BY Daniel Larison

Speaking at an event in Israel last week, U.S. ambassador to Israel Tom Nides made news again when he appeared to rule out negotiations with Iran as long as its government continued its crackdown against protesters and persisted in its delivery of military assistance to Russia. 

As Washington Institute for Near East Policy senior fellow Henry Rome reported, Nides said, “Make no mistake, we’d like a diplomatic resolution. But as long as the Iranians are doing what they are doing — not only to their people in Iran but then producing drone technology and shipping it to Russia to go against Ukraine — we can’t have negotiations during those periods of time.”

If the ambassador’s comments reflect the administration’s position, and presumably they do, this means that the U.S. has absolutely written off negotiating with Iran for the foreseeable future. By tying negotiations to other issues that have nothing to do with the nuclear program, the U.S. is setting a virtually impossible standard for the resumption of negotiations. There will always be conduct by other states that our government finds unacceptable. If that requires refusing to negotiate on other issues, there is no real chance for making diplomatic progress on anything.

No matter how justified Washington’s objections to the Iranian government’s behavior in other areas may be, it makes no sense to make the nuclear negotiations contingent on that behavior. If the Obama administration had applied the same standard, there would have been no nuclear deal in the first place.

Indeed, one of the chief goals of nuclear deal saboteurs over the last eight years has been to link the nuclear issue to unrelated matters in order to scuttle the agreement. The more issues that are linked together, the easier it is for any one of them to blow up the process. That is why the original nuclear negotiations leading to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) were so narrowly focused on the nuclear issue and nothing else, because the other issues would have become pretexts for walking away from the talks.

There are always hardliners on both sides keen to find reasons to abandon diplomacy, and the position outlined by the ambassador is a gift to hardliners in Iran. If Iranian hardliners don’t want negotiations to continue, all they need to do is lash out in some other way that Washington can use as an excuse for not talking. The odd thing is that the Biden administration spent most of the last two years insisting that there be no “extraneous” issues brought into the talks. They repeatedly rejected Iranian demands that it deemed to be irrelevant to the nuclear issue. Now that the talks are essentially moribund, it seems that the administration is happy to bring up extraneous issues as an excuse to give up on further talks.

Important issues will often have to be compartmentalized from the rest of the relationship if two governments that mistrust each other are going to be able to find a compromise that satisfies both sides. Some interstate relationships are so toxic that making progress on even one issue is a Herculean task. If that one issue isn’t isolated from the rest of the relationship, any reasonable discussions will be overwhelmed by the sheer hostility between the two governments. The breakthrough that the U.S. and Iran had on the nuclear issue between 2013 and 2015 came about in part because both governments chose not to be trapped by decades of animosity and refused to let other major disagreements influence their flexibility on that issue.

We are seeing right now with Russia and arms control what can happen when one of the parties to a treaty, in this case Russia, chooses to tie the fortunes of a successful agreement to a separate agenda. The survival of New START is very important for both the U.S. and Russia, but Russia is evidently prepared to risk its collapse to try to get its way on other issues. The U.S. is playing a similar dangerous game with the fate of the JCPOA by appearing to link negotiations to other matters.

Nides’ comments on negotiations came just moments after he once again reassured the audience in Israel that the U.S. would not “tie Israel’s hands” with regard to Iran and would have “Israel’s back.” The ambassador reiterated practically unconditional backing for whatever action the Israeli government chooses to do, and then in the next breath pronounced negotiations with Iran dead and set unrealistic conditions for their revival.

It was worrying enough when the U.S. appeared to be giving a green light for possible Israeli military action when the ambassador made similar remarks last month. As the Quincy Institute’s Trita Parsi wrote at the time, “Yet, this appears to be the direction in which the Biden team is going — perhaps inadvertently — by caving to Israel’s longstanding position to deal with Iran’s nuclear program militarily rather than diplomatically.” The administration said nothing in the intervening weeks to contradict this interpretation of what they are doing.

Now that Nides has reaffirmed his position publicly, it seems clear that the administration is doing virtually nothing to discourage the Israeli government from military action. The administration is also doing nothing to revive the negotiations even though renewed diplomacy is the only thing that stands a chance of resolving the nuclear issue. If the ambassador is freelancing and his comments are not representative of the administration’s position, the White House and the State Department ought to make that clear right away.

