Australia is the little brother of the Great Satan and the unholy offspring of TERF island. You should never expect that country to be anything other than an Anglo lapdog unless a literal communist revolution happens there.
Might have something to do with the rumours that the 10-point plan Trump was briefed on is different to the official proposal given by Iran. At least that's what NYT reported a few hours ago.
The report also correctly cites Iran's 10 point plan and how it potentially contravenes with Washington's publicly stated goals, so the discrepancy is noted here.
There's definitely a lot of misinformation going on right now so take everything with a grain of salt, but from this report alone, which allegedly comes from an anonymous White House official, there could very well be actors within the US government (Neocons in the cabinet? Deep state war hawks? Zionist lobbyists?) that are intentionally misleading Trump by giving him false information about Iran's proposal/ the situation on the ground. For what purpose I do not know yet.
Full article below in case NYT takes it down, emphasis mine.
Iran publicly released on Wednesday what it said was the 10-point framework for talks that President Trump described as “a workable basis on which to negotiate” an end to the war. Much of it consisted of maximalist demands that look difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile with U.S. aims.
A White House official said the points do not match what Mr. Trump was referring to. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal White House discussions.
Iran released its version of the proposal the morning after the United States and Iran agreed to a two-week cease-fire, and calls for American troops to leave the region, reasserts Iran’s control over the strategic Strait of Hormuz and maintains Iran’s right to nuclear enrichment.
Many of these demands are likely to conflict with a 15-point proposal U.S. mediators laid out last month.
That proposal was never made public, but officials briefed on the plan, who spoke to The New York Times on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive details, said it addressed Iran’s ballistic missile and nuclear programs, as well as maritime trade. U.S. mediators had pushed in previous negotiations for limiting the range of Iran’s ballistic missiles and halting all of Iran’s nuclear enrichment.
Mr. Trump on Wednesday appeared to refer to that U.S. plan, writing on social media that “many of the 15 points have already been agreed to,” and repeating his insistence on “no enrichment of Uranium.”
Here are the 10 points of Iran’s proposal, according to Iran’s official news agency, IRNA, and where these demands might conflict with Washington’s aims:
1. An American guarantee of nonaggression with Iran.
In the earlier, 15-point proposal offered by U.S. mediators, only a cease-fire was on offer. Iranian officials want to ensure a formalized end to hostilities that is more permanent. This is one of the main demands, according to interviews with regional security figures and a former Iranian diplomat, that Iran will focus on.
2. Iran maintains control of the Strait of Hormuz.
This is likely to become a major sticking point. Iran’s ability to strangle traffic through the strait, through which a fifth of the world’s oil passes, has wreaked havoc on the global economy. It is very unlikely that Washington or Iran’s Gulf Arab neighbors would accept this.
3. Ending the regional war on all fronts, including against Iran’s ally, Hezbollah, in Lebanon.
This could become an eventual point of alignment. The United States and Israel want Tehran to curb an alliance of militias it has fostered across the region, which it calls the “Axis of Resistance.” Many of those militias have come to Iran’s defense in the current war, launching drone and missile attacks on U.S. targets, Gulf countries and Israel. Among them was the Lebanese armed group Hezbollah, to which Israel responded with a major offensive. Israel then announced plans to occupy parts of southern Lebanon. Israel says the current cease-fire does not apply to its operations in Lebanon. Whether the Lebanon front can be brought into a longer-term deal is an open question.
4. Withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from all bases and positions in the region.
U.S. forces maintain bases across Gulf Arab states, Israel and Iraq. It is difficult to conceive of a scenario in which the U.S. would accept this.
5. Reparations to Iran for war damages.
Iran has sustained a devastating level of destruction, not only to its military sites but to critical infrastructure, including pharmaceutical and steel plants, bridges, universities and energy facilities. There has been no indication that U.S. officials would consider offering compensation.
6. Acceptance of Iran’s right to nuclear enrichment.
This is diametrically opposed to Mr. Trump’s most recent statements, in which he has again called for zero enrichment of uranium. Some regional diplomats have aimed to soften U.S. demands, suggesting Tehran could instead agree not to actively conduct enrichment, or to limit enrichment to a symbolic amount at the lowest threshold for civilian purposes. It remains unclear whether Washington would accept that.
7. Lifting all primary sanctions on Iran.
Washington has imposed on Iran different forms of primary sanctions, or direct restrictions on financial transactions, since the founding of the Islamic Republic after the 1979 revolution. In previous negotiations, mediators aimed for U.S. officials to lift some sanctions in exchange for concessions on Iran’s nuclear program. Mr. Trump’s own statement on Wednesday touched on the idea of offering “Tariff and Sanctions relief.”
8. Lifting all secondary sanctions on Iran.
In addition to its directly blocking trade with Iran, the United States also imposes sanctions that penalize other countries or non-American companies that do business with Iran. Like the point on primary sanctions, this part of the proposal would likely be negotiable depending on what Iran offers.
