The Curiously Selective Nuclear Anxiety
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi met with the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Geneva, a prelude to further discussions with the US regarding Tehran's nuclear program. Araghchi’s declaration, "What is not on the table: submission before threats," sets a clear boundary against the usual intimidation tactics, while Deputy Foreign Minister Majid Takht-Ravanchi signalled
Tehran's openness to compromise, provided sanctions relief is on the table. Curiously, the media frames these negotiations as Iran’s need to prove its intent, rather than acknowledging the US's own history of undermining such agreements. Just consider the unilateral withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018 by the Trump administration, despite Iran’s documented
compliance. This followed a pattern established as far back as 1953 when the CIA and MI6 orchestrated a coup against Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, setting the stage for decades of resentment and distrust. One might wonder why Iran's enrichment capacity is consistently amplified as an existential threat, while a certain regional ally, possessing an undeclared
nuclear arsenal estimated at 80-90 warheads, receives a pass. This double standard exposes a deeply rooted geopolitical agenda: the manufactured 'threat' from Iran serves as convenient justification for sanctions that have crippled its economy, costing an estimated $200 billion since 2018 alone, and maintaining a military footprint in a resource-rich region. The question isn't whether more talks