Why Ayatollah Khamenei will not negotiate with Trump

[TU Curmudgeon]

From al-Jazeera

Why Ayatollah Khamenei will not negotiate with Trump
​

In a June 13 Washington Post article, former US ambassador to the UN Zalmay Khalilzad argued that the Trump administration's approach towards Iran - withdrawing from the nuclear deal and imposing crippling sanctions - has a reasonable chance of bringing its leadership to the negotiating table.

The logic behind this idea is that imposing "the highest level" of economic sanctions will not only prevent Iran from supporting its proxies and destabilising the Middle East, but will also lead to economic hardship and possibly mass discontent, which could shake the regime's stability.
This approach was tested under the Obama administration and eventually resulted in Iran sitting down for talks in 2013 and signing a nuclear deal in 2015 under President Hasan Rouhani.

But the idea that this could happen again in the aftermath of US President Donald Trump withdrawing from the nuclear deal is not just optimistic - it is flawed. It is not in the interest of the hardliner leadership in Iran to sit down for direct talks with the Trump administration.

COMMENT:-

You have to interpose a bunch of "he thinks" and "he believes" at the appropriate points, but once done the article does give a reasonable description of the mind-set of the Iranian leadership.

It doesn't matter if that mind-set is founded in reality or not, because the important thing is that the mind-set is what is BELIEVED.
​

 

[JONRID]

Ayatollah Khamenei cannot negotiate with Trump because the Ayatollah is on a mission from Allah.
That mission involves bringing the apostate Sunni Muslims heel and creating the new Muslim caliph.

The USA is the great Satan.
Negotiating with the USA is for the Ayatollah, is the equivalent of Jesus Christ negotiating with the Devil.

It is the western world that is stupid - the west thinks it can negotiate with the Ayatollah.
But then Chamberlain thought he could negotiate with Hitler too....

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Ayatollah Khamenei cannot negotiate with Trump because the Ayatollah is on a mission from Allah.
That mission involves bringing the apostate Sunni Muslims heel and creating the new Muslim caliph.

Quite possibly.

However, if you don't know how the other guy thinks then you will never be able to anticipate what the other guy is going to do.

Of course, the Iranians have absolutely no reason whatsoever to think that the US government would even begin to contemplate interfering in the internal affairs of Iran for the economic benefit of Americans - right?

The USA is the great Satan.

Just as much as Iran is a part of "The Axis of Evil".

Negotiating with the USA is for the Ayatollah, is the equivalent of Jesus Christ negotiating with the Devil.

Well, God made a deal with the Devil.

It is the western world that is stupid - the west thinks it can negotiate with the Ayatollah.

And, of course, the absolutely ideal "negotiating stance" is "You will do exactly what I tell you to do - regardless of what effect that has on your own people." - isn't it?

But then Chamberlain thought he could negotiate with Hitler too....

A viewpoint that those who haven't seen 25% of their young men killed or crippled seem to espouse quite freely.

You might not be aware that there was a strong American movement for "appeasement" (the majority of Americans supported the Munich Agreement) that mitigated against France and/or the UK taking a stronger line against Germany - a movement that didn't actually (effectively) disappear until after Pearl Harbour.

You might find "Neville Chamberlain Was Right", "The United States’ Policy toward Germany 1933--1938" and "The twisted road to war" interesting (although I doubt that you will actually read them).

 

[Barnacle]

"Why Ayatollah Khamenei will not negotiate with Trump"


Maybe Trump does not want to negotiate with the Ayatollah ... with a bit of luck he'll be gone soon anyway ...

"Mideast: While the U.S. remains focused on immigration and a Supreme Court vacancy, Iran is in the middle of a major social convulsion that's verging on a revolution. Last time this happened, President Obama ignored it. This time, the U.S. supports those in the streets.

... The 39-year-old dictatorship of the Mullahs in Tehran may be on the verge of dissolving, as Trump imposes new, stiff sanctions on Iran's economy and Iran's currency, the rial, plunges sharply, prices soar and the economy collapses. Average Iranians are losing faith in the government and taking to the streets.

Without the fundamentalists in power, Iran will almost certainly begin modernizing both its economy and its culture. Moreover, the nuclear weapons program that is at the heart of western discontent with Iran could be dismantled.

... Last time, the U.S. sat and watched, not giving its ally, the Shah, any support. This time is different. ..."

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/iran-protests-revolution/

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

"Why Ayatollah Khamenei will not negotiate with Trump"


Maybe Trump does not want to negotiate with the Ayatollah ... with a bit of luck he'll be gone soon anyway ...

