Ah, ok. I think it might be to try to drag Turkey into a conflict with Iran.
U.S. and esp. the democrats wanted to neutralize Iran's nucelar threat with the JCPOA, so they got it under Obama. Republicans didn't want any of that, so they got out of JCPOA under Trump, increasing sanctions. But Iran's nuclear program advanced faster under Trump's campaign of "maximum pressure" than it did under JCPOA and IAEA supervision.
So the question was "If sanctions are not deterring Iran from getting the bomb, and actually accelerating it, what would the Trump admin's answer be to Iran getting closer and closer to the bomb?" Some claim that they would not care similar to what happened in the North Korean case, and they will just try to neutralize Iran by isolating them through sanctions. This is ludicrous as Iran is not North Korea. Iran has Turkey and Saudi Arabia as neighbors and it also doesn't have a superpower like China containing it next door. So a nuclear Iran will not be tolerated like North Korea is tolerated.
The answer to the question above was postponed since Obama, cough I mean Joe Biden came back after Trump. And the campaign promise was to get back to the JCPOA. U.S. wanted it, Iran wanted it but several factors (Iran's maximalist requests, then the deadly protests in Iran, rendering a deal with the Islamic regime a PR disaster for the Liberal admin) led the negotiations to last longer than expected until the Ukraine war happened.
Ukraine war was the last nail in the coffin of JCPOA (after the Iran protests had made it less likely to happen already), as it showed completely that Iran, in the new cold war, has taken its side firmly on the side of Russia. I don't think even Democrats are now trying to contain Iran diplomatically, contrary to the pretenses. Democrats are saying that although JCPOA is out of the question, diplomacy is still the only way. But what diplomacy without an actual deal?
True, there was the prisoner swap deal and the release of Iran's frozen funds in South Korea in the past weeks
Iranian diplomat in UN confirms 3rd-party mediation but stops short to name country, but sources say hints at Qatar - Anadolu Ajansı
www.aa.com.tr
and yes there were informal talks to ease sanctions practically so Iran can export oil in exchange for limiting its enrichment from 80% to 60%.
Iran's oil output and exports jumped in August despite U.S. sanctions, according to consultants and companies that track tanker shipments, as Tehran sells to buyers including China.
www.reuters.com
Israeli officials tell NYT that exchange agreement stems from broader informal understandings, which include Iran limiting its nuclear work and halting proxy attacks on US forces
www.timesofisrael.com
But every time there's talk of an Iran deal, Republicans, AIPAC and Israel screech. But there isn't a peep from them against these informal talks and ease of sanctions? Is this bipartisan or is it ecause they are temporary containment? Maybe both. But there's no guarantee that either side will honor these promises in the long run, and that's by design; that's why they are informal. Iran would definitely want U.S. to lift sanctions. U.S. wants Iran to stop Nuclear and Ballistic programs. Neither will do it. U.S. establishment has made their mind. Diplomacy was tried by Dems, it failed. Sanctions were tried by both gop and dems and they failed also. This time, they will attack Iran, if Iran tries to get close to the bomb. Iran sees getting closer to the bomb as the only way to win concessions in terms of sanctions. They also desperately need lifting of sanctions as they are about to implode as a society. So based on the principles of Realist international relations, both sides due to paranoia will push each other to their limits. The temporary containment is due to the exhaustion of ammunition in the Ukraine war and also pretty much because the West is pre-occupied over there.
Iran was pushing for the bomb with enrichment levels exceeding 83% for the first time in history couple of months ago, as they were losing hope that JCPOA is possible and because the widespread protests last year were supported by the West. U.S. wasn't willing to give the JCPOA card to Iran, but nevetheless wanted to stop Iran from getting the bomb; so they wooed them back onto the negotiation table giving hope to Iranians that a deal was possible after all. U.S. convinced Iran to limit enrichment to 60% level for now, without giving them a formal deal. With this, they effectively postponed a military action to the next administration. The next admin might be Republican, lifting the burden of trying to sell the war to the American public from Democrats' shoulders. But even if it's a Dem admin, it's the second term and the negative impact might not carry to the next Dem nominee. Second of all, Israel seems to be content with these temporary containment schemes, signalling that they also want to postpone the military confrontation to the next American admin.
So to conclude:
U.S. will not tolerate a nuclear Iran unlike North Korea. To contain Iran there are two ways: Diplomatic (with or without sanctions) or Military. Diplomatic efforts failed due to Iran's firm positioning with the Eastern Bloc in the new cold war, leading to the death of JCPOA resuscitation attempts. Only remaining option is the military option. U.S. can't do the military option right now, being preoccupied in Ukraine. Hence, they have to contain Iran somehow for now. They do the temporary informal deal, whereby postponing the actual containment to the next administration.
Meanwhile if they can relegate the dirty work of weakening Iran, for the upcoming war, to someone else, they'd be happy to do it. Hence the escalation attempts in Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict. They also get a pre-occupied, weakened and a more firmly in Western-camp dependent Turkey as a bonus.
www.mintpressnews.com
. The Palestinian guy shouting at CNN reprter:
