Those who followed the media debates (2013 to 2015) regarding the negotiations between Iran and the (P5+1) countries, will recall a point that was hotly contested at the time. It related to the potential of a war erupting between Iran and the United States.
There
was those who wanted the negotiations to succeed, thus bring peace to the
region because they said that the alternative to success will be war. And there
was the side that wanted the negotiations to fail, arguing that failure will
not lead to war. What happened eventually was that the negotiations succeeded,
the deal was made, Iran respected its provisions, and so did America till it
elected a madman as president, and he reneged on the deal.
Fortunately,
the madman turned out to be a one-term president for, he was kicked out of the
seat of power after four years. With a new administration governing America,
the hope was rekindled that the Iran nuclear deal can be restored. This did not
happen as easily as might have been expected, however. It is that the ball was
tossed back and forth between the two sides and between the various
intermediaries who tried to bring them together.
While
this was happening, the debating pundits who stood on the side of a positive
outcome, repeated the arguments they used previously, thus encouraged the new
negotiators to get on with it and restore the deal. The pundits on the other
side, however, did not simply repeat the arguments they used previously, they
did more. What they did was go radical by wearing the mantle of warmongers, and
openly advocating war on Iran if that country did not surrender and accepted
the demands of Jewish America unconditionally. In so doing, they proved that those
on the peace side who warned that without a deal there will be war, were correct
in their assessment of the situation.
Now
that the two sides in the negotiations have agreed to get together and do what
they can to revive the deal, the old warmongers came out of their hiding places,
and started writing scenarios telling America what it must do to bring Iran to
its knees or inflict a modern sort of holocaust on it. One of the characters so
advocating is Richard Haass who wrote a plan to do just that, under the title:
“Iran’s Nuclear Choices and Ours,” published on November 17, 2021 in the online
publication Project Syndicate.
Haass
analyzed the situation in a way that has led him so conveniently to the
following plan of action:
“The alternative is to replace formal
diplomacy with something less formal. The US and Israel would communicate to
Iran the limits to their tolerance. If Iran were to cross these red lines, it would
pay a substantial price. In addition to increased sanctions, it could face
conventional military attacks on targets of economic value. All of this implies
difficult choices for the US. Biden and his successors might have to consider
participating in or condoning attacks on Iran. They might also need to pledge
that the US would retaliate against any Iranian threat or use of nuclear
weapons. Both Trump and Biden made clear their desire to reduce American
military involvement in the Middle East. Because of Iran, making good on this
aim looks increasingly unlikely”.
If
anything, this is the definition of bad faith, and how to implement it in a
real-life situation. Look closely at what has unfolded during the past few
years. Despite savage attacks from the warmongers, the negotiations for a
nuclear deal were completed and put into effect in 2015. The fact that the two
sides adhered to the provisions of the deal, indicate that the negotiations
were done in good faith.
Unfortunately,
that situation was torpedoed when a new administration in America reneged on
the deal. Now that the negotiations are about to resume under a new
administration, the warmongers are openly advocating that America proceed in
bad faith. How is that? you ask.
Here
is how that is in the words of Richard Haass himself: “Replace formal diplomacy with something less formal.”
What this means is that Haass is telling the (P5+1) they must not negotiate
with the Iranians under any circumstances. Period. He goes on to tell them,
they must dictate to Iran the terms put forth by Jewish America, and force the
mullahs to accept them or see their country get bombed to kingdom come.
This kind of one-sided negotiation where the
other side is not allowed to put forth a counteroffer, reveals that the
approach is borne out of bad faith. Richard Haass has taken such approach this
time because he supposedly speaks as an American, even if he is parroting the
Judeo-Israeli desires. But the approach has always been the hypocritical method
used by the Jews who pretended to negotiate in good faith.
Gamal Abdel Nasser, the late President of
Egypt, knew that much when the Israelis occupied the Sinai and asked to
negotiate their withdrawal. Knowing that the Jews will negotiate in bad faith,
Nasser said thanks but no thanks, “what was taken by force will only be
returned by force.” And it was.
This happened because Egypt had the force by
which to take back what was stolen. What proves that Nasser was wise, is the
fact that the Israelis had also stolen the West Bank and Gaza when they stole
the Sinai, and what happened there was a different story.
Yes, the people of Gaza were able to assemble
the disarmed human force that fought and kicked the Jews out, and took back
their territory. But they paid a heavy price in civilian life. Also, whereas they
succeeded in eviscerating the land of the occupying Jewish soldiers and
settlers, Israel is still blockading them in the air and the sea.
As to the West Bank, negotiations between the
Palestinians and the Israelis have dragged on for more than half a century and
got nowhere. Finally, the Jews admitted that they were negotiating in bad faith
all along, because they never had the intention of returning what they stole.
What Nasser had predicted.
The Iranians must have learned from such examples when to negotiate with Jewish America and when not to. They conducted themselves so deftly during the last eight years, there was no way for the Jews to con them, and they never did.