"Mideast: While the U.S. remains focused on immigration and a Supreme Court vacancy, Iran is in the middle of a major social convulsion that's verging on a revolution. Last time this happened, President Obama ignored it. This time, the U.S. supports those in the streets.

... The 39-year-old dictatorship of the Mullahs in Tehran may be on the verge of dissolving, as Trump imposes new, stiff sanctions on Iran's economy and Iran's currency, the rial, plunges sharply, prices soar and the economy collapses. Average Iranians are losing faith in the government and taking to the streets.

Without the fundamentalists in power, Iran will almost certainly begin modernizing both its economy and its culture. Moreover, the nuclear weapons program that is at the heart of western discontent with Iran could be dismantled.

... Last time, the U.S. sat and watched, not giving its ally, the Shah, any support. This time is different. ..."

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/iran-protests-revolution/

Interesting article.

Of course the Iranian nuclear program has already been "dismantled" and the Shah wasn't so much an "American Ally" as an "American installed absolute monarch".

But things like that are really insignificant when you really REALLY REALLY want to believe.

PS - The Iranian revolution lasted from 7 January 1978 to 11 February 1979 and the US government fully backed the Shah's government (and his Secret Police) until 16 January 1979 (when the Shah packed up and left - taking his important papers [read as "money"] with him). Between 16 JAN 79 and 11 FEB 79, it was the Iranian people fighting it out with the Shah's Secret Police and military for control of the country. The odds that the US government could have done anything effective to quash the Iranian people and reinstall an absolute monarch in the 25 days between 16 JAN and 11 FEB are super-slim to laughable.

 

[HERA the Stars]

The Iran agreement is gone because Israel wanted it so and there were real arguments in favour of it. A week after Trump pulled out of the Iran agreement Sheldon Adelson wrote a $30 million cheque for the Republicans, that's on top of Netanyahu's rhetoric against the deal. In addition to this Iran's reluctance to cooperate with Opec and continued high levels of oil production were damaging Saudi Arabia, who's economy is highly dependent on the oil price.

Then there's America's own oil industry, the high cost of production $30 per barrel, the short lifespan of wells on average 2 years and therefore continuous investing of money for development has left the industry in an enormous amount of debt. We would be kidding ourselves if we ignored the fact that walking away from the Iran deal lifted the oil price and indeed served as salvation for this industry, although in my opinion a short term one.

Pompei's list of demands are a smoke screen and Khamenei knows it, why bother to negotiate

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The Iran agreement is gone because Israel wanted it so and there were real arguments in favour of it. A week after Trump pulled out of the Iran agreement Sheldon Adelson wrote a $30 million cheque for the Republicans, that's on top of Netanyahu's rhetoric against the deal. In addition to this Iran's reluctance to cooperate with Opec and continued high levels of oil production were damaging Saudi Arabia, who's economy is highly dependent on the oil price.

Then there's America's own oil industry, the high cost of production $30 per barrel, the short lifespan of wells on average 2 years and therefore continuous investing of money for development has left the industry in an enormous amount of debt. We would be kidding ourselves if we ignored the fact that walking away from the Iran deal lifted the oil price and indeed served as salvation for this industry, although in my opinion a short term one.

Pompei's list of demands are a smoke screen and Khamenei knows it, why bother to negotiate

When you believe that you are winning, you don't "negotiate".

It doesn't matter if Mr. Khamenei is correct when he believes that he is winning because the important factor is the belief.

 

[Mycroft]

From al-Jazeera

Why Ayatollah Khamenei will not negotiate with Trump
​

In a June 13 Washington Post article, former US ambassador to the UN Zalmay Khalilzad argued that the Trump administration's approach towards Iran - withdrawing from the nuclear deal and imposing crippling sanctions - has a reasonable chance of bringing its leadership to the negotiating table.

The logic behind this idea is that imposing "the highest level" of economic sanctions will not only prevent Iran from supporting its proxies and destabilising the Middle East, but will also lead to economic hardship and possibly mass discontent, which could shake the regime's stability.
This approach was tested under the Obama administration and eventually resulted in Iran sitting down for talks in 2013 and signing a nuclear deal in 2015 under President Hasan Rouhani.

But the idea that this could happen again in the aftermath of US President Donald Trump withdrawing from the nuclear deal is not just optimistic - it is flawed. It is not in the interest of the hardliner leadership in Iran to sit down for direct talks with the Trump administration.

COMMENT:-

You have to interpose a bunch of "he thinks" and "he believes" at the appropriate points, but once done the article does give a reasonable description of the mind-set of the Iranian leadership.