The Biden administration’s preoccupation with “reassuring” Middle Eastern clients has been one of the most noticeable and least welcome parts of its “back to basics” approach to the region. In this case, constantly reassuring the Israeli government that the U.S. is behind them all the way has been excessive and encourages the sort of “reckless driving” from clients that has created so many problems for the U.S. in the past. It would be more prudent and responsible to signal to the Israeli government both privately and in public that Washington does not support the use of force here. Signaling that negotiations are dead is exactly the wrong thing to do.

If Washington can’t find a way to balance constructive diplomatic engagement on specific issues with criticism and opposition on others, it bodes ill for the ability of our government to manage relations with multiple adversarial states in the coming years. The Biden administration maintains that competition with China in some areas does not rule out cooperation in others, but in practice the former tends to crowd out the latter. If the U.S. can’t multitask in its dealings with Iran, what chance does it have of doing it with China?

The Biden administration says that it wants a diplomatic resolution to the nuclear issue, but the recurring problem over the last two years is that it has proven unwilling to take even the smallest political risks to get the resolution it says it wants. If the U.S. is going to be able to advance its interests successfully in the decades ahead, it will have to relearn how to do complicated diplomacy with unfriendly governments. 

Judging from how the U.S. has handled negotiations with Iran over the last two years, it still has a long way to go.

READ MORE:

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2023/03/07/bidens-iran-policy-makes-no-sense/

READ FROM TOP.

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

On his flight from China and after returning to Paris, French President Emmanuel Macron gave a series of interviews with the media and elaborated on the idea of European strategic autonomy in many aspects. He said that Europe must reduce its dependence on the US and avoid being caught up in the confrontation between China and the US over the Taiwan question. He urged Europe to become more committed to achieving strategic autonomy so as not to become a "vassal" of a major power amid the global crisis. He also stressed that Europe doesn't want to "get into a bloc versus bloc logic."

This is obviously a result of Macron's long-term observation and reflection. In addition, this is a view representative of Europe's insightful people in the face of the continent's current complex and severe internal and external situation, pointing out a relatively objective and rational path and direction in line with Europe's own interests. In the eyes of normal people, a European leader's emphasis on protecting European interests should not have become "news." But in the US and the West, many people act as if this has stepped on their tails and show a strong sense of discomfort and even fury. Such an abnormal reaction confirms Macron's statement that strategic autonomy is "Europe's struggle."

Macron's reasoning is not complicated, and his attitude is clear-cut. From the perspective of a bystander, it undoubtedly helps Europeans to figure out their understanding of their own interests and the boundaries of European-US relations, so that they can make the right choices at the crossroads. The numerous criticisms over Macron attempt to divert people's attention, weaken the impact of his successful visit to China, and prevent this European introspection ignited by Macron from going deeper. These criticisms and accusations are very cheap and not worth refuting, but the amplified noise created by them does create pollution. Some people want to construct a false Europe in public opinion to cover up the real voice and interests of Europe.

The strongest criticism against Macron comes from the US as well as Central and Eastern Europe. This is not difficult to understand, but deserves vigilance from the Europe. Central and Eastern European countries are at the forefront of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and have particularly severe security concerns, which has led to more radical foreign policies. But the dissatisfaction of the Americans with Macron reveals the true face of the US. US Senator Marco Rubio released a video of over two minutes, in which he repeatedly questioned whether Macron speaks for all of Europe and stated that if Europe is not going to pick sides over the Taiwan question, the US will focus on the "threats China poses" and "you guys handle Ukraine and Europe." He also demanded that France or Europe provide an answer quickly. These blatant statements cannot be called criticism or opposition anymore, but are Washington's completely undisguised bullying and coercion.

Washington has a strong desire to control Europe, which is why Macron's emphasis on European strategic autonomy is seen as a form of "betrayal." To put it plainly, on many occasions, the US is viewing Europe as a henchman. When it needs Europe to take action against Russia, Europe has to stand on the line of fire; when it needs Europe to cooperate in suppressing and containing China, Europe must follow its lead.

When this boundless desire for control becomes natural, it often unintentionally manifests itself in the words and deeds of American political elites. The US is not shy about this fact. For example, conservative American historian Robert Kagan once described the relationship between the US and Europe as the following: Americans are from Mars, the dominant party, while Europeans are from Venus, the weaker party. Americans take care of the "cooking," while Europeans are responsible for "doing the dishes." Washington's proclaimed "alliance friendship" implies that Europe must completely depend on and submit to American hegemony, without any respect or equality.

