Northwest

@Borntowitnesstruth I cited historical facts—which you have acknowledged—rather than analogies and/or opinions. Of course, slavery is always for other people. I am sure that most slavers, regardless of background, would have agreed with such a view. There is nothing inconsistent about despising slavery for oneself but seeking to enslave others. Slavery was and is lucrative. The Swahili and Mesopotamian (Zanj) slave-trades involved agricultural labor, as is well documented. Slave-markets therefore served commercial plantations and were hardly ‘despised’ as temporary measures. The plantation economy in East Africa (Zanzibar) could not have functioned without enslaved labor, so ‘release’ hardly featured as a prospect. So you admit that slavery formed a bedrock of Muslim regimes—sultanates, emirates, and caliphates—well into modern times. Clearly slavery was not ‘despised’ as the ‘worst trade ever’. You cannot simply accuse the rulers and scholars of being ignorant for over a millennia. So they needed permission (!) from non-Muslim European imperialists—c. AH 1000, no less!—to do so? (Moreover, prior to the 1600s [i.e., Western expansion] Muslim polities were far more powerful than most European ones. So if they wanted abolition, they could have had it.) So you concede that these rulings cannot be verified due to various limitations? (I am not singling out Islam either, given that other creeds—‘secular’ or ‘religious’—often make claims that cannot be quantified or measured. I am sure, therefore, that ‘false types of moral standards’ encompass most of mankind.) Throughout history men have spent their days blaming each other for ignoring ‘obvious’ truth(s) yet failing to agree as to the nature of said ‘truth(s)’. So this statement of yours is unoriginal. You, like just about everyone else, are going to need harder evidence and greater honesty to convince me. I have done a lot of searching over the years, but I have found that few people seriously engage these issues. But I want to give them a chance before giving up, as these matters are of existential import; and I do not want to prematurely dismiss anything. Yet I also maintain a high standard of proof. There is such a thing as wilful (i.e., ‘obstinate’) ignorance. Moreover, militants genuinely believe in their motives: ISIS and Co. can hardly act on a weak conviction. Zealots are also notoriously selective in their views; I doubt that an ‘ISIS terrorist’ would react as you describe, given that he believes in the principle of killing ‘infidels’ (however defined). Your attempt to show that he rejects this tactic—which he does not—comes across as deceptive. And lying about basic matters such as this hardly helps one persuade others, regardless of his ideology or viewpoint. If you are not obfuscating here, then forgive me. Understanding each other online can be tricky. I am also a tough-minded person who prefers straightforward, frank answers that do not come across, however unintentionally, as duplicitous. Plenty of secularists are just as dishonest as religious people, applying standards unevenly. No, he is only convinced that the other side is wrong, that the ‘truth’ is self-evident, and that foes or rivals deserve to be liquidated. Both ‘secular‘ and ‘religious’ systems operate on this basis, yet spend more time deflecting and shouting than actually trying to prove themselves. It certainly requires one to suspend belief in empiricism, given that its claims, in part, cannot be verified by any ‘empirical formula’ (the Quran, like other religious texts, inherently deals with metaphysical questions, or a higher order of ‘science’, that cannot be ‘proven’ by observation). This does not mean that it is false, but that it involves at least as much uncertainty as other spheres or branches of knowledge, i.e., natural sciences. I can agree that the reductionist, materialistic, ‘scientist’ view of the universe is as unproven as any religious claim; but both sides need to focus more on providing evidence than mud-slinging, so to speak.

@313_Waiter ^ Do you have a response to the above? It represents my objection to the notion of an intuitive ‘Truth’ (i.e., that can be distilled, or divined, by secular or religious formulae). I feel that I need more evidence to show that the ‘Truth‘ is intuitive.

To be clear, how do you define a ‘religious’ belief? What makes a viewpoint ‘religious’ and/or ‘fundamentalist’? If you mean an unfalsifiable dogma, or something that is not backed up by evidence, then why do you also consider Islam, among other things, to be a religion (as well as a way of life), given that you view the ‘religious’ mentality as something potentially negative? You would be discrediting your own faith.

