
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


Iran is openly rejecting Israeli red lines, revealing the limits of US military pressure and exposing the stalled escalation right now in the Middle East. Right, so Israel has now publicly demanded that Iran dismantle its nuclear programme, scrap its missile capability, and abandon its regional allies, and the United States backed that demand with carrier groups already deployed in the region threatening an or else if Iran don’t acquiesce. Well Iran hasn’t walked away. It agreed to talks but at the same time rejected the terms. No zero enrichment, no missile disarmament, no surrender of allies. Thusfar, since that rejection landed though obviously still ahead of those potential talks, nothing has yet followed. No US strike, no escalation, no enforcement.. That’s the moment the mechanism failed. Once Iran can sit at the table while rejecting those demands outright, the demands stop doing any work. When demands are rejected and talks proceed regardless, the demands have already failed. Right, so Israel and the US started by demanding everything at once: that Iran give up its nuclear programme entirely, dismantle its missiles, and abandon its allies. That was not an attempt to negotiate limits or trade-offs. It was an attempt to see whether simply issuing a threat would force Iran to comply. Iran refused those demands, but it did not walk away from diplomacy. It said it would only discuss the nuclear issue, and only if threats stopped. After that refusal, nothing happened. The US did not carry out the threat that was supposed to sit behind the demands. That order of events matters because it shows the test failed. The demand was made. Iran rejected it. And the power that was supposed to enforce it chose not to act. Once that happens, you are no longer dealing with a negotiation problem. You are dealing with a credibility problem. After Iran rejected the demands and the US did nothing, the situation stopped being about messaging or posturing and became about reality. The question was no longer whether talks would work. It became whether the US still has the ability or willingness to force outcomes when the other side has already decided it can live with saying no.
By Damien WilleyIran is openly rejecting Israeli red lines, revealing the limits of US military pressure and exposing the stalled escalation right now in the Middle East. Right, so Israel has now publicly demanded that Iran dismantle its nuclear programme, scrap its missile capability, and abandon its regional allies, and the United States backed that demand with carrier groups already deployed in the region threatening an or else if Iran don’t acquiesce. Well Iran hasn’t walked away. It agreed to talks but at the same time rejected the terms. No zero enrichment, no missile disarmament, no surrender of allies. Thusfar, since that rejection landed though obviously still ahead of those potential talks, nothing has yet followed. No US strike, no escalation, no enforcement.. That’s the moment the mechanism failed. Once Iran can sit at the table while rejecting those demands outright, the demands stop doing any work. When demands are rejected and talks proceed regardless, the demands have already failed. Right, so Israel and the US started by demanding everything at once: that Iran give up its nuclear programme entirely, dismantle its missiles, and abandon its allies. That was not an attempt to negotiate limits or trade-offs. It was an attempt to see whether simply issuing a threat would force Iran to comply. Iran refused those demands, but it did not walk away from diplomacy. It said it would only discuss the nuclear issue, and only if threats stopped. After that refusal, nothing happened. The US did not carry out the threat that was supposed to sit behind the demands. That order of events matters because it shows the test failed. The demand was made. Iran rejected it. And the power that was supposed to enforce it chose not to act. Once that happens, you are no longer dealing with a negotiation problem. You are dealing with a credibility problem. After Iran rejected the demands and the US did nothing, the situation stopped being about messaging or posturing and became about reality. The question was no longer whether talks would work. It became whether the US still has the ability or willingness to force outcomes when the other side has already decided it can live with saying no.