Skip to main content

If you have the cards, it’s time to play hardball

        Excellent reporting today by Reuters, as always, is the source for this blog.

        Trump posted on Truth Social that ‌his envoys would arrive in Islamabad on Monday evening, April 20, for negotiations: "We’re offering a very fair and reasonable DEAL, and I hope they take it because, if they don’t, the United States is going to knock out every single Power Plant, and every single Bridge, in Iran. NO MORE MR. NICE GUY!" 
        Iran's official IRNA news agency reported that Iran rejected the talks: "Iran stated that its absence from the second round of talks stems from what it called Washington's excessive demands, unrealistic expectations, constant shifts in stance, repeated contradictions, and the ongoing naval blockade, which it considers a breach of the ceasefire." Iran's chief negotiator, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, said the two sides had made progress but were still far apart on nuclear issues and the strait. 
        Trump’s timetable would leave only a day for talks to make progress before his two-week ceasefire ends. 
        Meanwhile, with shipping again blocked in the Strait of Hormuz, the stage is set for a renewed surge in oil prices when markets reopen on April 21. 
        On the nuclear front, the Iranian Student News Agency ⁠quoted Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian as saying on April 19: "Trump ‌says ⁠Iran cannot make use of its nuclear rights but doesn't say ⁠for what crime. Who is he to deprive ⁠a nation of its rights?" ⁠ 
        Regarding Iran enriching uranium, Trump has publicly pushed for zero enrichment, while Iran insists that under NPT it has the right to enrich uranium for civilian purposes. One possible compromise would be a temporary moratorium followed by resumption at low enrichment levels with IAEA verification, at NPT level or enhanced as under JCPOA. 
        It is reported that talks are focusing on Iran's stockpile of uranium enriched to 60% and 20%. The favored option is said to be downblending inside Iran with IAEA verification (under Iran’s NPT safeguards agreement). Another approach in consideration is for some material to be stored abroad for a fixed period, with Turkey and France mentioned as possible destinations. Whatever option is agreed upon, negotiations will be required over recovering material buried by U.S. airstrikes, verifying quantities and transporting it securely. 

        Who has the cards? Who is playing hardball? 
        Trump extending his ceasefire for some further period looks most likely. 
        This will be fun to watch.

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