8 ms·

And not to negotiate with the US in good faith.

by rich_sasha 8mo ago

JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
[flagged]
- roryirvine 8mo ago
  I'd have been sympathetic to that argument up until a few hours ago. But it turns out that they were actually negotiating in better faith than their counter-party, who have just launched a war whilst still claiming to be interested in a peaceful settlement.
  - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
    > I'd have been sympathetic to that argument up until a few hours ago These are somewhat independent variables. America was open about the fact that we were trying diplomacy before force. Either, one or no sides could have been negotiating in good faith and still wound up here with that setup.
    - master_crab 8mo ago
      No they weren’t. Trump cancelled the previous treaty and then wanted a new agreement more favorable to the US than JCPOA. I don’t like the mullah’s in Iran anymore than the next person but no reasonable and sane person would take that to mean “negotiating in good faith.”
      - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
        > no reasonable and sane person would take that to mean “negotiating in good faith.” Taken as a whole, Trump has not been negotiating with Iran in good faith. That does not mean that Iran has been negotiating in good faith.
        master_crab 8mo ago
        That’s not how life works. If someone takes the first underhanded step, it’s not on the victim to make amends. Iran got burned on JCPOA. Whether we like them or not, you have to address that first before moving on to meaningful talks.
        JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
        > ran got burned on JCPOA. Whether we like them or not, you have to address that first before moving on to meaningful talks Sure. I think it was probably politically impossible for Iran to negotiate in good faith. That doesn't change that they were not negotiating in good faith.
        master_crab 8mo ago
        You’re conflating good faith and acceding to the US’s new demands based on past behavior.
  - greenchair 8mo ago
    no it doesn't "turn out that". They have a long history of hiding their nuke tech and lying while also issuing death threats to israel. Trust but verify doesn't work with this country.
    - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
      > Trust but verify doesn't work with this country I mean, the JCPOA verify seemed pretty well thought out.
- propagandist 8mo ago
  Yeah, Iran is not negotiating in good faith. Not the other side that literally assassinates the negotiators in the most dishonorable treachery. Not the other side that had agreed on the attacks weeks ago, but carried on with the sham negotiations so this attack would coincide with Purim. And I must add, not the side that violates every ceasefire agreement. Zero honor, zero shame, only bloodlust.
  - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
    > assassinates the negotiators in the most dishonorable treachery Which negotiators have been assasinated? (They're in Geneva.)
    - propagandist 8mo ago
      https://mondoweiss.net/2025/09/israel-bombed-qatar-to-assassinate-hamass-lead-ceasefire-negotiators/ https://mondoweiss.net/2025/09/israel-bombed-qatar-to-assass... https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/ali-shamkhani-iranian-negotiator-suspected-being-killed-alive-state-media https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/ali-shamkhani-iranian-neg... Not a slight against you personally, but it's genuinely frustrating discussing this with people who don't actually follow the conflict. Thank you for probing in an inquisitive manner, but please question the state propaganda, which I'm sad to say includes just about every mainstream outlet.
      - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
        > it's genuinely frustrating discussing this with people who don't actually follow the conflict My pet war is Ukraine. I get your frustration and appreciate your patience. And I'll admit I wasn't thinking of Israel when I made that statement since Israel wasn't directly negotiating with Iran this round.
        propagandist 8mo ago
        They're interchangeable the USA and Israel, especially at this time. Of course I mean at the state level. Individuals is a very different story. --- Hit the rate limit so I'm attaching my response to the comment below here. --- Fair enough. I let the current situation cloud my vision, but I genuinely mean they're interchangeable. You can look up the involvement of people like Kushner, Witkoff, Barak with Israel and see where they sit in our government. Leaving aside the major donors. If you listen to statements made by the USG spokespeople, they literally throw US servicemen under the bus to shield the IDF. That goes both for this admin and the last. In the previous admin, it was Biden and Blinken that made a break impossible, despite landing on different political sides from Netanyahu. Another president would have cut them off at some point. Obama was the only one who charted an independent path in recent years (post Bush. Sr.)
- instig007 8mo ago
  you don't need an analyst to see who strikes first (and the frequency of that pattern) while diplomats are still at the negotiating table
  - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
    > you don't need an analyst to see who strikes first (and the frequency of that pattern) while diplomats are still at the negotiating table Of course you do. If the diplomats' job is to stall and never make any actual concessions, that's germane. My understanding is there was a genuine desire for diplomacy on the American side. But at least this round, Tehran never conceded on any material fronts.
    - instig007 8mo ago