@Haji 2003 I did not explain myself clearly. I meant that if one is planning regime change, one needs verifiable intelligence. If one only looks for information that confirms one’s view (i.e., that the government will fall easily), then one actually helps the enemy by failing to plan for alternatives. If other reports indicate the regime is solidly entrenched, then why would I, as a military officer or political leader, only want to hear positive but unsubstantiated news? If, in fact, the opponent is solidly established, yet I knowingly allow myself to believe otherwise (despite the preponderance of evidence), then I am, in effect, acting as an enemy agent, since the duty of the military-intelligence establishment, as well as its civilian counterpart, is to plan for contingencies. So why did the U.S. and Israeli political leaders overlook well-known indicators that Iran would not be an easy target that would fall after a few weeks bombing?

@Haji 2003 But the ‘regime-change’ proponents rely on accurate information to devise their plans. Making the evidence fit the plans would, at least in private, be counterproductive if war is to be waged and won. Otherwise there would be no point in devising and executing military campaigns that depend on reliable, verifiable intelligence. Why would an intelligence analyst or defense agent not try to consider alternative possibilities that could stymie an effective war effort?

@Haji 2003 Given that the Iran war was well studied by defense planners (i.e., Millennium Challenge), why do you think that both U.S. and Israeli political leaders ignored their own military advisers? Surely they knew from their own intelligence that Iran likely had many more missiles and drones than were officially detected? Why did they think that a geographically expansive country like Iran could be decapitated through airstrikes—especially in light of previous failed air campaigns against easier targets such as Vietnam?

^ To illustrate: a quick search reveals scores of Western MSM headlines labeling Trump’s targeting of Iranian infrastructure—such as highways, bridges, and electricity plants—a ‘war crime’. The problem with this is that none of these targets has historically been off limits to military action. Armies have always burned bridges, bombed highways, and targeted power facilities. Moreover, if the West is under the control of a monopolistic, monolithic elite, why are its media going against the U.S. and/or Israel? Wouldn’t they laud Trump’s threats to commit so-called ‘war crimes’?

@Hamdi999 I am referring to the internal disarray and dysfunction that bedevil Western society. Iran is far more technologically and morally prepared for a full-scale war. Also, Trump and Co. lack the support of the EU, not to mention Turkey or Pakistan, so any escalation will fail. The U.S. and Israel needed an invasion by neighboring states to succeed, so the reluctance of Turkey or Pakistan to deploy its forces, along with the EU’s decision not to open Hormuz, effectively dooms the ongoing operation. I also doubt that Trump wants to level schools, mosques, and other civilian targets on a wide scale (accidental damage to important cultural sites—i.e., Golestan Palace—is another thing). Trump did not plan this war well, did not listen to military advice, and did not consider the consequences of the actions he has undertaken to date. He then had to lie about the ‘success’ of nonexistent talks. So far neither the U.S. nor Israel has really damaged Iran’s drone and ballistic-missile infrastructure. My point is that, unlike militant Muslims and Protestants, Catholics, like the majority of Westerners, have preferred the comforts of this world to an ascetic, aristocratic, militaristic lifestyle. Therefore, the West lacks the mentality—not to mention the material resources—it needs to wage an effective war vs. Iran and its allies. There is no unified support for the war as it stands either. That is what I mean when I aver that Iran has inflated the threat it faces. The West is very weak vs. Iran.

@notme Jesus was referring to private violence, not that of the state or its officials. There is plenty of evidence that Jesus, as shown in the NT, did not oppose the latter. If so, then he was not a pacifist per se. (At any rate, Jesus is questioning Exodus 21:24—an odd stance for a Torah-observant Israelite. Therefore, there is some evidence that the verse above has been inserted by Gentile Christians, or is missing context.) Then Jesus, by sanctioning state functions, also endorses its monopoly on force. Therefore, he is not a pacifist. You are correct in that the ‘sword‘ is metaphorical (in Luke 9:54 Jesus rebukes his disciples for invoking God’s wrath on Samaritans). Yet elsewhere Jesus also engages in forceful demonstration, e.g., the whipping of the merchants in the Temple (cf. John 2:15). So, as noted, the weight of NT evidence is mixed. There are passages that certainly seem to vitiate pacifism, at least in a strict sense. The time frame mentioned is a scholarly consensus, but textual evidence to confirm this is scanty. Theologically, however, Revelation is closer to the viewpoint of Jesus and his earliest followers than a lot of other NT texts, which are heavily influenced by Hellenism (i.e., Pauline theology). A comparison is nevertheless useful, and as others have noted, there are underlying themes—and roots—that both traditions share. One needs to examine the evidence critically, however, in order to unearth them.