The US' geopolitical role assigned to Europe is structurally contradictory to Europe's pursuit of strategic autonomy. Macron's visit to China this time and his remarks on European strategic autonomy have reminded people of former French president Charles de Gaulle. After World War II, the Cold War quickly began, and de Gaulle strongly advocated for strategic autonomy, withdrew from NATO's integrated military structure and established diplomatic relations with China. This also made the US very unhappy and caused great controversy in Europe. However, history has proven de Gaulle's clarity and wisdom. De Gaulle established France's independent political tradition and won France the major power status. Today, it does not take long to verify Macron's understanding of European strategic autonomy.

Europe will not lose friends because of sticking to strategic autonomy, but will only gain more respect and have the ability to better maintain its interests and strategic balance in the international arena. If even controlling one's own fate is a mistake, then Europe will have no hope. Once again, Europe is standing at a historical juncture. Whether to revisit and carry forward Gaullism or choose confrontation, we believe the continent will make the right choice.

READ MORE:

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202304/1288846.shtml

https://www.globaltimes.cn/index.html

READ FROM TOP.

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

In Ganges, the gendarmes confiscated the saucepans of the public who came to attend Emmanuel Macron's visit. The executive pleads an excess of zeal of the military. But the legal basis of the prefectural decree on which the police were based and which gives pride of place to anti-terrorism measures frightens certain jurists...

READ MORE:

https://www.sudouest.fr/economie/reforme-des-retraites/reforme-des-retraites-la-prefecture-de-l-herault-a-t-elle-voulu-interdire-les-casseroles-lors-de-la-visite-de-macron-14873476.php

SEE THE PICTURE....

MEANWHILE STRIKES IN GERMANY....

Passenger trains ground to a halt across Germany on Friday morning amid a nationwide strike launched by workers’ union EVG, which is demanding pay rises for railway staff. The action coincides with similar walkouts at several major German airports which started on Thursday.

The ‘warning strike’ on rail networks began at 3am local time and is scheduled to end at 11am, meaning it covers the morning rush hours.

EVG executive board member Cosima Ingenschay argued that “by calling this time for a time-limited warning strike in the early morning hours, we send a clear signal that we do not want to affect the passengers, but rather the companies.”

Friday’s walkout has impacted city trains as well as regional and long-distance lines.

Meanwhile, a separate strike by security personnel at airports in Cologne, Dusseldorf, Hamburg, and Stuttgart is underway as workers seek pay rises. According to Germany’s ADV airport association, the walkout has affected 45,200 passengers on Thursday alone, with that number expected to reach 100,000 by the end of Friday.

https://www.rt.com/news/575109-germany-railway-paralyzed-strike/

READ FROM TOP.

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6SMVTGCRw4

READ FROM TOP.

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

Emmanuel Macron’s decision to push through pension reforms – in defiance of public opinion on the issue – has created a “total rupture”between the French president and his country’s people, opposition party leader Marine Le Pen has claimed.

“The problem is that Emmanuel Macron is completely bunkered,” Le Pen said on Saturday in an interview with France’s BFM TV. “He can no longer leave the Elysée [presidential palace] without arousing the ire of a people he refuses to listen to and whose will he refuses to respect.”

Macron was booed by crowds in eastern France on Wednesday, when he made his first public appearances since he signed into law an unpopular pension law earlier this month. Union workers claimed credit for cutting off the electricity at a woodworking factory in Muttersholtz just before the president arrived, leaving him partially in the dark during his visit. The pension reforms, which included raising France’s retirement age to 64 from 62, sparked mass protests and civil unrest across the country.

“He generated anger, and it is he who is at the origin of the disorder, the chaos,” Le Pen said. “I believe that today, there is a total rupture between Emmanuel Macron and the French people.”

Le Pen accused the president of refusing to listen to public outcry on the pension law, reflecting a “failing democracy.” She added, “When the people say no, it’s no. We will have to tell him that democracy is doing what we said we were going to do. Democracy is respecting the will of the people.”

An Ifop Group poll released on Wednesday showed that Le Pen has overtaken Macron in public popularity. Asked which of the two personalities they prefer, respondents favored Le Pen over the president by a 47%-42% margin. Macron defeated Le Pen in last year’s presidential election by more than 17 percentage points. He beat her even more handily in 2017, winning 66.1% of the votes.

France’s next presidential election is scheduled for 2027, when Macron won’t be able to run again because of term limits. Le Pen, leader of France’s National Rally party, plans to run for president for the fourth time. Even before Macron signed the pension bill last week, a poll showed that he would lose to Le Pen by a 55%-45% margin if they were to face off again.

READ MORE:

https://www.rt.com/news/575190-le-pen-says-macron-created-total-rupture/

READ FROM TOP.

SEE ALSO:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyoxYFF12gY

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....