This new article indicates that the editors are getting more proactive vs reacting to the moves of its tormentorsBy Jim W. Dean, Managing Editor
-March 13, 20218767https://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?href=https://www.veteranstoday.com/2021/03/13/press-tvs-investigative-editorial-birth-and-death-of-a-step-for-a-step-proposal/&layout=button_count&show_faces=false&width=105&action=like&colorscheme=light&height=21Share
[ Editor’s Note: This is the first time I remember seeing a PTV editorial board article, which hopefully will not be a one time event, as it should get its views out to the public.
They can see emerging events and have sources that we don’t, and we had wondered why, from time to time, they did not make such an effort as you will read below.
Gordon and I started writing on PTV when Ali Salami was their editor. When Iran was taken off the EU satellite networks via an executive of ‘the faith’ doing so at the request of Israel, the PTV website became the main print window for Iran to reach the English speaking world.
Gordon and I spotted the Viewpoints editorial section languishing on a back page where it got little readership because no one knew it was there. We agreed to begin submitting material if they agreed to help promote the effort on the front page regularly so an audience could be build over time. They also agreed to publish breaking news that we sent in before midnight by noon the next day, a wonderful situation for both parties.
It took six months to crank up, and then Kevin was brought in, and by the second year Viewpoints was pulling millions of readers. But personnel changes brought that to an end, not unusual for a publishing entity where a new editor going forward wants the creation to be his.
Iran is at an historic crossroad, where it has a lot of balls in the air and needs to not drop one, which could cause the others to follow. It is fortunate to have very seasoned media crew at this critical time.
This new article indicates that the editors are getting more proactive versus reacting to the moves of its tormentors. In my feature image above, you may have noticed I often use ancient ones as an historical backdrop to show how long Iran has been around. Iranians have a much longer connection to their land and heritage than the relatively new Americans.
We wish them well and look forward to their future contributions… Jim W. Dean ]
First published … March 13, 2021
Over the past days and weeks, some instances of multilateral diplomatic activism have been witnessed towards eliminating the deadlock that has been formed around the issue of the United States’ potential return to the JCPOA. Vienna, Geneva, Brussels, Paris, Berlin, Washington, New York, and Tehran have been playing host to this activism.
Over the past week, the International Atomic Energy Agency hosted a battle of brawn that had Iran on one side and the United States together with its trio of European allies in the JCPOA on the other.
Although, Iran and the IAEA came to a controversial three-month agreement, which was followed by the opposition of members of Majlis (the Iranian Parliament), towards retaining the IAEA’s physical observations of Iran’s nuclear sites, the European powers proposed an anti-Iran resolution at the UN nuclear agency’s Board of Governors that intensely increased the Iranians’ suspicion regarding their good will and fitness to mediate between Tehran and Washington.
Iran’s concern about the role played by the European sides was so serious that prompted Tehran to relay indirect messages to them indicating that if Iran and the US were supposed to exchange any messages at all, the official channel through the Swiss Embassy that represents the US interests in the Islamic Republic would serve as a better conduit than the European vehicles.
This means that not only does not Tehran consider the Europeans to be any better than US President Joe Biden himself, but also it suspects that they could be providing wrongful and misleading consultation and assessments to the new American administration. Therefore, it would be better for any potential messages to be relayed through Switzerland.
Europeans saw no choice before themselves other than to take back their resolution thanks to Iran’s insistence on its position that potential adoption of the resolution would prompt Tehran to end its agreement with the IAEA.
Of course, based on Press TV’s information, they had received messages from the Iranian side earlier showing that the “a-step-for-a-step” proposal could warrant examination. Based on the proposal, some steps on the part of the US could be followed by some steps on the part of Iran, the American steps featuring unfreezing of part of Iran’s overseas assets.
Still according to Press TV’s information, the US has principally had no objection to this proposal. It, however, did not want the unfreezing process to take place before any unofficial or even closed-door meeting with Iran, instead preferring the unblocking process to be announced as the outcome of one such meeting.
Another sticking point has revolved around the amount of the frozen assets that has to be released. This volume has oscillated between $1 and $15 billion. Press TV’s information indicates, though, that those who have been proposing the idea on the part of Tehran have not been certain whether the proposal was in accordance with the policies of the country’s establishment.
Nevertheless, presentation of the issue on the part of some people in Iran and appearance of some relevant hazy remarks in the media heartened the Europeans to play a role in the area. It was then that they tried to portray their withdrawal of the anti-Iranian resolution, which had actually resulted after Tehran’s official threat, as an instance of their good will towards promotion of the “a-step-for-a-step” proposal.
This is while, the Europeans, who still confidently consider themselves to be the JCPOA’s defenders, even construe potential removal of Iran’s oil sanctions that former US President Donald Trump issued after leaving the JCPOA as a “difficult measure” the resolution of which definitely requires Iran and the US to hold a meeting. On the other hand, they regard Iran’s potential cessation of 20-percent enrichment as only a small step.
In line with this supposed intermediary function, Paris and Berlin resorted to some intense efforts by funneling some direct and indirect messages to persuade Iran to attend an unofficial meeting with the US.
As a result of these contacts and relaying of these messages, in which Brussels would sometimes intervene as Europe’s foreign policy headquarters, a proposal emerged in Iran, which advised implementation of a phased-out and months-long procedure involving reciprocal measures by Iran and the US.
Some lobbying efforts inside the new US new administration were also effective in the formation of the proposal. These lobbying efforts came on the part of people of Iranian origin, who tried to establish some contact between Iran’s representative mission to the United Nations and the person in charge of Iran’s dossier in Biden’s administration. These people eventually realized, however, that the main proposal was in the making in Tehran amid contact with Europeans.
As part of the proposal that bore some defects completely similar to those of the JCPOA’s, the US was supposed to make some unverified commitments in exchange for completely verifiable and palpable commitments on the part of Iran.
Nor did the volume of the Iranian assets that was supposed to be unfrozen as part of the proposal bore the smallest resemblance to the $1,000-billion that Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif recently specified in an interview with Press TV as the damages that the Islamic Republic has incurred due to the US departure from the JCPOA.
The proposal, however, came to use for deployment on such symbolic junctures such as the final days of the solar calendar year and the National Nuclear Technology Day. Its emergence also well suited the nearing period of campaigning for Iranian presidential elections.
Still, not only did it not enable verifiable sanction relief, but also it would lead to subsequent negotiations that would, in turn, impose harsher, lengthier, and more dangerous commitments on Iran.
The proposal went down the official path of assessment of its commensurability with the establishment’s policies, but was deemed irreconcilable with the policies and the establishment’s strategies. Accordingly, Press TV aired an exclusive report, announcing that the “a-step-for-a-step” proposal had been ruled out as it did not suit the establishment’s policies on the issue of the JCPOA.
Press TV’s information indicates that the US has even changed its mind regarding potential unfreezing of $1 billion in Iranian assets that has been blocked in South Korea. Washington had sought to announce the prospect of unfreezing the money as a result of a potential meeting with Tehran, but began frowning on even such a limited unblocking process after realizing that the Islamic Republic insisted on complete sanction relief.
Based on verified information, Press TV has made certain that no proposal that does not match the Iranian Islamic establishment’s declared policy would be used as the basis of the country’s interaction in the area. The United States can, therefore, only rely on a proposal that is in accord with the conditions announced by Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, especially the ones that the Leader laid emphasis upon through the speech dated January 8, 2021.
Press TV is in possession of more details about the issue at hand, which it holds out on releasing since it is yet to verify them.