement law.

          Don’t worry. Nobody’s is going to sue the U.S. What it means is that the words of the U.S. president carry little weight when future presidents so easily discard their commitments. Once upon a time, presidents were cautious about doing so as it undercut their own ability to negotiate, and undermined U.S. credibility.

          In any case, it was the U.S. that reneged on the deal, contrary to DanJ1’s implication above.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Brave Sir Robbin. | April 5, 2021 at 9:52 am

          “Once upon a time, presidents were cautious about doing so as it undercut their own ability to negotiate, and undermined U.S. credibility.”

          Once upon a time presidents did not make long-term agreements for foreign nations he knew did not have bipartisan backing precisely because the successor administration could immediately cancel that “agreement.

          You argue that one president can bind another without formal supplement of sanctity of or proper implementation of legislative ratification.

          Obviously, such a thin agreement will last only as long as the administration of the president that makes it. The Iranians are sophisticated and surely understood this.

          Not only is a president not king, once that president expires, either in their term in office or otherwise, their agreements leave the door with them, and that president’s successor is not morally, ethically, or legally bound by their predecessor’s agreements.

          JCPOA was a sham from first to last.

          The Iranians are quite sophisticated and know how our system works. Surely they knew the JCPOA was merely a handshake between Obama and any goon who then claimed to represent the people of Iran.

          Brave Sir Robbin: You argue that one president can bind another without formal supplement of sanctity of or proper implementation of legislative ratification.

          No, we don’t argue that successor presidents are legally bound, only that they should be averse to undercutting such agreements because it undermines presidential and U.S. credibility.

          Brave Sir Robbin: The Iranians are quite sophisticated and know how our system works.

          Of course. They, along with much of the world, consider the U.S. to be fickle and self-involved, certainly not one constrained by the principles they so often espouse.

      The U.N. Security Council unanimously endorsed JCPOA.

      Trump withdrew from the JCPOA.

        Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Zachriel. | April 4, 2021 at 7:27 pm

        A vote by the UN security council is not binding upon the United States. The UN security council is not the sovereign of the world, much less the United States,

          Brave Sir Robbin: A vote by the UN security council is not binding upon the United States.

          That the U.N. recognized the agreement and that Trump withdraw from the agreement indicates that it was an agreement.

        Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Zachriel. | April 5, 2021 at 9:54 am

        “That the U.N. recognized the agreement and that Trump withdraw from the agreement indicates that it was an agreement.”

        It is in no way legally binding to the United States or successor administrations to the administration that made such an agreement. The UN can vote on things all day long. They do not have sovereignty over the United States government.

          Brave Sir Robbin: It is in no way legally binding to the United States or successor administrations to the administration that made such an agreement.

          You keep avoiding the point. The question is whether JCPOA is an agreement. That the U.N. recognized it as an agreement, and that the Trump administration recognized it as an agreement due to the fact that they invoked articles of the agreement in their withdrawal, is evidence that it was, in fact, an agreement.

          Brave Sir Robbin: It is in no way legally binding to the United States or successor administrations to the administration that made such an agreement.

          The withdrawal from JCPOA was made through the provisions of the agreement, so that point is moot. The question was whether the withdrawal undermines U.S. credibility, and it certainly did.

    Lucifer Morningstar in reply to Zachriel. | April 3, 2021 at 4:45 pm

    The hostages were released in 1981. The U.S. had agreed to binding arbitration concerning money owed to Iran. It was their money that was returned to them as required by the Algiers Accord.

    No, it wasn’t the mystic mullahs money. It was the Shah Of Iran’s money paid for armaments/weapons from the United States. A deal that went titsup when the mullahs overthrew and deposed the Shah and established the theocratic government of Iran.

    And as for hostages? It was an interesting case of coincidence that $400 million in cash loaded on pallets arrived in Tehran the same day U.S. hostages were released were released from Iranian prisons. Of course, Obama denied any connection (wink, wink).

    And if it were all so straight forward why didn’t Obama use the normal financial channels to return the money. Oh that’s right, he couldn’t legally do that since there were financial sanctions on Iran at the time that prevented the Obama regime from doing so. (And it would have meant giving the money back openly).

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3721000/Obama-sent-400m-Iran-American-prisoners-freed-administration-denies-paid-RANSOM.html

    https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/john-kirby-state-dept-no-apologies-iran-payment

      Lucifer Morningstar: No, it wasn’t the mystic mullahs money. It was the Shah Of Iran’s money paid for armaments/weapons from the United States.

      Uh, no. It was the Iranian people’s money, and the U.S. entered into the agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

        Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Zachriel. | April 4, 2021 at 7:38 pm

        “Uh, no. It was the Iranian people’s money, and the U.S. entered into the agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

        Not exactly clear wording here, but the Shah’s reign was ended with the Islamic revolution. Agreements between the US and the successor government (The Islamic Republic) did not necessarily carry forward.

        The storming of the US embassy was an act of war by the Islamic Republic. In response, the US had the right to take possession of all Iranian assets Iran cannot defend, and do with those assets whatever it desired. The US certainly had no obligation to hand over weapons and money to a country actively engaged in hostilities towards it. To do so was even too moronic for Jimmy Carter.

