When 'Negotiations' Means 'Our Terms'
The context they conveniently omitted: CASE A: How Iran's call for negotiations is being covered. ABC News, presumably channeling official Washington sentiment, reports that Iran's president 'seeks fair and equitable negotiations.' This framing positions Iran as either genuinely seeking a breakthrough or, more commonly, as engaging in a propaganda stunt. The underlying assumption is that the U.S.
has always been the benevolent party, open to 'fairness.' This narrative implies Iran is the outlier, the one needing to be brought to the table. CASE B: How similar calls from other nations or the Global South are ignored, or U.S. 'negotiating' history. Curiously, when the U.S. calls for negotiations – say, with Russia or China – it's often framed as a diplomatic necessity or a sign of strength.
Never mind the documented history of the U.S. rejecting UN resolutions (overwhelmingly 131-6 in 2022) demanding direct diplomacy with Russia regarding Ukraine. A more pertinent parallel, and one ABC conveniently forgets, is the 1953 CIA-orchestrated coup against Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh (declassified 2013). Mosaddegh's 'crime'? Nationalizing Iran's oil, which
was, you guessed it, an 'unfair' demand for 'equity' against British interests. The 'negotiations' that followed were dictated by external powers, not internal sovereignty. THE FRAMING: ABC's headline focuses on Iran's 'seeking' and 'desire.' Contrast this with, for example, the coverage of the U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018. Then, the narrative was