@notme Pacifism has always been a fringe phenomenon in history, given its lack of realism. The Bible itself does not present a coherent view of Jesus’ outlook on militarism (cf. Matthew 10:34, Revelation 19:11–9, the cleansing of the Temple, and so on). Also, the Islamic Jesus, like Moses, can hardly said to be a pacifist; nor can the prophets generally be described as such. So the ‘pacifist’ Jesus, like ‘moderate’ Islam, is a (post)modern construct—as shown by his absence from institutional practice. @Hamdi999 Iran is far more disciplined, militaristic, and innovative than the West is, to be honest. Even the handful of Protestant (Zionist) militants are exceptional. Western society as a whole is hedonistic and uneducated, notably its core regions. Muslims and other ‘nonwhite’ peoples, as well as the eastern Europeans, have not undergone the same degree of feminization. (I sent you a PM that touched on this, incidentally; I knew long ago that the West was unprepared for a real war with Iran.) Based on this, would you agree that Iran and its Muslim allies have often overstated the Western ‘threat’, given the latter’s weaknesses—moral, technological, and economic?

@Hameedeh The Pope’s claim is theologically and historically false. The concept of the just war is integral not just to Catholic jurisprudence, but also to that of other creeds. War, like other political matters, falls under the purview of faith as well. The Pope assumes a distinction between public and private spheres that does not exist in classical (i.e., traditionalist) religious formulations. One may deplore the current war, yet his outlook does not license falsehood.

@313_Waiter I am not referring solely to the modern era or to materialistic paradigms. Just look at the history of religious diversity, disagreement, and conflict. Were religion not a central motive, the ‘wars of faith’ would have been fought under the banners of atheism, agnosticism, and/or pluralism. Ideas play a much larger role than instincts or economics. Heretics were not, as a rule, sentenced to death for material reasons; one must look at individual cases. For example, the fallout from the Council of Nicaea had little, if anything, to do with economic factors or personal idiosyncrasies. Even today sectarian zealots such as ISIS or al-Qaida can hardly be said to be under the influence of materialism—reductionist explanations notwithstanding. (Western support for Zionism, likewise, has a lot to do with religious sentimentalism, ethnic mysticism, and so on.) Yet people often selectively impute intentions to groups or causes they detest, while shielding their own (i.e., anything ‘bad’ is never religiously driven). — At any rate, the history of religious divergence and warfare suggests that the Truth is not readily obvious and/or intuitive. But how do you know that most people intuit the Truth? You need proof before ascribing ulterior motives (i.e., assuming bad faith). Moreover, how can you conclude that the average person is intelligent enough to divine the Truth? (I am advancing a skeptical position here, not claiming special insight myself.) My impression is that, when one considers these matters, the nature of reality is immaterial; what matters are the means one‘s constitution has provided for the discernment of truth. We still use our physiological assets—including spiritual aspects, if any—to ‘recognize’ or perceive truth(s) about reality. This holds true whether one adheres to an atheistic, agnostic, or theistic worldview. Yet the process of recognition unfolds, in a sense. To me, the reason is less incisive than the fact. Ability is what it is. Even if that were the case, one could still glean valuable data and/or observations from one’s environment. These, in turn, help one discern truths about life, regardless of the mechanics at work. We learn to operate within the constraints, both physical and (if any) spiritual, the universe is endowed with.

@313_Waiter But isn’t its absence from human behavior suggestive? If it were clear-cut, wouldn’t there be more signs of it? If it is intuitive, then how do you explain men’s inability to find or express it, as shown by their actions throughout history?