      > If the diplomats' job is to stall and never make any actual concessions, that's germane. does this line of reasoning apply to the US only, or in general? > My understanding is there was a genuine desire for diplomacy on the American side. But at least this round, Tehran never conceded on any material fronts. they had an option to do it and still continue a diplomatic track, they aren't obliged to devote themselves to the US preferences at the US-preferred pace.
      - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
        > does this line of reasoning apply to the US only, or in general? Are you asking serious questions? I think the evidence shows the U.S. was negotiating in good faith in the beginning (and I'm scoping to this round of negotiations only). And then it concluded there was no deal to be had, and we probably started bullshitting as well. At the same time, I think the evidence shows the Iranian side was mostly bullshitting the whole time. > they had an option to do it and still continue a diplomatic track Well sure. We also had the option to terminate negotiations, ratchet up sanctions and walk away. None of that changes that the Iranians weren't negotiating in good faith. (Again, based on what I've seen. Open to changing my mind. But the lack of any discussion of what Iran did in this subthread seems to underline my point.) > they aren't obliged to devote themselves to the US preferences at the US-preferred pace War is politics by other means. They aren't obligated to accept the other's timeline. But I wouldn't say that's negotiating either realistically or in good faith–you can't just ignore material variables because you don't like that they exist.
mupuff1234 8mo ago
[flagged]
- sekai 8mo ago
  > Tell that to the 30k+ iranian protestors that were killed. > Are you actually using "in good faith" and the current horrendous iranian regime in the same sentence? If US needs to intervene, why are they are not intervening in Ukraine? Far worse things has been happening there for 4 years.
  - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
    > why are they are not intervening in Ukraine? ...we are? Totally insufficiently. And immaterially, now [1]. But we're still providing intelligence support. [1] https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-america-stockpiles-army-trump-pentagon-weapons-94ff0c465b58608c653b6f64c113a5b9 https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-america-stockpiles-army-t...
  - mupuff1234 8mo ago
    My point is saying that the iranian regime is doing anything "in good faith" is just beyond absurd. They have long lost the ability to claim that any of their actions are in good faith.
  - sva_ 8mo ago
    I don't think the Ukranian people are being supressed by their own gov
    - no-name-here 8mo ago
      Is the argument that the U.S. should only militarily intervene when conflicts are internal within another country, as opposed to when it’s one country invading another? As that’s the opposite of the established international laws around prohibiting one state from attacking another vs the principle of non-intervention.
    - CapricornNoble 8mo ago
jaredklewis 8mo ago
Not sure Iran was doing that, but for sure Maduro wasn’t. Not sure it affects the outcome.
guerrilla 8mo ago
I don't understand Iran, Hezbollah's and the Houthis' patience with the US actually. It's absolutely shocking. After the US betrayed ALL of it's own fucking allies, in what world does it make sense to negotiate with them? The Houthis are still "threatening" to do things today after already being decimated and Hezbollah's strength more than halved. I don't support any of these creeps but if any of them were minimally rational, they would have all gone to total war with Israel and the US the minute they realized what Hamas was doing on October 7th. They look even more naive than Europeans at this point.
- bawolff 8mo ago
  Rational negotiations have to be based on the relative power of the parties. It made sense for iran to try to negotiate with the US because the alternative was a war they had no chance to win. Arguably it also made sense for them to not come to an agreement because USA wanted concessesions the Iranian regime probably couldn't do while still staying in power given how weak they are domestically. > I don't support any of these creeps but if any of them were minimally rational, they would have all gone to total war with Israel and the US the minute they realized what Hamas was doing on October 7th. Israel's ability to divide and conqour its enemies here has been pretty impressive.
  - guerrilla 8mo ago
    > It made sense for iran to try to negotiate with the US because the alternative was a war they had no chance to win. They have no chance of winning no matter what. At least inflict some damage on your enemy while you die like Hamas chose (although I disagree with the fact that they chose that for a lot of innocent people too.) The US isn't ever going to leave anyone, let alone Iran, alone. The options are a) fight and cease to exist and b) don't fight and cease to exist.
    - delusional 8mo ago
      > The US isn't ever going to leave anyone, let alone Iran, alone. The options are a) fight and cease to exist and b) don't fight and cease to exist. Oh boy, I see we learned nothing from Afghanistan. The US will eventually leave you alone, There will be a power vacuum, and the local warlord will rise to that opportunity. The "military operations" don't end in decisive vistory. They end with death and destruction for the young men sent into battle, and more enemies in the surrounding areas.
lakrici88284 8mo ago
The US demands were clear - no nuclear capability whatsoever, not really a hard demand to meet if you're coming "in good faith". Iran decided to play stupid games and found out.