          Brave Sir Robbin: Agreements between the US and the successor government (The Islamic Republic) did not necessarily carry forward.

          According to international law, they do. Otherwise, sovereign debt would have no meaning. Debtor countries would just reincorporate and erase their debt. Instead, if they renege on the debt, then they are considered in default.

          In this case, of course, it was the U.S. that owed Iran. The U.S. can’t just keep the money. It was never theirs.

          Brave Sir Robbin: In response, the US had the right to take possession of all Iranian assets Iran cannot defend, and do with those assets whatever it desired.

          It was an act of war. However, to make peace and secure the release of the hostages, the U.S. agreed to binding arbitration on any outstanding financial claims.

          Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Brave Sir Robbin. | April 5, 2021 at 10:08 am

          “According to international law, they do.”

          Not really. The Islamic Republic was a new government in Iran, and could have, if desired, repudiated the debt incurred by the previous government. In fact, any existing government may repudiate its debt at anytime. See Argentina as a prime example.

          Brave Sir Robbin: In fact, any existing government may repudiate its debt at anytime.

          Sure. The U.S. could have just repudiated the debt and kept Iran’s money. However, the U.S. agreed to binding arbitration. Of course, the U.S. could then just repudiate the agreement, just cause. So much for their AAA AA+ credit rating. In other words, having made an agreement, the U.S. reputation would suffer for reneging on the agreement.

        Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Zachriel. | April 4, 2021 at 7:59 pm

        “U.S. entered into the agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

        In addition, the JCPOA related to nuclear related issues.

        A bill calling for sanctions against Iran, Russian and North Korea was signed into law on August 2, 2017 having passed in the House of Representatives and Senate by a vote of 419-3 and 97-2, respectively.

        The rationale for these sanctions had nothing to do with JCPOA, but rather were enacted due to Iran’s “egregious human rights record,” its detention of “U.S. citizens and other foreigners on fabricated national-security related charges,” that Iran continues to support terrorist groups, the Assad regime, to provide arms to the Houthis in Yemen, and “continues to test and develop ballistic missiles”.

        With the acceptance of the JPOA by the Obama administration, the US did not give up its rights to sanction Iran for non-nuclear related issues dealing with other forms of Iranian behavior. It was not, and could not be rationally construed as a universal restraint of US response to all Iranian provocations so long as Iran technically complied with JCPOA.

          Brave Sir Robbin: With the acceptance of the JPOA by the Obama administration, the US did not give up its rights to sanction Iran for non-nuclear related issues dealing with other forms of Iranian behavior.

          True. However, that wasn’t the issue, but the U.S. pulling out of the JCPOA. Since then, Iran’s breakout period has shortened considerably.

    Neo in reply to Zachriel. | April 3, 2021 at 6:32 pm

    Iran Probably Already Has the Bomb. Here’s What to Do about It
    By R. JAMES WOOLSEY

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/03/iran-probably-already-has-the-bomb-heres-what-to-do-about-it/

      Telemachus in reply to Neo. | April 4, 2021 at 5:41 am

      Agreed, Neo, and I was going to mention this article. What they want now is the lifting of the sanctions and cash. With those gifts from the feckless West and the knowledge that they indeed do have the bomb (once they let it be known) they believe that they will control the region. In my opinion (and fears) war is coming to the Middles East in a conflagration like they have never seen before.

      Neo: Iran Probably Already Has the Bomb.

      Possibly, but probably not. Iran does certainly have a breakout capability. That was what JCPOA addressed. The complaint was that it didn’t stop Iran from acquiring nuclear capability. Nothing short of war can prevent a determined country from building a nuclear weapon, but what might be accomplished is having a longer breakout period so that the world has time to react if Iran moves forward.

        Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Zachriel. | April 4, 2021 at 7:50 pm

        This is a sensible statement. However, the problem is no one followed up on a rational course of action to take advantage of this supposed lengthened break out period.

        Iranian nuclear capability will likely be a catastrophe spurring widespread nuclear proliferation in the region. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt will have strong incentives to join the nuclear club. The risk of war by regional powers to prevent an Iranian nuclear capability is great.

          Brave Sir Robbin: However, the problem is no one followed up on a rational course of action to take advantage of this supposed lengthened break out period.

          Not sure what action you are proposing. The whole purpose of a breakout period is to avoid taking military action now and creating the conditions so that Iran didn’t feel compelled to producing a nuclear capability.

Lucifer Morningstar | April 3, 2021 at 4:54 pm

<blockquote.Sanctions are still in place . . . </blockquote

No, they aren't. The Chinese communist government has inked a 25 years trade partnership deal with Iran worth $400 billion. A deal which pretty much nullifies any kind of political leverage the Western countries might bring to bear on Iran.

    Thanks for the follow up, Lucifer. I was not referring to the 1981 hostages. Obama’s payoff was for “political prisoners”. Their release was not contingent on any money, but the Americans were held in the airport until all the money was unloaded and confirmed. Walks, talks and quacks like a hostage for money deal even though the U.S. NEVER gives in to hostage demands.