@Borntowitnesstruth This presumes an evolutionary outlook that justifies a secular (i.e., humanist) premise. I understand your desire to ‘protect’ the faith by appealing to secularism, but it is not historically sound. If it were, it would have been obvious to Muslim—and other—peoples long ago, and would not have required external coercion. Instead, the millennia-long Arab slave-trade persisted, e.g., in East Africa, until suppressed by colonialism. (Ditto for the European slave-trade in the Americas and West Africa.) There is nothing to back up your assertion. In Islam and other traditions, stress is laid on the primacy of spiritual over material liberation. The latter is secondary to the former, and is at best a corollary (in some cases). Secularism has inverted this scheme, and has stigmatized physical bondage as a moral ‘evil’. It has also sought to make ‘freedom’ compulsory, rather than a voluntary gift merited by spiritual assets. It has since extended its definition of ‘freedom’ to encompass utopian, often outlandish, and even illogical schemes. But now every earthly limitation, subordination, or obligation is deemed ‘evil’. ^ ...which raises the question as to why Muslim elites, including scholars, did not move to abolish slavery until forced to do so by secularized Europeans. (You may point to the Imams as counterexamples, but I am referring to Muslim states, polities, and societies in general.) ^ My point is that religious faith, including morality, is not based on verification; the latter is more or less irrelevant. There are many Islamic and other rulings—or claims—that may or may not be valid, but cannot be ‘proven’ true (in all circumstances), scientifically or otherwise. Some outcomes are measurable, others not, and still more are yet to be found. But they are not ‘always’ verifiable, even if true. If this were the case, history to date would have been very different. Human action, on the contrary, shows that men genuinely disagree as to standards of conduct. Even so-called ‘criminal’ types believe themselves to be moral agents; and when religious motives enter the scene, your statement becomes very problematic (i.e., if one is to argue that, say, the Crusaders, Inquisitors, and caliphs somehow ‘knew’ their beliefs, motives, or activities were ‘wrong’). Both Islam and Catholicism, at least institutionally, discourage independent reasoning (i.e., ‘basic logic’ or ‘free thought’), while emphasizing the superiority of metaphysics, over and against empiricism. While metaphysics and science need not conflict, they often do in practice, because the former is held apart from the latter. So we end up with chimeras: theories and notions that are not grounded in reality. ^ This is irrelevant, because I never set out to prove the falsity of every worldview. ^ I am not espousing atheism either (which happens to be no more supportable, scientifically, than many other views), so this does not apply.

^ To add to the above: I am aware that morality differs from both a) natural law and b) a scientific law of nature, in that it prescribes rather than describes something. But one must recognize or ‘know’ that a particular ethical system is superior to another, or has some basis that is discernible (i.e., palpable). I would think that metaphysics alone would not suffice, given that it is not testable or discoverable. One cannot simply adopt the refrain ‘I know it when I see it’, itself a subjective assessment—unless one presumes an inborn trait. But cultural diversity, along with divergent criteria and situational factors, makes a universal ethical matrix hard to define, if one only has recourse to metaphysics, like everyone else.

@Silas While this is true, the alternative renders the ‘final book’ a mystery (in the classical sense), inaccessible to scrutiny, given that it cannot be proved scientifically. Since science, or empiricism, also relies on logic, this means that to put metaphysics beyond science is to sideline mechanistic explanations, so that there is no meaningful way to verify (i.e., test) the ‘final book’ based on explanatory means such as the scientific method. We end up pitting metaphysics, or an abstraction, against real-world observation(s) and/or facts, however unintentionally; further, this does not help us choose between rival metaphysical claims. Of course, science cannot provide a final answer either, but at least it does not pretend to do so (unlike scientism, an offshoot of materialism), if properly used and presented. This is also valid, but it runs into the fact that a) to ‘recognize’ (the) Truth is to involve reason and b) moral intuition is, by its very nature, subjective. Subjectivity and reason, moreover, are often at odds. The problem with this is that no two men can agree as to the definition of ‘innocence’—certainly not in each and every case. Theologians differ as much as laymen or secularists on this and other matters. So far the level of disagreement among men, and the wide range of societal models, implies that this goal—having insight as to the bedrock on which these truths are based, as well as the nature of the truths themselves—is either unattainable or unrealistic. And norms, by and large, are culturally contingent, that is, customary, usually varying wildly between cultures. As noted before, there is no way to confirm or disprove these, given their metaphysical basis. The need for finality does nothing to address the importance of veracity. That something is regarded as ‘final’ does not mean that it is truthful and/or reflects (the) Truth. ‘Genocide’ as a term was invented after World War II, but existed as a concept and practice throughout history. The Bible itself, and Muslim rulers historically, have condoned ‘genocidal’ practices now and then, so your objection to ‘genocide’ is hardly based on religious grounds. Moreover, re: biological sex, your approach faces a roadblock. We do not defer to metaphysics in order to ‘know’ that there are two distinct sexes with corresponding traits, or that a male cannot be female (or vice versa). Instead, we rely on scientific logic. Yet you propose that we discover the ‘final book’ without recourse to reason.

