My reaction to Iran’s “10 point plan” was different from that of the “unnamed official” that Axios said was “maximalist”. Demanding an end of economic sanctions and reparations for damages, Iran’s offer was more than that. My interpretation was that it was an insult bid.
Here’s how an insult bid works.
- Seller: I want $1,000 for it.
- Buyer: How about $500?
- Seller: $900.
- Buyer: How about 50 cents?
In commercial settings, an insult bid usually signals negotiations are over. Given his career experience I strongly suspect that President Trump understands them that way. His response (raise the asking price) supports that. In diplomacy it can sometimes be posturing but it often serves the same function. That is supported by reports that Iran has cut off negotiations.
I have never known it to be a good sign. It suggests to me not only that Iran is not ready to concede but that at least one side may be misjudging its leverage in the negotiations and therefore the range of outcomes actually available to it.
It appears that, unless Trump once again TACO’s, which we all should pray for, WW III, Great Depression II, and famine in the Global South begin tonight.
Did we ever see Trump’s 15 point plan? Could it have been an insult bid also? Rather than worrying about insults it’s hard to see why Trump’s offers would be seen as credible. He pulled out of a negotiated deal and has attacked twice while in the middle of negotiations.
Steve
So Trump came back with his insult bid — and there’s a deal — on what no one seems to know. I don’t get how negotiations work sometimes.
Almost precisely my reaction, CuriousOnlooker. While I’m gratified that the United States did not “end Iranian civilization” last night, I’m even more perplexed about the war’s accomplishments, goals, or end condition.
What I have seen reported is that Trump accepted the Iran 10 point plan as a basis for negotiations. Details of plan at link. It’s really an Iran wish list. Doesnt seem like a good basis for negotiations.
Query- Trump started the war without Congress approval. Can he offer them reparations without Congressional approval. Article suggests he can get around this by letting Iran charge tolls on the strait.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/iran-10-point-peace-plan-103736400.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAC4fuE-mFYx60_DRHFNQ_J155vL3LLvnH1y9sSmgyMrC7A1Jfdi0PqMzZDI3U-ZsA9bZyrOFtCnmsA8-6igC_zv3XXURv2atzf7aLeTC2KW2eU3WYTcY-vYfIuc5EDDS5W8Fu5v-QoM09Q1YOZ6b-Brq3iP4WfBuScBtjwZ8ukh8
After the past month, if one actually takes what is “reported” without a huge grain of salt, I don’t know what to say.
Looking forward, I am not optimistic if the ceasefire will take hold, and stay. The negotiations will be quite complex, because the Israelis and the Gulf Arabs will want their concerns addressed at the table. The only positive is every side has “laid their cards on the table” so to speak, there should be little confusion about what a resumption of war would entail.
There’s a window of a month to negotiate (until Trump returns from his trip to China) before thing we could be talking about a resumption of war.
What is reported is most often claims by Trump. How can we take those at face value? In this particular case there is additional reporting with Trump quotes that seem to support the reporting. (Johnathan Karl)
“This morning, I asked President Trump if he’s okay with the Iranians charging a toll for all ships that go through the Strait of Hormuz, he told me there may be a Joint US-Iran venture to charge tolls: “We’re thinking of doing it as a joint venture. It’s a way of securing it — also securing it from lots of other people.” “It’s a beautiful thing”
Steve
On the subject of tolls, there are many ways it can go, and many not to the advantage of Iran.
The tolls could go into a bank account controlled by the US, and paid out to Iran following the terms of any agreement. That could result in the Iranian treasury being dependent on the US government.
Also, look on the map. If Iran can charge a toll; it would be against supplies from the Gulf Arab countries (Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, Behrain). Iran already excluded Iraq from this scheme. Saudi Arabia is only partially effected because they can reroute most of their exports to the Red Sea. That leaves Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, Behrain — but there’s nothing preventing those 4 countries from charging an equivalent toll on Iranian exports. So it doesn’t really work out that Iran gains an advantage.
Finally, oil / LNG is a fungible commodity — to whatever extent there is a toll, its going to result in a lower price paid to the producer.
I’m not sure what the insult components were, or the fresh cards put down. Control of enriched uranium (and the associated equipment) and complete opening of the Straights are long standing US objectives/demands.
What I do ask is “what will change Irans position via negotiations?” There is no history to suggest this. Not Obamas bribes. Not sanctions. Not world body exhortations. I have long thought Iran’s core strategy was simple avoidance of extinction while hoping for political and economic fatigue, or simple fatigue, to take hold. Then they resume the lies, cheating and pursuit of their long held goals. The ceasefire just prolongs reaching this outcome, and I don’t expect success.
The only real unknown is the influence of a party with real interests in not seeing Irans oil production and and shipping capabilities dramatically degraded. China.
A last thought. Is this delay engineered to allow consultations and NATO participation in the go forward strategy?