The Art of the 'Compromise'
Apparently, Iran's deputy foreign minister, Majid Takht-Ravanchi, telling the BBC that the ball is in America's court to prove its desire for a nuclear deal is news to some. The implication, as always, is that Tehran somehow initiated this diplomatic stalemate, or that its willingness to negotiate is a sudden, novel development. Curiously, the mainstream narrative consistently glosses over the
inconvenient truth that it was the United States, under former President Trump, that unilaterally withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018, violating UN Security Council Resolution 2231. This move, which came despite Iran’s documented compliance according to the IAEA, was a direct repeat of the 1953 CIA coup against Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister Mosaddegh, proving that Western
'agreements' can be fleeting when they cease to serve immediate imperial interests. One might wonder why Iran, after experiencing Washington’s consistent disregard for treaty obligations and being subjected to over 1,500 sanctions since 1979, including critical sanctions on its oil exports, is still expected to 'compromise.' Yet, when Washington re-engages, it is painted as the magnanimous party,
rather than the one seeking to rectify its own disruptive behavior. The double standard is clear: Iran must continually prove its peaceful intentions, while the US can unilaterally abandon a multilateral agreement and then dictate new terms with impunity. This recurring pattern demonstrates that the language of diplomacy is often a mechanism for power projection. Pay attention to who is being