@Silas ^ In addition to the above, I wish to address your claim about absolute monarchs. While having total power in theory, an ‘absolute’ sovereign wielded it within limits, as set by custom and religion—unlike, say, his secular equivalent, such as a Marxist despot. The monarch was still accountable to a Divine Sovereign, Who bound him to certain obligations, including those that concerned treatment of his subjects. The monarch could only act in accord with a spiritual end. So the notion of a traditionalist sovereign without a ‘transcendent ... final mandate’ is curious, given that it was far from the norm historically, and has more basis in a secular world.

I would pay more attention to Iran’s immediate neighbors than to the GCC, given that only Turkey, Azerbaijan, and/or Pakistan have the land forces to occupy Iran were the government to collapse. ‘Neutral’ Turkey is acting as a logistical base for U.S. operations vs. Iran, allowing NATO AWACS craft to gather intelligence using Konya Airport. Last July its Azerbaijani client also allowed Israel to use its airspace for strikes on Iranian targets and also provided information. So far there is nothing to suggest it is involved in the current war, but if the U.S. and Co. were smart they would have secured Azerbaijani cooperation beforehand. If the Anglo-Zionists continue to rely solely on their air assets, psychological warfare, and/or economic strangulation, they will fail once more. There is a massive disconnect between Trump’s harping on the ‘Iranian threat’ and his unwillingness to commit substantial ground forces (the only thing that could really make a difference in favor of the U.S. and Israel).

Once again the Anglo-Israelis and their Sunni clients seem to have succeeded in lulling the Iranians, using talks as cover, hence the large numbers of key casualties. FM Araghchi is already admitting, indirectly, the deaths of defense minister Nasirzadeh, IRGC commander Pakpour, and Defense Council head Shamkhani. There are also reports of other IRGC and/or senior officials’ deaths. This is very similar not just to the July war, but also the ‘negotiations’ the West proposed before sanctioning the IDF’s moves on Lebanon in 2024 (including the Nasrallah killing, the pager attacks, and so on). Also, so far Iran has not managed to close the Strait of Hormuz, giving the attackers a further advantage. A question is whether neighboring states such as Azerbaijan and Pakistan will also send in proxy forces to foment ‘civil war’ or insurgency.

Since this thread came first (i.e., before this one), shouldn’t it be the main one? All war-related posts could go here.

^ There is already a thread here. Maybe this topic should be merged with it?

@Silas I think Russia and Iran are distinct concerns for the U.S.; they certainly are for Israel. In fact Putin has long had a good rapport with Netanyahu; Russia–Israel ties are multivalent, not least due to the Jewish diaspora (Biden’s efforts to sever this link strained U.S.–Israel ties). In the early 2000s Putin strongly backed U.S. efforts to pressure Hamas, denuclearize Iran, and minimize Shia influence in Iraq, as former Bush officials attest. Russia also allowed Israeli strikes on Iranian interests in Syria. Overall, Russia has no interest in empowering a historical and ideological rival. I would not call Iran a Russian ‘ally’, given that it lacks a military treaty with the latter. Also, Russia, like China, trades far more of its energy with states other than Iran, while the latter has enough supplies of its own. India is far closer to Russia than the latter is to Iran, yet its trade with Iran is almost minuscule (and India is now distancing itself from Russian energy). Therefore, the U.S. campaign against Iran has more to do with other factors than Russia. To some extent Iran benefits from a strong Ukraine, given that a NATO–Russia war would divert focus from its own territory. Aside from drones (?), Iran’s role in Ukraine is not very significant; Israel has never given it much attention, despite its ties to Russia. Zelensky, on the other hand, has complained that the Gaza war and Israel–Iran standoff absorb U.S. hardware that would otherwise be sent to Ukraine. Iran is also disappointed in Russia’s willingness to let Israel to strike its nuclear sites (Putin even sent a congratulatory message to Netanyahu’s office), so it is less willing to lend diplomatic support to Russian positions. Most Iran-friendly circles tend to view Russia negatively. I partially agree with this, but Ukrainian behavior leaves much to be desired. Its military and intelligence elites have openly talked about using WMD in false flags to implicate Russia, such as strikes on critical nuclear and other infrastructure. Even pro-Ukraine sources have more or less admitted to some of these tactics, along with Ukraine’s use of human shields, Syria-like stunts (like the Bucha incident), and so on. (Also, Ukraine has never concealed its desire to join NATO, which antedates the current war.) Neither side has used its full power, obviously. Even if Israel were not a factor, U.S.–Iran relations would be strained due to the nature of the Iranian system. Americans still do not forget the embassy crisis or Iran’s support for actors such as Cuba and Venezuela, both of which have been linked, rightly or wrongly, to drug trafficking. If Israel were eliminated, the U.S. would be Iran’s next target. It would still be the ‘main foe’ or ‘Great Satan’—with or without Zionism. Trump has his own reasons to back a strike on Iran, quite apart from Israeli pressure (though the latter plays a role too).