And not to negotiate with the US in good faith.

JumpCrisscross 8mo ago

[flagged]

roryirvine 8mo ago
I'd have been sympathetic to that argument up until a few hours ago. But it turns out that they were actually negotiating in better faith than their counter-party, who have just launched a war whilst still claiming to be interested in a peaceful settlement.
- JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
  > I'd have been sympathetic to that argument up until a few hours ago These are somewhat independent variables. America was open about the fact that we were trying diplomacy before force. Either, one or no sides could have been negotiating in good faith and still wound up here with that setup.
  - master_crab 8mo ago
    No they weren’t. Trump cancelled the previous treaty and then wanted a new agreement more favorable to the US than JCPOA. I don’t like the mullah’s in Iran anymore than the next person but no reasonable and sane person would take that to mean “negotiating in good faith.”
    - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
      > no reasonable and sane person would take that to mean “negotiating in good faith.” Taken as a whole, Trump has not been negotiating with Iran in good faith. That does not mean that Iran has been negotiating in good faith.
      - master_crab 8mo ago
        That’s not how life works. If someone takes the first underhanded step, it’s not on the victim to make amends. Iran got burned on JCPOA. Whether we like them or not, you have to address that first before moving on to meaningful talks.
        JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
        > ran got burned on JCPOA. Whether we like them or not, you have to address that first before moving on to meaningful talks Sure. I think it was probably politically impossible for Iran to negotiate in good faith. That doesn't change that they were not negotiating in good faith.
        master_crab 8mo ago
        You’re conflating good faith and acceding to the US’s new demands based on past behavior.
- greenchair 8mo ago
  no it doesn't "turn out that". They have a long history of hiding their nuke tech and lying while also issuing death threats to israel. Trust but verify doesn't work with this country.
  - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
    > Trust but verify doesn't work with this country I mean, the JCPOA verify seemed pretty well thought out.
propagandist 8mo ago
Yeah, Iran is not negotiating in good faith. Not the other side that literally assassinates the negotiators in the most dishonorable treachery. Not the other side that had agreed on the attacks weeks ago, but carried on with the sham negotiations so this attack would coincide with Purim. And I must add, not the side that violates every ceasefire agreement. Zero honor, zero shame, only bloodlust.
- JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
  > assassinates the negotiators in the most dishonorable treachery Which negotiators have been assasinated? (They're in Geneva.)
  - propagandist 8mo ago
    https://mondoweiss.net/2025/09/israel-bombed-qatar-to-assassinate-hamass-lead-ceasefire-negotiators/ https://mondoweiss.net/2025/09/israel-bombed-qatar-to-assass... https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/ali-shamkhani-iranian-negotiator-suspected-being-killed-alive-state-media https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/ali-shamkhani-iranian-neg... Not a slight against you personally, but it's genuinely frustrating discussing this with people who don't actually follow the conflict. Thank you for probing in an inquisitive manner, but please question the state propaganda, which I'm sad to say includes just about every mainstream outlet.
    - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
      > it's genuinely frustrating discussing this with people who don't actually follow the conflict My pet war is Ukraine. I get your frustration and appreciate your patience. And I'll admit I wasn't thinking of Israel when I made that statement since Israel wasn't directly negotiating with Iran this round.
      - propagandist 8mo ago
        They're interchangeable the USA and Israel, especially at this time. Of course I mean at the state level. Individuals is a very different story. --- Hit the rate limit so I'm attaching my response to the comment below here. --- Fair enough. I let the current situation cloud my vision, but I genuinely mean they're interchangeable. You can look up the involvement of people like Kushner, Witkoff, Barak with Israel and see where they sit in our government. Leaving aside the major donors. If you listen to statements made by the USG spokespeople, they literally throw US servicemen under the bus to shield the IDF. That goes both for this admin and the last. In the previous admin, it was Biden and Blinken that made a break impossible, despite landing on different political sides from Netanyahu. Another president would have cut them off at some point. Obama was the only one who charted an independent path in recent years (post Bush. Sr.)
instig007 8mo ago
you don't need an analyst to see who strikes first (and the frequency of that pattern) while diplomats are still at the negotiating table
- JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
  > you don't need an analyst to see who strikes first (and the frequency of that pattern) while diplomats are still at the negotiating table Of course you do. If the diplomats' job is to stall and never make any actual concessions, that's germane. My understanding is there was a genuine desire for diplomacy on the American side. But at least this round, Tehran never conceded on any material fronts.
  - instig007 8mo ago
    > If the diplomats' job is to stall and never make any actual concessions, that's germane. does this line of reasoning apply to the US only, or in general? > My understanding is there was a genuine desire for diplomacy on the American side. But at least this round, Tehran never conceded on any material fronts. they had an option to do it and still continue a diplomatic track, they aren't obliged to devote themselves to the US preferences at the US-preferred pace.
    - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
      > does this line of reasoning apply to the US only, or in general? Are you asking serious questions? I think the evidence shows the U.S. was negotiating in good faith in the beginning (and I'm scoping to this round of negotiations only). And then it concluded there was no deal to be had, and we probably started bullshitting as well. At the same time, I think the evidence shows the Iranian side was mostly bullshitting the whole time. > they had an option to do it and still continue a diplomatic track Well sure. We also had the option to terminate negotiations, ratchet up sanctions and walk away. None of that changes that the Iranians weren't negotiating in good faith. (Again, based on what I've seen. Open to changing my mind. But the lack of any discussion of what Iran did in this subthread seems to underline my point.) > they aren't obliged to devote themselves to the US preferences at the US-preferred pace War is politics by other means. They aren't obligated to accept the other's timeline. But I wouldn't say that's negotiating either realistically or in good faith–you can't just ignore material variables because you don't like that they exist.