9. Termination of all resolutions against Iran by the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Last June, the U.N. nuclear watchdog passed a resolution against Iran for the first time in 20 years, saying that Iran was not complying with its nuclear nonproliferation obligations, a move Iran condemned as political. Washington cannot force the I.A.E.A to repeal its resolutions, but it could perhaps pressure allied countries to do this as part of a comprehensive deal with Iran.
10. Termination of all United Nations Security Council resolutions against Iran. There have been several U.N. resolutions against Iran, particularly on the issue of nuclear proliferation. Last October, the United Nations reimposed sanctions on Iran, saying Iran was in breach of a 2015 deal to limit Iran’s nuclear enrichment. Washington could try to influence its allies to do this, but again, it would likely require a comprehensive agreement with Iran.
Edit: Will provide Telegram link for proof of report as NYT paywall prevents proper article linking.
Interesting because both Iran AND Pakistan have said the ceasefire must apply to Lebanon as well. Seems like this is another case of Israel just ignoring all international good faith diplomacy and continuing to commit whatever war crimes it wants.
We’ll have to wait and see I guess. But speaking hypothetically, China could absolutely just threaten to cut off all trade (or even just rare-earths) with the US if they don’t accept Iran’s 10 demands and they would immediately fold. If China plays this right, this could also lead to an acceleration of de-dollarization by promoting a Petroyuan scheme which Iran (and maybe Oman) is already willing to do.
The breakthrough in negotiations came as China promised to act as a guarantor that the U.S. would ‘accept at least some of Iran’s conditions’ mentioned in the 10-point framework during upcoming negotiations in Islamabad
As a gesture of goodwill, China vetoed a UN Security Council Resolution on the Strait of Hormuz earlier today, despite the crisis directly affecting China itself.
China ~~doing nothing~~ may be doing something?
IRGC really wanted to get that 100th wave in before officially doing ceasefire.
Trump is just reposting what Araghchi said. He hasn't said he agrees to any of Iran's demands. Neither has anyone else from the administration. And the statement itself doesn't say the US concedes to any demands, only that the 10-point proposal (as well as the US' own 15-point proposal) be used as a general framework for further negotiations.
I just want to add that if Trump actually agrees to removing ALL sanctions on Iran AND withdraws all US military forces from the Middle East, while Iran gets to keep its enriched Uranium, I 100% guarantee he will get assassinated/ coup'd by the CIA/ Mossad. Dismantling 40+ years of foreign policy is not something the Deep State will tolerate.
I'm gonna remain skeptical until the White House officially confirms this. I just don't see the US (and Israel) ever agreeing to all these demands which is tantamount to the complete surrendering of control over the Middle East. Iran needs to make them hurt A LOT more before we get to that point.
NYT reporting claims Iran accepted the new ceasefire deal (which was proposed by Pakistan) after being pressured into it by China.
I'm personally still not sure what to make of this ceasefire. The pessimist in me says this is a massive concession on Iran's part by being forced to reopen the Strait to everyone and giving the US and Israel time to re-arm and backstab them for the third time. Especially when reports in the last 24 hours were saying that Israel was running very low on interceptors and ofc the US air force getting humiliated during easter.
The optimist in me says this is a great opportunity for Iran to make the US agree to as many of its 10-point peace proposal as possible because Iran has the US by the balls by technically retaining control of the Strait, and if Iran is dissatisfied with US concessions they can easily restart the war. Iran can likewise also spend this time re-arming it's missile and drone stock too. I also think this ceasefire is a great way for China to show it stands for peace and stability and hence will now be seen by most of the world as the more reliable great power to work with, so this is probably a big soft power win for them more than anything.
Further proof that Tankie is just the liberal version of "SJW" or "Woke"; a meaningless buzzword to describe anything left of them.
You're speaking to one of those people haha. Yes, the White Australia policy was overturned, and it is what allowed my family to come to Australia in the first place. However, it doesn't change the reality that it's still a settler colony rooted in Anglo supremacy.
Ending slavery in the USA didn't change the nature of its socio-economic system either, and like America, the class hierarchy is disproportionately still in favour of Anglo/ White people.
And that doesn't even cover what we did to the indigenous Australians. What Israel does to the Palestinians today is what we did to them two centuries ago, which is probably why Australia supports Israel way more than most countries, because our ruling class sees itself in the Zionist entity.
Finally, and I feel this is something not many on Hexbear talk about, non-White immigrants who go to settler-colonies are often very reactionary as they are usually wealthy bourgeoisie/ labour aristocrats who can afford to come here (while having properties/ businesses abroad), or fled countries run/ used to be run by socialists and will despise any left-wing movements. Speaking from personal experience as a POC, Australia is no exception to this.
The immigration system may not discriminate on racial/ ethnic lines anymore, but it definitely still has preferences on class lines because it reinforces the imperialist, settler-colonial system we still have.