Comment by JumpCrisscross
21 hours ago
> you don't need an analyst to see who strikes first (and the frequency of that pattern) while diplomats are still at the negotiating table
Of course you do. If the diplomats' job is to stall and never make any actual concessions, that's germane. My understanding is there was a genuine desire for diplomacy on the American side. But at least this round, Tehran never conceded on any material fronts.
Then the US can formally state that it is ceasing all negotiations. But it will never do that - it always wants to retain the ability to execute a surprise backstab. Done so several times now.
> the US can formally state that it is ceasing all negotiations
Nobody has done this since before WWII.
> it always wants the ability to backstab
Yes. Geopolitics is anarchic. Pretty much every country has "backstabbed", and has legitimate claims to having been "backstabbed".
"If the diplomats' job is to stall and never make any actual concessions, that's germane."
As we have now learnt, this statement is utterly invalid.
Oman's top diplomat reported that negotiations were progressing quite well. They were dismayed at the American strikes. I am guessing Trump really wanted the negotiations to fail and was pissed off when Iran actually agreed to his major terms. So he launched the strikes, before the news could spread.
“Significant progress” had been made during talks in Geneva, Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi said on Friday. His country mediated negotiations between the United States and Iran, with the latter offering assurances that it would not seek to acquire nuclear material for the production of an atomic bomb. This commitment was a “very important breakthrough” that had “never been achieved any time before,” al-Busaidi told US broadcaster CBS News, in addition to making a similar statement on X.
> If the diplomats' job is to stall and never make any actual concessions, that's germane.
does this line of reasoning apply to the US only, or in general?
> My understanding is there was a genuine desire for diplomacy on the American side. But at least this round, Tehran never conceded on any material fronts.
they had an option to do it and still continue a diplomatic track, they aren't obliged to devote themselves to the US preferences at the US-preferred pace.
> they aren't obliged to devote themselves to the US preferences at the US-preferred pace
Of course they are not. But then you know what happens: it's on every front page.
> does this line of reasoning apply to the US only, or in general?
Are you asking serious questions? I think the evidence shows the U.S. was negotiating in good faith in the beginning (and I'm scoping to this round of negotiations only). And then it concluded there was no deal to be had, and we probably started bullshitting as well. At the same time, I think the evidence shows the Iranian side was mostly bullshitting the whole time.
> they had an option to do it and still continue a diplomatic track
Well sure. We also had the option to terminate negotiations, ratchet up sanctions and walk away. None of that changes that the Iranians weren't negotiating in good faith. (Again, based on what I've seen. Open to changing my mind. But the lack of any discussion of what Iran did in this subthread seems to underline my point.)
> they aren't obliged to devote themselves to the US preferences at the US-preferred pace
War is politics by other means. They aren't obligated to accept the other's timeline. But I wouldn't say that's negotiating either realistically or in good faith–you can't just ignore material variables because you don't like that they exist.
> Are you asking serious questions?
Just answer the question whether it applies in general as a principle. Don't "stall and never tell any actual" position on the matter.
> We also had the option to terminate negotiations, ratchet up sanctions and walk away. None of that changes that the Iranians weren't negotiating in good faith
Only according to you, based on the premise that someone didn't meet random timings that only exist in your head.
> But the lack of any discussion of what Iran did in this subthread seems to underline my point
not really, please answer the initial question I asked.
> They aren't obligated to accept the other's timeline. But I wouldn't say that's negotiating in good faith.
Exactly why? You need to be home around 5 so anyone standing in front of you and blocking you in a traffic jam aren't acting in good faith?
6 replies →