    The EU, China, NK, Russia and others have been busting the boycott. Iran could care less about trade or sanctions with the U.S.

    Trump failed to recognize Obama and Kerry’s piece of paper disguised as a treaty as much for its overreach as for the fact that Iran never lived up to the inspection protocols from day one. It was an embarrassment for the U.S. and the entire world.

    And while I doubt they actually have any kind of nuclear weapon that they can deliver, they are darn close to the point of no return on developing the materials, that no new agreement will stop it.

      DanJ1: The EU, China, NK, Russia and others have been busting the boycott. Iran could care less about trade or sanctions with the U.S.

      The U.S. reneged on the deal. The E.U. is following protocols regarding sanctions.
      https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/sanctions/iran/

      You seem to think that other countries should just do what the U.S. says, even though the U.S. hasn’t been an honest broker.

      DanJ1: Iran could care less about trade or sanctions with the U.S.

      Sanctions always tend to break down over time, but Iran’s economy has been severely damaged by international sanctions.
      https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EhzVBwcX0AYls9u.jpg

        Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Zachriel. | April 4, 2021 at 8:05 pm

        See my post above. The sanctions against Iran, which they are currently complaining about, have nothing to do with their compliance or noncompliance with the JCPOA, but rather with Iran’s “egregious human rights record,” its detention of “U.S. citizens and other foreigners on fabricated national-security related charges,” that Iran continues to support terrorist groups, the Assad regime, to provide arms to the Houthis in Yemen, and “continues to test and develop ballistic missiles”.

        A bill enacting these sanctions sanctions against Iran, along with other sanctions aimed at Russian and North Korea, was signed into law on August 2, 2017 having passed in the House of Representatives and Senate by a vote of 419-3 and 97-2, respectively.

        To repeat the above, with the acceptance of the JPOA by the Obama administration, the US did not give up its rights to sanction Iran for non-nuclear related issues dealing with other forms of Iranian behavior. It was not, and could not be rationally construed as a universal restraint of US response to all Iranian provocations so long as Iran technically complied with JCPOA.

Lucifer Morningstar | April 3, 2021 at 5:01 pm

Frankly, the atom bomb is 1940s technology. Any country that makes a concerted effort can build one.

True, and Iran is now within months of building their own nuclear weapons.

The only reason a country won’t is because they find it in their own self-interest not to do so.

But that assumes the country’s leadership is acting in a sane matter. An assumption that I wouldn’t make about the mullahs controlling the theocratic republic of Iran. They will build the bomb just to despite the United States and its allies and to prove they can. And then all bets are off that they use it or not. Guaranteed.

    henrybowman in reply to Lucifer Morningstar. | April 3, 2021 at 5:53 pm

    Plus, it’s one thing to have a nuclear bomb. The challenge ends there only if your goal is to blow yourself up. If you want to blow someone else up, instead, you need a way to deliver it somewhere else.

    Lucifer Morningstar: True, and Iran is now within months of building their own nuclear weapons.

    They’ve been months away for years. That was the purpose of the JCPOA, to maintain a timeline of months so that any movement towards constructing a nuclear weapon would give the world time to take action. Without JCPOA, the breakout period has shrunk considerably and may already be near zero.

    Good work Trumpy!

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Lucifer Morningstar. | April 4, 2021 at 8:08 pm

    “True, and Iran is now within months of building their own nuclear weapons.”

    Also true, and the JCPOA virtually guaranteed we would come to this day with Iran. As people noted, at best, the agreement postponed the day of reckoning to a future date a administration. Now that Biden is in the White House, it is his own mess to clean up.

      Brave Sir Robbin: Also true, and the JCPOA virtually guaranteed we would come to this day with Iran.

      Again, any country determined to do so can develop the technology to build a nuclear weapon if they believe it is in their national interest. You can ignore the problem. You can go to war now to stop it. Or you can negotiate a longer breakout period, reserving military action for if they move towards making a nuclear weapon.

        Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Zachriel. | April 5, 2021 at 10:12 am

        Or you can take measure less than armed conflict to include imposition of economic sanctions, for example.

          Brave Sir Robbin: Or you can take measure less than armed conflict to include imposition of economic sanctions, for example.

          Technological sanctions might slow the development of nuclear weapons, but not stop it. The purpose of economic sanctions is to exert pressure towards some sort of agreement. In any case, the use of sanctions over the last few years has resulted in a shorter breakout time and increasing blindness concerning Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Biden wants to boycott Georgia but not Iran or China.

If the initial deal was so great, why didn’t Obama submit it to the Senate for ratification, as called for by the Constitution?

    randian in reply to NYBruin. | April 4, 2021 at 10:06 pm

    Because the payment was obviously illegal? Because of the temptation to skim a bit off the top of the dark money, which skimming becomes a lot harder if the deal is in the full light of day?

      randian: Because the payment was obviously illegal?

      The payment wasn’t illegal, but required under the Algiers Accords. Banks couldn’t handle the transfer under sanctions, so the U.S. paid in cash.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend