The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewMike Whitney Archive
"No Enrichment Means No Deal"
Trump Uses Unlawful Demand As Pretext For War On Iran
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
List of Bookmarks

We have one very, very clear red line, and that is enrichment. We cannot allow even 1% of an enrichment capability,” Steve Witkoff, U.S. Special Envoy, ABC’s “This Week”

“Demanding zero uranium enrichment means NO DEAL”, Sayed Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s Foreign Minister

You could have spotted this from a mile away.

President Trump—who sabotaged the most stringent and comprehensive nuclear agreement in history (The JCPOA)—ordered his special envoy to make a surprise announcement that crosses all of Iran’s “red lines” and makes war between the US and Iran inevitable. Anyone with half a brain could see that this was the strategy from the very beginning. Just as Washington encouraged Kiev to intensify its bombardment of the Donbas forcing Putin to send Russian forces into Ukraine, so too, Washington lured Tehran into nuclear “talks” with the clear intention of creating a pretext for launching a war on Iran. In both cases, US war-planners ‘moved heaven and earth’ to make it look like the opposite party provoked the conflict when, in fact, Washington was the primary instigator. Let me explain:

On Sunday, US special envoy Steve Witkoff said the following on ABC’s “This Week”:

“We have one very, very clear red line, and that is enrichment. We cannot allow even 1% of an enrichment capability.”

Full Stop. Witkoff’s comments require thorough and unbiased analysis, mainly because they are designed with one purpose in mind: To sabotage the nuclear talks. There’s no other explanation. The Trump administration and anyone who has followed this issue over the last decade and a half knows that Iran’s biggest and brightest red line is enrichment. In the four meetings that have been conducted in Oman since April, US negotiators were told explicitly that nuclear enrichment was “non-negotiable” and ‘off the table’. In other words, they agreed that the issue would not be discussed or even brought up. (Non-negotiable means non-negotiable.) So, we must assume that the reason Witkoff decided to make this unexpected announcement was either because he wanted to torpedo the negotiations or because he doesn’t understand plain English. Which is it?

We think Witkoff understands plain English, in fact, we’re sure of it. So, what was his motive; why did he decide to deliver this bombshell on national TV to an American audience instead of Iranian negotiators who would have challenged him on the issue? Why?

There can only be one reason; he wants to sabotage the talks. He wants to force the Iranians to terminate the meetings so it appears that they do not sincerely seek peace. That is how Trump and Co. intend to turn-the-tables and make it look like Iran is the “bad guy.” More importantly, any suspension of the talks by Iran will be used as a justification for US-Israeli air strikes on targets in Iran. Trump has already threatened that—if the talks broke down—he would unleash holy hell on Iran. Witkoff has now laid the groundwork for those attacks.

Other analysts are starting to figure out what is going on behind the smokescreen of the nuclear talks. Here’s how Michael Tracey summed it up:

If anyone suspected that the purpose of this “negotiating” exercise was to set up an impossible endpoint (humiliating Iranian capitulation) and then when Iran balks, use that as a pretext to bomb Iran (“We tried to negotiate first!”) there is growing evidence for your suspicions

He’s right, isn’t he? The talks were a “set up” that was concocted to create a justification for war. It’s clear as day. Much of the public’s confusion on this matter is attributable to Witkoff himself, who seems like an affable and credible fellow, whose position on nuclear enrichment is identical to rabid ‘foam-at-the-mouth’ warmongers like John Bolton and Mike Pompeo. Think about that for a minute; Witkoff’s position is the same as Bolton’s and Pompeo’s. There’s no difference.

So, why is nuclear enrichment such a big deal that Iran won’t even discuss it?

Because Iranians have great pride and they will not allow themselves to be treated like second-class citizens by the likes of the US and Israel. That’s why.

Look: Iran’s right to nuclear enrichment is not a privilege granted by executive fiat or presidential edict. It’s a fundamental right that is enshrined in international law under the terms of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. President Donald Trump does not have the authority to forbid Iran from engaging in activities that are not only perfectly legal under NPT statutes but also affirmed under the treaty’s “inalienable right” clause. Inquisitive people might want to read the section of the treaty itself to corroborate what we are saying here:

NPT Article IV and the Right to Nuclear Technology

Article IV Text (on the Right to Nuclear Technology):

Paragraph 1: “Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.”

Paragraph 2: E ncourages cooperation in sharing nuclear technology for peaceful uses, particularly for developing countries.

What part of the above statement is ambiguous?

There is nothing ambiguous about this statement. Iran clearly has “the inalienable right… to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination.” That means that neither Trump nor anyone else can selectively order Iran to stop doing what is clearly permitted under an internationally recognized treaty.

And we should also pay special attention to the language that is used in the passage. The treaty does not simply refer to the “rights” of the participating parties; they refer to “inalienable right” which means that nuclear enrichment is a “fundamental, natural right that cannot be taken away or surrendered, either by a government or individual.”

The wording was formulated to avoid the situation we have today in which an impulsive and domineering despot arbitrarily repeals the laws (and rights) that don’t align with his own dubious political objectives. By refusing to comply with Trump’s executive edict, Iran is basically defending the global system upon which international law rests. It is a rejection of Trump’s iron-fisted unilateralism. We should all be grateful for Iran’s gutsy perseverance.

