Exclusive: Jonathan Powell thought Tehran’s ‘surprising’ offer on its nuclear programme could prevent rush to war, sources say

Exclusive: Jonathan Powell thought Tehran’s ‘surprising’ offer on its nuclear programme could prevent rush to war, sources say

Britain’s national security adviser, Jonathan Powell, attended the final talks between the US and Iran and judged that the offer made by Tehran on its nuclear programme was significant enough to prevent a rush to war, the Guardian can reveal.

Powell thought progress had been made in Geneva and that the deal proposed by Iran was “surprising”, according to sources.

Two days after the talks ended, and after a date had been agreed for a further round of technical talks in Vienna, the US and Israel launched the attack on Iran.

MBFC
Archive

  • StinkyFingerItchyBum@lemmy.caEnglish
    52·
    12 hours ago

    What a stupid article. The premise is beyond upside down, its preposterous. There can be no deals with the US. Serial bad faith negotiators deep six any negotiations from being possible to begin with.

    No deals are possible with America. They don’t honour anything. They have no checks or balances and no rule of law for recourse. No deal was within reach. Iran knows this because Trump broke the last nuclear non-proliferation deal unilaterally without cause.

    The only reason anyone even bothers to show up to a negotiating table is morbid curiosity, and keeping up the pretense of validity in the hopes that Americans will come to their senses before all hope is abandoned.

    • FaceDeer@fedia.io
      11·
      12 hours ago

      I think you’re missing the point. He’s saying that a deal should have been in reach if the US had been actually interested in making a deal.

      • StinkyFingerItchyBum@lemmy.caEnglish
        2·
        11 hours ago

        Right. A deal should have been possible, if only we completely reconfigure the topic, the stakes and the parties involved.

        • FaceDeer@fedia.io
          7·
          10 hours ago

          No, you’re still not getting it.

          if only we completely reconfigure the topic, the stakes and the parties involved.

          Emphasis added to that plural. Iran was not the problem here. Iran was open to a reasonable deal. It was the Americans who were unreasonable, irrational warmongers that wouldn’t accept anything other than total surrender and the destruction of Iran. Only one of the parties involved was the problem.

          • StinkyFingerItchyBum@lemmy.caEnglish
            11·
            8 hours ago

            You’re still not getting it. How can you be prepared to have a deal with one belligerent bad faith actor?

            How can Iran accept any deal when the belligerent bad faith actor broke the last deal without evidence. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.

            I’m almost certain they went in the fool’s hopes that other countries could join and bring legitimacy to the table and barring that, they would just say the nice things and go with the motions, but I don’t believe Iran is stupid enough to fall for the same trick again.

            The geopolitical consensus of this whole affair is that American fuckups taught the world that nukes are a security imperative.

          • StinkyFingerItchyBum@lemmy.caEnglish
            11·
            9 hours ago

            You’re still not getting it. How can you have a deal with one belligerent bad faith actor. How can Iran accept any deal when the belligerent bad faith actor broke the last deal. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.

            • FaceDeer@fedia.io
              5·
              9 hours ago

              Okay? I’m really not sure what your point is here, everyone knows the US is full of shit and can’t be reasoned with. The article is about the fact that Iran could be reasoned with, they were actually willing to negotiate.