US own goal hands Iran diplomatic win

[Agema]

UN security council rejects US attempt to extend Iran sanctions

Indonesia said no further action could be taken on US request because there was no consensus on 15-nation body

www.theguardian.com

So, as those with long memories in this world of short attention spans may recall, the USA under Obama and other world powers arranged a plan in the UN to try to restrain Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons, the JCPOA. Donald Trump then withdrew the USA from the JCPOA a few years ago and imposed its own sanctions on the Iranian regime, to the disappointment of everyone else involved.

So anyway, some of the UN sanctions against Iran related to the JCPOA were due to expire in October, so about 1-2 weeks ago, the USA tried to have them maintained. They duly lost that security council vote very badly: only the Dominican Republic supported them, Russia and China opposed, and pretty much everyone else abstained. The USA then pulled out an unusual provision in the treaty: a "snapback" whereby any signatory to the JCPOA could essentially overrule the security council vote and maintain the sanctions. However, of course, the USA had withdrawn from the JCPOA.

The USA tried to argue that as it was an original signatory to the treaty, it therefore retained the power to order a "snapback" despite withdrawing from the treaty. 13 members of the 15-strong UN security council have given written submissions saying that that US argument was plainly a stupid load of old hogwash. That's all of them except the USA and Dominican Republic - the other four permanent security council members, plus Germany, Indonesia, Estonia, Tunisia, South Africa, Belgium, Vietnam, Niger, St Vincent and the Grenadines. (The Dominican Republic did not offer an opinion.)

And thus we see the fruits of several years of incompetent foreign policy from the USA. It's managed to denude itself of power to get things done by rashly tearing up treaties, by thoroughly antagonising everyone including its closest allies, and pressing bizarre and screwy arguments . The humiliating end result is that it has handed one of its greatest geopolitical enemies an incredibly easy diplomatic win.

 

[Trunkage]

UN security council rejects US attempt to extend Iran sanctions

Indonesia said no further action could be taken on US request because there was no consensus on 15-nation body

www.theguardian.com

So, as those with long memories in this world of short attention spans may recall, the USA under Obama and other world powers arranged a plan in the UN to try to restrain Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons, the JCPOA. Donald Trump then withdrew the USA from the JCPOA a few years ago and imposed its own sanctions on the Iranian regime, to the disappointment of everyone else involved.

So anyway, some of the UN sanctions against Iran related to the JCPOA were due to expire in October, so about 1-2 weeks ago, the USA tried to have them maintained. They duly lost that security council vote very badly: only the Dominican Republic supported them, Russia and China opposed, and pretty much everyone else abstained. The USA then pulled out an unusual provision in the treaty: a "snapback" whereby any signatory to the JCPOA could essentially overrule the security council vote and maintain the sanctions. However, of course, the USA had withdrawn from the JCPOA.

The USA tried to argue that as it was an original signatory to the treaty, it therefore retained the power to order a "snapback" despite withdrawing from the treaty. 13 members of the 15-strong UN security council have given written submissions saying that that US argument was plainly a stupid load of old hogwash. That's all of them except the USA and Dominican Republic - the other four permanent security council members, plus Germany, Indonesia, Estonia, Tunisia, South Africa, Belgium, Vietnam, Niger, St Vincent and the Grenadines. (The Dominican Republic did not offer an opinion.)

And thus we see the fruits of several years of incompetent foreign policy from the USA. It's managed to denude itself of power to get things done by rashly tearing up treaties, by thoroughly antagonising everyone including its closest allies, and pressing bizarre and screwy arguments . The humiliating end result is that it has handed one of its greatest geopolitical enemies an incredibly easy diplomatic win.

I mean, this was bound to happen. The US has done almost everything it possibly can to hand a nuclear weapon to Iran without actually giving them one personally.

 

[Mister Mumbler]

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[Trunkage]

Sadly this will be spun as showing how incompetent, dangerous and anti-American the UN is and the Trumperinos will eat it up and be even more convinced that only God-President Trump can save them from the evil Dictator hugging Liberals.

I would just point to Brexit and how Bojo and Farage alwayd blame the EU as a similar example of this.

 

[stroopwafel]

It shows how Trump retreats from those treaties with absolute zero foresight but atleast it can continue existing policy unlike the destabilizing effects suspension of eg. the INF treaty will have on international relations and non-proliferation. In the case of JCPOA the aversion of multilateral organizations won't seriously alter the U.S. embargos on Iran which have been a ploy to benefit the Saudi regime anyway. There was no non-compliance on the side of Iran it was a one-sided political decision to step out of the nuclear agreement that is enforced through subjugation and pressure of it's European partners and other countries with big interests in the U.S. For example European banks blocking account numbers if there are direct transactions from Iran to placate USG even if the E.U. doesn't have a trade embargo. Infact such discouragement is actually formally forbidden because it contradicts the UN's resolution but trade relations are obviously prioritized by the private sector and international banks.

I'm convinced maybe even 10 years ago the UN would have been susceptible to reverse USG's unilateral decision and try to negotiate atleast an amended resolution but they just don't have that kind of clout anymore. Former alliances that lasted for 75 years are drifting further and further apart at a time a new superpower is consolidating economic and strategic influence that already fractured the post-WW2 world order. But well, atleast Trump can count on the Dominican Republic I guess.

 

[Agema]

It shows how Trump retreats from those treaties with absolute zero foresight

Yes, zero foresight.

US diplomacy is in the grip of people whose only political aim is posturing for domestic political gain and the ill-conceived whims of the president.

