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

  • FaceDeer@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 day 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.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day 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.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 day 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.

          • FaceDeer@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            Because the US is full of shit and can’t be reasoned with.

            Iran really seems to have been behaving reasonably here.

            • StinkyFingerItchyBum@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              They are behaving rationally, and in their perceived self interest yes. I’m saying their self interest is obviously not to engage in lopsided deals faithfully with known serial bad faith actors. They are many things, stupid isn’t one of them.