It doesn't matter if that mind-set is founded in reality or not, because the important thing is that the mind-set is what is BELIEVED.
​

Trump isn't interested in "negotiating" with Iran. He'll make their existence so miserable they will be BEGGING Trump to make them a deal.

 

[JONRID]

When you believe that you are winning, you don't "negotiate".

It doesn't matter if Mr. Khamenei is correct when he believes that he is winning because the important factor is the belief.

SCREW WHAT ISRAEL WANT'S OR DOESN'T WANT....

Obama was a damned fool to agree to a treaty that put the worlds largest state sponsor of terrorism on a 15 year glide path to having nukes.

A nuke tipped missile that will reach Jerusalem will also reach Paris.
A nuclear Iraq would force Saudi Arabia and Egypt to jump into the nuclear arms race.

 

[iliveonramen]

SCREW WHAT ISRAEL WANT'S OR DOESN'T WANT....

Obama was a damned fool to agree to a treaty that put the worlds largest state sponsor of terrorism on a 15 year glide path to having nukes.

A nuke tipped missile that will reach Jerusalem will also reach Paris.
A nuclear Iraq would force Saudi Arabia and Egypt to jump into the nuclear arms race.

Before the treaty was signed there were reports that using intelligence sources in the US and Israel that ranged from Iran already had nukes or Iran was months from having a nuke.

A 15 year "glide path" was much better than where things seemed to be heading.

 

[chuckiechan]

From al-Jazeera

Why Ayatollah Khamenei will not negotiate with Trump
​

In a June 13 Washington Post article, former US ambassador to the UN Zalmay Khalilzad argued that the Trump administration's approach towards Iran - withdrawing from the nuclear deal and imposing crippling sanctions - has a reasonable chance of bringing its leadership to the negotiating table.

The logic behind this idea is that imposing "the highest level" of economic sanctions will not only prevent Iran from supporting its proxies and destabilising the Middle East, but will also lead to economic hardship and possibly mass discontent, which could shake the regime's stability.
This approach was tested under the Obama administration and eventually resulted in Iran sitting down for talks in 2013 and signing a nuclear deal in 2015 under President Hasan Rouhani.

But the idea that this could happen again in the aftermath of US President Donald Trump withdrawing from the nuclear deal is not just optimistic - it is flawed. It is not in the interest of the hardliner leadership in Iran to sit down for direct talks with the Trump administration.

COMMENT:-

You have to interpose a bunch of "he thinks" and "he believes" at the appropriate points, but once done the article does give a reasonable description of the mind-set of the Iranian leadership.

It doesn't matter if that mind-set is founded in reality or not, because the important thing is that the mind-set is what is BELIEVED.
​

Obama toyed with it, but his heart was not in creating a USA friendly results.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Trump isn't interested in "negotiating" with Iran. He'll make their existence so miserable they will be BEGGING Trump to make them a deal.

Alternatively the Iranians will tell Mr. Trump to play "The Show of Shows. The Super Show. The Super-Duper Show. The Quiz Show of Quiz Shows" as set out in Robert Heinlein's "The Marching Morons".

 

[Mycroft]

Alternatively the Iranians will tell Mr. Trump to play "The Show of Shows. The Super Show. The Super-Duper Show. The Quiz Show of Quiz Shows" as set out in Robert Heinlein's "The Marching Morons".

Maybe you have the wrong reference?

The Marching Morons - Cyril M. Kornbluth

I have no idea what you are talking about with your "show" references.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Maybe you have the wrong reference?

The Marching Morons - Cyril M. Kornbluth

I have no idea what you are talking about with your "show" references.

You are right, got the author wrong.

Read the story to get the reference.

 

[Mycroft]

You are right, got the author wrong.

Read the story to get the reference.

LOL!!

No.

 

[cuban smokes]

From al-Jazeera

Why Ayatollah Khamenei will not negotiate with Trump
​

In a June 13 Washington Post article, former US ambassador to the UN Zalmay Khalilzad argued that the Trump administration's approach towards Iran - withdrawing from the nuclear deal and imposing crippling sanctions - has a reasonable chance of bringing its leadership to the negotiating table.

The logic behind this idea is that imposing "the highest level" of economic sanctions will not only prevent Iran from supporting its proxies and destabilising the Middle East, but will also lead to economic hardship and possibly mass discontent, which could shake the regime's stability.
This approach was tested under the Obama administration and eventually resulted in Iran sitting down for talks in 2013 and signing a nuclear deal in 2015 under President Hasan Rouhani.

But the idea that this could happen again in the aftermath of US President Donald Trump withdrawing from the nuclear deal is not just optimistic - it is flawed. It is not in the interest of the hardliner leadership in Iran to sit down for direct talks with the Trump administration.