I suspect this is also creating a vicious circle, feeding xenophobia and nationalism in the Republican base, to the point where aspiring Republicans need to get elected by championing resentment of international institutions, which will then influence politicians' attitudes to international institutions when in power.

 

[tstorm823]

And you think this is a good thing?

 

[stroopwafel]

Yes, zero foresight.

US diplomacy is in the grip of people whose only political aim is posturing for domestic political gain and the ill-conceived whims of the president.

I suspect this is also creating a vicious circle, feeding xenophobia and nationalism in the Republican base, to the point where aspiring Republicans need to get elected by championing resentment of international institutions, which will then influence politicians' attitudes to international institutions when in power.

Yeah, with these instutions then being a lightning rod to divert from the actual matter at hand. Retreating from the nuclear treaty actually had the opposite effect as it encouraged Iran to enrich more uranium as there is both more need for this deterrent and less concessions to make to lighten the embargo. Before that Obama broke a workable deal between Iran, U.S., E.U. and China that Trump unilaterally suspended for his unconditional support to the Saudi regime. That was the real intent behind retreating from JCPOA.

I read the other day with Pompeo brokering a peace deal between UAE and Israel that SA should somehow be next. An alliance between SA and Israel to further isolate Iran. Probably one of the most absurdest things I've ever heard.

 

[Hades]

Its almost as if the UN and most countries in the world aren't impressed with a president canceling international deals just because he doesn't like Obama.

 

[Agema]

And you think this is a good thing?

No, I think it's a stupid, incompetent failure that's bad for the USA, bad for the international community, bad for tensions in the Middle East, and bad for restraining a deeply dubious regime from developing nukes.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

It must feel pretty great for every member of the GOP to see Obama's legacy respected and continued forward like this. I think they should be proud actually, doing the Lord's work here. As I always say; if the road to hell is paved with good intentions, then the road to heaven must be paved with bad ones.

 

[Agema]

I read the other day with Pompeo brokering a peace deal between UAE and Israel that SA should somehow be next. An alliance between SA and Israel to further isolate Iran. Probably one of the most absurdest things I've ever heard.

Enemy of my enemy, etc., and Iran threatens SA in a way Israel never can. I'm not sure SA's people will easily tolerate an alliance with Israel though, and they're very cautious about public anger: uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.

 

[tstorm823]

No, I think it's a stupid, incompetent failure that's bad for the USA, bad for the international community, bad for tensions in the Middle East, and bad for restraining a deeply dubious regime from developing nukes.

So would you say the long list of nations agreeing to give Iran this "diplomatic win" are doing the right thing?

 

[Buyetyen]

So the moral of the story is: Honor your fucking treaties.

 

[Aegix Drakan]

So would you say the long list of nations agreeing to give Iran this "diplomatic win" are doing the right thing?

If it means a return to the terms of the Iran deal, which the UN inspectors claim that Iran was following, which would make Iran more amenable to interacting with the rest of the world in a more positive manner and also (according to the inspectors who went into Iran) prevent them from outright getting a nuke, yeah, they're doing the right thing.

Like, do we want Iran to be forcibly driven into the arms of russia and china, or do we want to give them the option to work with other countries that aren't openly authoritarian hellholes and hopefully push them to outgrow their theocratic state?

 

[Buyetyen]

Like, do we want Iran to be forcibly driven into the arms of russia and china,

Conservatives do, yes. They need an enemy to run against and pushing the Iranian government, trying to goad them into armed conflict would serve that purpose wonderfully.

 

[SupahEwok]

So would you say the long list of nations agreeing to give Iran this "diplomatic win" are doing the right thing?

I think they're honoring rule of law. Isn't wanting the law to mean whatever you want it to mean a dirty Democrat thing?

 

[Agema]

So would you say the long list of nations agreeing to give Iran this "diplomatic win" are doing the right thing?

Iran scored a win over the USA. It didn't score one over the rest of these countries, because they weren't in a contest with it.

If you go to the international community with demands that they make a mockery of themselves and their own international law just on your say-so, how do you think that's going to end out? The sensible thing to do is not pick that unwinnable fight in the first place.

 

[tstorm823]

If it means a return to the terms of the Iran deal, which the UN inspectors claim that Iran was following, which would make Iran more amenable to interacting with the rest of the world in a more positive manner and also (according to the inspectors who went into Iran) prevent them from outright getting a nuke, yeah, they're doing the right thing.

Like, do we want Iran to be forcibly driven into the arms of russia and china, or do we want to give them the option to work with other countries that aren't openly authoritarian hellholes and hopefully push them to outgrow their theocratic state?

But the Iran deal wasn't going to keep them from getting a nuke for any more than a decade. The deal was crap, and they aren't interacting with the rest of the world in a more positive manner. If anything, it allowed for stronger Iran-China relations by pulling some of the stigma away from China dealing with Iran.

And you say "was following", with full awareness that they aren't now.

Iran scored a win over the USA. It didn't score one over the rest of these countries, because they weren't in a contest with it.

If you go to the international community with demands that they make a mockery of themselves and their own international law just on your say-so, how do you think that's going to end out? The sensible thing to do is not pick that unwinnable fight in the first place.

I disagree. Right now the US is sanctioning Iran, the other countries are honoring the agreement, except Iran who is violating the treaty in basically every measure.

Every country still on that treaty except Iran is currently honoring the economic incentives offered and getting literally nothing except for continued inspections, which do nothing but broadcast Iran saying "Oh yeah, you can see all our violations. We're stockpiling the crap out of this stuff."

I think they're honoring rule of law. Isn't wanting the law to mean whatever you want it to mean a dirty Democrat thing?

They're honoring a treaty that's dead. Bi-laterally dead.