mupuff1234 8mo ago

[flagged]

sekai 8mo ago
> Tell that to the 30k+ iranian protestors that were killed. > Are you actually using "in good faith" and the current horrendous iranian regime in the same sentence? If US needs to intervene, why are they are not intervening in Ukraine? Far worse things has been happening there for 4 years.
- JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
  > why are they are not intervening in Ukraine? ...we are? Totally insufficiently. And immaterially, now [1]. But we're still providing intelligence support. [1] https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-america-stockpiles-army-trump-pentagon-weapons-94ff0c465b58608c653b6f64c113a5b9 https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-america-stockpiles-army-t...
- mupuff1234 8mo ago
  My point is saying that the iranian regime is doing anything "in good faith" is just beyond absurd. They have long lost the ability to claim that any of their actions are in good faith.
- sva_ 8mo ago
  I don't think the Ukranian people are being supressed by their own gov
  - no-name-here 8mo ago
    Is the argument that the U.S. should only militarily intervene when conflicts are internal within another country, as opposed to when it’s one country invading another? As that’s the opposite of the established international laws around prohibiting one state from attacking another vs the principle of non-intervention.
  - CapricornNoble 8mo ago

jaredklewis 8mo ago

Not sure Iran was doing that, but for sure Maduro wasn’t. Not sure it affects the outcome.

guerrilla 8mo ago

I don't understand Iran, Hezbollah's and the Houthis' patience with the US actually. It's absolutely shocking. After the US betrayed ALL of it's own fucking allies, in what world does it make sense to negotiate with them? The Houthis are still "threatening" to do things today after already being decimated and Hezbollah's strength more than halved. I don't support any of these creeps but if any of them were minimally rational, they would have all gone to total war with Israel and the US the minute they realized what Hamas was doing on October 7th. They look even more naive than Europeans at this point.

bawolff 8mo ago
Rational negotiations have to be based on the relative power of the parties. It made sense for iran to try to negotiate with the US because the alternative was a war they had no chance to win. Arguably it also made sense for them to not come to an agreement because USA wanted concessesions the Iranian regime probably couldn't do while still staying in power given how weak they are domestically. > I don't support any of these creeps but if any of them were minimally rational, they would have all gone to total war with Israel and the US the minute they realized what Hamas was doing on October 7th. Israel's ability to divide and conqour its enemies here has been pretty impressive.
- guerrilla 8mo ago
  > It made sense for iran to try to negotiate with the US because the alternative was a war they had no chance to win. They have no chance of winning no matter what. At least inflict some damage on your enemy while you die like Hamas chose (although I disagree with the fact that they chose that for a lot of innocent people too.) The US isn't ever going to leave anyone, let alone Iran, alone. The options are a) fight and cease to exist and b) don't fight and cease to exist.
  - delusional 8mo ago
    > The US isn't ever going to leave anyone, let alone Iran, alone. The options are a) fight and cease to exist and b) don't fight and cease to exist. Oh boy, I see we learned nothing from Afghanistan. The US will eventually leave you alone, There will be a power vacuum, and the local warlord will rise to that opportunity. The "military operations" don't end in decisive vistory. They end with death and destruction for the young men sent into battle, and more enemies in the surrounding areas.

lakrici88284 8mo ago

The US demands were clear - no nuclear capability whatsoever, not really a hard demand to meet if you're coming "in good faith". Iran decided to play stupid games and found out.