Deal – or No Deal?

It is a strange thing to hear talk of an imminent “deal” the other side does not appear to be a party to. The negotiations – if that’s the right word – have apparently been conducted between Trump’s emissaries and the prime minister of Pakistan’s emissaries, acting as intermediaries. Negotiations generally occur when the two parties discuss them directly. But in this instance, the Iranians are probably reluctant to send emissaries on account of Trump’s record of bad faith. They may – not unreasonably, given Trump’s prior conduct during negotiations – fear being killed if a “deal” is not agreed to.

According to news reports, the “deal” is a capitulation – for Iran. It requires the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, which means Iran surrenders its having won control of the Strait of Hormuz. It requires that the Iranians dismantle their nuclear program and the turning over or destruction of any highly enriched uranium – the essential ingredient for a nuclear deterrent – they may possess. In exchange for agreeing to this capitulation, the U.S. promises “eventual economic relief” and the “phased lifting of sanctions.”

Such a deal!

Well, it will be if the Iranians agree – supposedly today (Sunday, June 14). It is difficult to believe they will because why would the Iranians agree to such a capitulation given they have – so far – won the war by not losing it? If they do agree to this deal, it will mean losing everything, from the Iranian point-of-view. It will mean surrendering Iran’s ability to defend itself going forward, because surrendering its actual or potential nuclear deterrent would amount to exactly that. It is the primary reason for this war. Iran was attacked not because it had attacked another country but because a certain country cannot abide the idea of Iran being able to defend itself from an attack by that country. So it sicced the United States on Iran. The war is hugely unpopular in the United States for just that reason (excepting the Republican Party, which still supports it bigly). Most Americans do not like paying the War Tax every time they pump gas into their vehicle. It is not that they like the Iranians – or that they do not like the Israelis. It is that they do not want to pay for a war between the Israelis and the Iranians.

Back to this “deal.”

How can the Iranians agree to surrender? Why would they agree to surrender? If this “deal” is actually a deal – and not just another instance of Trump asserting it is a “deal” before  the facts establish it isn’t and probably never was – then there is (to quote the Marquess of Montrose) something that is hid from sight. What could that be? If there is a deal, then it must be something along the lines of a threat to use nuclear weapons against Iran – a thing that is not inconceivable given what we know Trump and the people running Israel are capable of. They are, objectively, sociopaths. Trump has had people extrajudicially killed – claiming they were running drugs. Including people helplessly bobbing in the water. An aquatic My Lai for which neither he nor anyone else in the administration will ever be brought to justice for performing. Netanyahu awards golden pagers to his cronies – including Trump – to commemorate blowing up not just supposed “terrorists” but also anyone else who happened to be near them when the pages blew up.

But why would the Iranians back down even in the face of a threatened nuclear attack? If they do, then they may as well have been nuked since it will mean the end of Iran as a meaningfully sovereign state. It will mean Iran becomes something like Venezuela; i.e., another banana republic just not an equatorial one. It will mean Netanyahu and his successors can have their way with Iran.

Something feels unnatural about the whole thing. Iran – insofar as the facts seem to suggest – is far from beaten. It is unusual for the not-beaten to cry uncle. This almost never happens. It happens even less often when the not-beaten knows that if he does cry uncle, the bully is going to savage him even worse. Do you take me entirely for a whig, sir? Meaning, a fool. A dupe. That’s what the Marquess of Montrose asked Archie in Rob Roy.

One wonders whether the Iranians are asking the same question, right now.

. . .

If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.