@Silas And I pointed out NT verses that also seem to accept slavery as a given, along with the tendency of Christian and Muslim elites to tolerate it (unless pressed by shifts in public opinion). That abolitionism arose in tandem with secularism, both in Christian and Muslim societies, says a lot; I enumerated historical evidence, so I wish you had addressed it. Furthermore, there is a distinction between slavery as an abstraction and as a practice. No one views slavery as desirable for himself or his offspring, but other people—typically of a different social class, ethnicity, or faith—might be another matter. Given that neither secular nor religious ethics can be proven using a science, this further complicates things, notably for laymen. As noted, the average person often lacks the means or ability to reason independently, and if his creed cannot be assessed from the outside, then he is as much a prey to falsity as under a secular equivalent. Both Islam and Catholicism rely on tradition as well as scripture, yet each comes to very different conclusions about the nature of God. An ordinary man is in no position to determine which vision is closest to the Truth, given the competing claims of Catholic and Muslim clerics. That leaves over a millennium in which the Church tolerated slavery, whether grudgingly or not. Also, that slavery came to be regarded as impermissible and sinful at the same time as abolitionism—a mass movement that arose only in the Western Enlightenment—is suggestive. But the layman is, as mentioned, at a loss as to how to distinguish between the rival claims of Catholic and Muslim clergies. This is true, but I think it misses its target. The real problem is that men treat their ignorance and subjectivity as a faith, rather than exercising caution or humility. This applies equally to secular and religious claims. My view, personally, is that a ‘religious’ mentality exudes certitude, divorces an ideal from empiricism, and takes many forms. As incisive as this observation is, it still runs against the fact that the ‘final book’ cannot be verified using a science, so either way we end up deferring to a secular or religious absolutism that stands above scrutiny. I think men should rely less on abstractions and more on observations, while retaining internal coherence or consistency. This appeal says nothing about the veracity of a specific worldview. The desirability of one or another model does not in and of itself prove its validity (although one could marshal evidence to show that an Islamic system is better attuned to human nature or is economically sounder than a Marxist utopia). In my view, a fantastical system: involves various ‘utopias’ based on unrealistic standards of human behavior; subjective perceptions, i.e., based on ‘feelings’ or ‘intuitions’; claims or entities that cannot be independently verified; anything that contradicts data and/or experience(s) The ‘worst’ worldview, if any, is one that does not admit the possibility of ignorance and/or uses unreason.

@AbdusSibtayn I think Iran and the AoR’s plight is a bit more fluid than it might appear. A saving ‘grace’, if one may so call it, is the still-unsettled NATO–Russia war in Ukraine. There is a nonzero chance that it develops into a direct clash, with all that entails for the world. A full-on MAD would take out Israel’s Western patrons, while Iran and Co. would lose or gain little from Russia’s unraveling. Plus, any nuclear fallout would mainly affect areas northward vs. more-equatorial regions like the MENA. (Of course, I am assuming here that Trump and Co. are dumb enough to launch WWIII before finishing off Iran or installing the Golden Dome [still a few years off] to intercept Russia’s now-invincible hypersonic missiles. Another prospect is that the U.S. could botch the planning of its Iran War 2.0, thinking it need only repeat the June episode to ensure regime change.) In a way, world war diverts forces from Iran’s frontline neighbors; therefore, I would not despair if I were Iran or its allies. @Haji 2003 Pezeshkian has also been in charge of the nuclear talks, choosing staff, dictating Iran’s case, etc. This could explain the varying reports—now over a year or so—about the terms Iran has (or has not) agreed to as part of a ‘deal’. Some insiders want to ban enrichment outright, echoing the U.S. view, while others prefer limited or no bargains; (maybe) Pezeshkian’s reformists want the former. Russia has offered to restore the JCPOA format whereby Iran conveyed uranium to third parties; the U.S. has outlined a consortium, under its aegis, that would do so, in return for joint power generation. At any rate, I do wonder why the leadership is allowing Pezeshkian leeway to oversee talks, given the ‘results’ of the last such meeting(s).