If we are to distill a main point from the last two blog posts which discussed U.S.-Iran nuclear talks, it would perhaps be that the United States is not the rational, scientific, and strategic actor going into these talks on November 29. Rather, it is Iran which is the rational, scientific, and strategic actor going into these talks. Regardless of these talks which begin on November 29, Iran can get the best of both worlds, in the sense that it can pursue its own national interest and its own defense strategy which may or may not include a nuclear weapons program, all while mitigating the effects of sanctions by playing the “China Card.” But when we look at the United States’ position absent of these talks, it will be left wallowing in the failure of a hegemonic policy that employed a strategy of military aggression, cruel and inhumane sanctions, and phony propaganda all around the world for the last thirty years, and both the policy and strategy failed.
Thus, it is Iran which has the rational and scientific decision made as well as the strategy which will foster an optimal outcome in the way of advancing its national interests, whereas the United States has neither a rational and scientific decision in mind, nor does it have a strategy which will convince Iran to drop its decision and strategy. Because the United States reneged on the deal with Iran during the Trump Administration, the administration that is now in charge in Iran has upped the ante if you will. In order to drop its current decision and strategy, Iran has demanded that the United States lift all sanctions. But the United States is going into the talks demanding that Iran drop its decision and strategy, without any concessions whatsoever.
Not only is there poor decision-making behind the demands that the Biden Administration is making of Iran, but there is also the issue of the United States failing to find a viable foreign policy strategy after a failed policy and strategy of global hegemony. There is no alternative to global hegemony, despite the fact that the policy and strategy of global hegemony has failed. Thus, there is no foreign policy on the part of the United States, nor is there a strategy to be heard of after decades of a failed foreign policy and foreign policy strategy.
As a result, there may be limits to what the United States can do to alter Iran’s decision-making and strategy going into these talks. If Iran is resolute in its demand that all sanctions be lifted in order for Iran to reconsider its nuclear program, will the United States concede to Iran’s demand? The fate of these talks, which begin on November 29, perhaps revolves wholly around this one particular quid pro quo, namely, the removal of all sanctions on Iran in return for compliance with limitations on Iran’s nuclear program. It’s a lot like asking a woman to show you basic decency and love after all the commitments and promises you made to her. And if this quid pro quo does not result from these upcoming nuclear talks, then perhaps these talks are doomed to fail from the outset. But then again, anything can happen.