COMMENT:-

You have to interpose a bunch of "he thinks" and "he believes" at the appropriate points, but once done the article does give a reasonable description of the mind-set of the Iranian leadership.

It doesn't matter if that mind-set is founded in reality or not, because the important thing is that the mind-set is what is BELIEVED.
​

well, Trump could always fly to some exotic destination, meet with the Ayatollah Khamenei, shake hands, take some nice photos, show him a video of Iran in a smoldering heap of nuclear ruins, sign a 'deal' with the Ayatollah, say nice stuff like "we have a great relationship," & "I trust the Ayatollah," & "Iran is no longer a nuclear threat."

Yeah, I think that would work ............

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

From al-Jazeera

Why Ayatollah Khamenei will not negotiate with Trump
​

In a June 13 Washington Post article, former US ambassador to the UN Zalmay Khalilzad argued that the Trump administration's approach towards Iran - withdrawing from the nuclear deal and imposing crippling sanctions - has a reasonable chance of bringing its leadership to the negotiating table.

The logic behind this idea is that imposing "the highest level" of economic sanctions will not only prevent Iran from supporting its proxies and destabilising the Middle East, but will also lead to economic hardship and possibly mass discontent, which could shake the regime's stability.
This approach was tested under the Obama administration and eventually resulted in Iran sitting down for talks in 2013 and signing a nuclear deal in 2015 under President Hasan Rouhani.

But the idea that this could happen again in the aftermath of US President Donald Trump withdrawing from the nuclear deal is not just optimistic - it is flawed. It is not in the interest of the hardliner leadership in Iran to sit down for direct talks with the Trump administration.

COMMENT:-

You have to interpose a bunch of "he thinks" and "he believes" at the appropriate points, but once done the article does give a reasonable description of the mind-set of the Iranian leadership.

It doesn't matter if that mind-set is founded in reality or not, because the important thing is that the mind-set is what is BELIEVED.
​

The so-called deal was insanely stupid to begin with, not to mention unconstitutional in the USA. As for the Ayotollah coming to the negotiating table again, I suspect that if the regime survives it will return to the negotiating table out of necessity, only this time, it will be done by way of a treaty with verifiable inspections

 

[Mycroft]

well, Trump could always fly to some exotic destination, meet with the Ayatollah Khamenei, shake hands, take some nice photos, show him a video of Iran in a smoldering heap of nuclear ruins, sign a 'deal' with the Ayatollah, say nice stuff like "we have a great relationship," & "I trust the Ayatollah," & "Iran is no longer a nuclear threat."

Yeah, I think that would work ............

If there was some other country who is REALLY the focus of the negotiations, as is the case with NK, your scenario might be one considered by Trump. But Iran doesn't have a "China" behind them pulling their strings, so Trump will take a different approach with them.

 

[cuban smokes]

If there was some other country who is REALLY the focus of the negotiations, as is the case with NK, your scenario might be one considered by Trump. But Iran doesn't have a "China" behind them pulling their strings, so Trump will take a different approach with them.

China is the single biggest purchaser of Iranian crude so, ............

 

[Mycroft]

China is the single biggest purchaser of Iranian crude so, ............

So?

Do you contend that is evidence that China is calling the shots in Iran? If so, I'd say that's pretty thin evidence.

 

[cuban smokes]

So?

Do you contend that is evidence that China is calling the shots in Iran? If so, I'd say that's pretty thin evidence.

that is not what I said; look at the bigger picture, outside of the box ...........

 

[Mycroft]

that is not what I said; look at the bigger picture, outside of the box ...........

The box? Does China buy Iranian crude by the box?

Okay...I'll admit that snark was uncalled for, but I was talking about dealing with the decision-maker. You implied China makes decisions for Iran...presumably based on the fact that they buy something from Iran. I dispute that implication.

If that's not what you were getting at, then please explain.

 

[cuban smokes]

The box? Does China buy Iranian crude by the box?

Okay...I'll admit that snark was uncalled for, but I was talking about dealing with the decision-maker. You implied China makes decisions for Iran...presumably based on the fact that they buy something from Iran. I dispute that implication.

If that's not what you were getting at, then please explain.

if you believe that is what I implied then you did not receive the Holy Spirit of post # 21 ..............

 

[Mycroft]

if you believe that is what I implied then you did not receive the Holy Spirit of post # 21 ..............

Then please explain.

 

[cuban smokes]

Then please explain.

* China is not, "calling the shots" as you said
* China is a HUGE importer of Iranian crude; the biggest. Check
* China is NOT gonna play Trump's ****ty game to stop importing Iranian crude
* do U C where I'm going, yet????????????