By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following the US air strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer called for restraint, warning of a risk of escalation beyond the region. The UK, while informed of the strikes, was not involved, and Starmer stated that all necessary measures were taken to protect British interests and personnel. The Prime Minister, alongside Emmanuel Macron and Friedrich Merz, urged Iran not to take further destabilizing actions and called for negotiations regarding its nuclear program. In response to the strikes, British Airways cancelled flights to the United Arab Emirates and Qatar.
Read the original article here
Starmer and Trump call for Iran to return to the negotiating table after US strikes. It’s a situation that, frankly, seems absurd on its face. To put it plainly, it’s like asking for a civil conversation after throwing the first punch. This whole scenario echoes the tactics Russia has employed in the Ukraine conflict, where dialogue seems to follow acts of aggression. The timing just doesn’t make sense. What exactly is there to negotiate when the groundwork for trust has been shattered?
Starmer and Trump call for Iran to return to the negotiating table after US strikes. Specifically, it’s hard to ignore the history. Remember the deal, the one meticulously crafted in January 2016 involving numerous countries? The agreement stipulated that Iran would scale back its nuclear ambitions and allow inspections in exchange for the release of frozen funds. Then, along came Trump, who, seemingly in a fit of pique over Obama’s perceived achievements, scrapped the entire arrangement. Iran, having already received its money back, effectively no longer had to comply with the nuclear limitations.
Starmer and Trump call for Iran to return to the negotiating table after US strikes. Looking back, it’s apparent that our allies correctly predicted that this action would permanently damage the credibility of future US negotiations. This act was particularly damaging in terms of international trust. Despite this, years later, the same players are now expressing frustration over the lack of a new deal, essentially blaming the very actions that precipitated the current impasse. It’s almost unbelievable how this situation seems to justify further escalation.
Starmer and Trump call for Iran to return to the negotiating table after US strikes. The argument seems to be that because Iran hasn’t developed nuclear weapons despite years of condemnation and attacks, it should now capitulate. What’s more, there is the perception that Iran has acted with a level of restraint, especially when contrasted with the rhetoric of its adversaries. Iran’s enemies are vocal in their rantings. The situation is being framed as Iran being unwilling to take the bait.
Starmer and Trump call for Iran to return to the negotiating table after US strikes. It is reminiscent of Trump’s past negotiating style, characterized by offers of peace followed by withdrawals, bombings, and then a call for more peace. Is this a similar tactic to negotiating with his wives? It has long since expired. One has to wonder how, in good faith, anyone could expect productive negotiations when the US history of dealing with Iran is one of broken promises.
Starmer and Trump call for Iran to return to the negotiating table after US strikes. This whole approach seems designed to fail. It appears as though they’re saying, “Shut up and take it.” If there is any negotiation, it seems it will be conducted after the nation has been bombed, followed by pleas for dialogue. The world is watching, and it’s easy to see that this whole situation is a farce.
Starmer and Trump call for Iran to return to the negotiating table after US strikes. The past actions also cast a dark shadow over the future. When a deal was already in place, and then it was torn up, how can Iran trust the United States? In fact, it’s not even clear what exactly they expect Iran to negotiate at this point. It’s not about ending the nuclear program; it’s about forcing submission.