Skip to main content

After Macron Says Iran Will Get Snapback Sanctions, UNSC Votes

More bad news on the ‘snapback’ sanctions front with a No vote in the UN Security Council today on the ROK Chair’s resolution to permanently end UNSC Iran sanctions. But there is a week more to September 27-28 for further action in this complex matter. We will stay tuned. For today, here are developments in advance of that UNSC vote. 
        On September 18 the Wall Street Journal reported that ‘Iran made a new offer to E3 yesterday to avoid snapback…The E3 regard Iran's latest proposal as insufficient in substance … without any concrete actions on the Iranian side'. Iran International reported that on September 18 French President Emmanuel Macron in an interview with Israel’s Channel 12 asked if the return of UN sanctions on Iran was a ‘done deal’ responded, “Yes, I think so. Because the latest news we have from the Iranians are not serious." 
        One of the E3 requirements is U.S.-Iran talks underway. At the UNSC today, Acting U.S. Ambassador Dorothy Shea said, ‘President Trump has continued to reiterate the United States’ ongoing readiness for meaningful, direct, and timebound dialogue with Iran – be it prior to the conclusion of the snapback process on September 27, or after’. The words are nice, but the Trump administration’s actions show, day by day, that it is not interested in finding a peaceful resolution with Iran. Here are some of its latest actions. 
        Newsweek reported that on September 17 U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio described Iran as "the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism." Newsweek reported that on September 15 Rubio had said: "And so a nuclear Iran governed by a radical Shia cleric that possesses not just nuclear weapons potentially but the missiles that could deliver those weapons far away is an unacceptable risk not just for Israel, not just for the United States, but for the world. That's why…the President continues with our campaign of maximum pressure." 
        Here’s what Senator Ted Cruz said on September 18: “The Iranian regime and the corrupt officials who run it are responsible for the murder, injury and kidnapping of thousands of Americans.” 
        In response, on September 17 Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baqaei posted: "The United States is in no position to make decisions about Iran's national defense capabilities. The Islamic Republic of Iran is determined to preserve its independence at any cost, stand on its own feet, and firmly resist the excessive demands, aggression, and acts of hostility by foreign powers—including the United States and the Zionist regime." 
        As long as ‘radical terrorist Shiism’ is the headline of the U.S. government’s justification for everything they are doing to Iran, a new nuclear ‘deal’ negotiated by the U.S. is not going to happen. Should the U.S. step gracefully aside and let others find a diplomatic solution to the Iran conundrum? Oh no, the Washington Israel clique would not stand for that! And they have the power to get what they want.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

‘New war with Israel at any moment’, ‘still digging through rubble’

The news about Iran has taken an ominous tone in the last couple days. Here is some reporting and commentary.  Newsweek on August 18, 2025, reported that Yahya Rahim Safavi, senior military adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, said ‘ We are not in a ceasefire; we are in a stage of war. No protocol, regulation, or agreement has been written between us and the U.S. or Israel. A new war with Israel could break out at any moment .’  Yonah Jeremy Bob commented in The Jerusalem Post on August 19, 2025, that ‘ Khamenei can either “drink from the poisoned chalice” of diplomatic concessions … or face more airstrikes, possibly next time some targeting him directly ’.   Bob also noted that ‘ right now Iran is still digging through rubbl e’. The U.S. attacked Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan on June 22. Two months of digging. No surprise that there has been no public news about that.
Post a Comment
Read more

Assessing possible outcomes of the snapback mechanism

The initiation by the E3 of the 30-day snapback mechanism in the UN Security Council makes everything more difficult and there is great uncertainty about the outcome. Will it be peaceful with a new nuclear deal with Iran, negotiated by the U.S., endorsed by the UNSC and verified by IAEA, or will Iran withdraw from NPT with further military action by Israel and the U.S.?                 To perhaps shed a little light on what the outcome will be, here is my analysis of how the players - Iran, U.S. and E3 - may be assessing the acceptability of the range of outcomes. Four levels of acceptability were used: 1 Fully acceptable; 2 Less acceptable; 3 Just acceptable; and 4 Not acceptable. Four near term 30-day outcomes are listed, and two optimistic outcomes with an interim U.S.-Iran agreement reached within a 6-month extension.                 For the 30-day near term, the best outcome would b...
Post a Comment
Read more

‘Making nuclear fuel’ under the NPT

It is with some hesitation that I take issue with the latest publication of the renowned Henry Sokolski and Sharon Squassoni on August 15 in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, titled: “ Actually, the NPT doesn’t guarantee a right to make nuclear fuel .”  But someone should defend the IAEA and international safeguards! Here are points in question.            ‘ The [NPT] treaty was designed to prevent dangerous bombmaking activitie s.’  NPT is far more complex than that. It is common to state the three pillars of NPT: nuclear disarmament; nuclear nonproliferation; and peaceful uses of nuclear technology. Nonproliferation involves the commitment of non-nuclear states not to pursue nuclear weapons and to accept IAEA inspection to confirm that commitment is being followed. Perhaps Sokolsky intends to refer to INFCIRC/153, which lays out how IAEA and the state cooperate to carry out that confirmation. If so, INFCIRC/153 is not designed to ‘prevent’...
Post a Comment
Read more