By the way, just to underscore Witkoff’s hypocrisy on this matter, here is a short video on Fox News of Witkoff stating unequivocally that Iran would be permitted to enrich at 3.67% which is a position he now rejects. The interview was conducted in April, a month before he banned all enrichment activities.

What conclusions can we draw from this sudden about-face on the part of the administration that has put us all on the path to war?

First of all, we can assume that the US-Iran negotiations were set up to fail, in fact, the plan to create a justification for war required that the talks fail.

Second, we can assume that Trump—who presented himself as an opponent of foreign interventions and who promised “to pursue a new era of peace, understanding, and good will”—is following in the footsteps of his warmongering predecessors and has no intention of keeping his word to the American people.

And third, we can assume that Trump is zeroing in on Iran in order to repay the wealthy billionaire Zionists who filled his campaign coffers (with over $100 million) and helped him win the 2024 election. We never believed for a minute that the millions in campaign donations were given without “strings attached”. Bibi and his Zionist allies want the US to spearhead a war on Iran, and Trump is the man who can deliver that war. All he needs is some type of credible justification for launching his preemptive attacks…. which the failed negotiations will provide.

 
Hide 7 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. HT says:

    If Trump takes the bait and lets Israel bully him into a war, his entire anti-war narrative and putting America first gets blown apart. Of course that is fine with his base of evangelical lunatics but a good portion of his support is from people who want no part of any of this.

    • Replies: @Pythas
    , @muh muh
  2. It’s unfair to blame Trump for the “failure” of the JCPOA. It had already “failed” because the US failed, as it has in every other treaty/agreement in its history, to live up to its terms by lifting sanctions. The JCPOA in itself is not compliant with Article IV of the NPT, because it removes “the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination” because Iran, one of the Parties, lost the “inalienable right”.
    US foreign policy is, and has been since JFK’s assassination, all about Israel.

  3. niceland says:

    You could be correct, but who is going to buy the excuse the U.S. tried to negotiate but had to go to war!? I mean, this stunt now, declaring ‘no enrichment’ after several high level meetings based on very different conditions is rather transparent and won’t fly very high for long.

    Let’s hope this is some middle play in the negotiations, perhaps to make them a bit more exciting and the final outcome more ‘heroic’ for Trump. After all he is dealing with the difficult situation he was the guy that ripped the JCPOA deal apart several years ago and is now basically trying to reverse that mistake. Perhaps the situation calls for some theatrics to save face. Who knows?

    Perhaps we are seeing some signs that Israel has finally overplayed it’s hand, and is losing support. I read today that France and U.K have had enough of the slaughter in Gaza and are – for the first time I think – moving towards some kind of push back against the Israelis. While not impressive it’s a positive change.

    Some people say the tide is turning when Thomas L. Friedman of the NYT writes ‘Israel is not our ally‘ in his opinion column. See: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/09/opinion/trump-iran-israel.html

    Perhaps this is just wishful thinking. I hope not. I think many western leaders (and elites) can no longer ignore the damage the situation is causing to their credibility and reputation – by doing nothing while Israel’s revolting barbarism is on full display. Too little and too late if you ask me.

    • Agree: muh muh
  4. Pythas says:
    @HT

    Sort of reminds my of that goon L. B. J. who had a WAR on everything including a WAR in Vietnam and didn’t win any of them. His WAR on poverty, his WAR on drugs, his WAR on cancer and a whole host of other WARS. Amazing how stupid these Demon-craps are. Looks like Trump might and I say might be following the same path…

  5. muh muh says:
    @HT

    If Trump takes the bait and lets Israel bully him into a war, his entire anti-war narrative and putting America first gets blown apart. Of course that is fine with his base of evangelical lunatics but a good portion of his support is from people who want no part of any of this.

    Yes, and disgust with Israel’s genocide is becoming increasingly difficult for major western nations to ignore — hence the recent threats of Britain, France, and Canada.

    When the tariffs begin to bite next month, that’ll make make it even more challenging for Trump to take the bait.

    If Trump is considering his legacy, he’d better do everything he can to avoid war with Iran and forestall Israel’s destruction of Palestine.

  6. Anon[670] • Disclaimer says:

    The real question is why Russia and China do not simply take Iran under their joint protection and make clear that an attack on Iran will be met with all necessary force including nukes. In a cynical world one understands that force trumps law if you believe force can safely be used and not when that safety cannot be assured.

    The US will likely not risk nuclear war over Iran if it believes such war is credible and immediate upon attack. Still, at some point the US will have to be dealt serious pain over its behavior as it just will not stop trying. At that point it will be crucially important to know the answer to this question, “Will the US react to its pain with nuclear weapons or will it fold?”

    If it will not fold then an event that no one really wants, even the sly people in Washington, will come to pass. Sooner or later this test will come.

  7. Phibbs says:

    There is no such thing as an American Jew. Witkoff is an Israeli with an American passport. Even Russian Jews are cheering for Ukraine out of hatred for Russia and as a show of tribal solidarity with the Jew dictator of Ukraine, Zelensky. We whites allowed Jews to take over our own nation. Evangelicals Christians, 23% of the U.S. population, worship Jews and Israel. Basically, we whites more than deserve to be destroyed as a people.

    • Thanks: Son of a Jedi
Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
$
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Mike Whitney Comments via RSS