Editor-in-Chief at @TheDuran_com
London, England
Joined March 2014
- Tweets184
- Following307
- Followers38K
- Likes9
Alexander Mercouris retweeted
The US actually has an obvious way out of its disastrous war against Iran and the mess it finds itself in the Middle East and with the global economy:
(1) Send a proper negotiating team to meet the Iranians. Ditch Witkoff and Kushner.
(2) On nuclear enrichment take the deal on offer;
(i) a 5 year moratorium on uranium enrichment;
(ii) enrichment up to 3.6% thereafter;
(iii) dilution of the existing stockpile which however remains in Iran;
(iv) the return of the IAEA inspectors (surprisingly the Iranians apparently agreed to this before the war);
(v) no sunset clauses.
(3) Agree a full lifting of sanctions. This should be done immediately NOT in a phased way with the primary agent being the UN Security Council. By now the Iranians deeply mistrust any phased removal of sanctions and would probably not agree to it. Besides phasing the removal of the sanctions keeps the US tied in, when the whole objective should be to get out;
(4) Close the US Persian Gulf bases, which the war has exposed are useless and a stategic liability;
(5) negotiate a return to free transit through the Strait of Hormuz, returning to the situation which existed before 28th February. This may seem impossible but the pre war status quo actually suited the Iranians well and the US will have strong support from China and Russia if it pushes for it as part of a global agreement;
(6) negotiate security guarantees for both Iran and the Persian Gulf States, guaranteeing them against future attack, confirmed by a UN Security Council Resolution; and given by China and Russia as well the US.
(7) Agree to Russia and China acting as guarantors of Iran's commitments on enrichment (see (2) above). The Russians have already offered to do this multiple times and if asked the Chinese will agree also. Russia and China strongly oppose Iran acquiring nuclear weapons so they have every incentive to ensure Iranian compliance with their enrichment obligations.
The US has already dropped its demands for limits to Iran's ballistic missile programme, an end to Iranian support for Hezbollah, the Iraqi militias, and the Houthis and for sweeping internal changes in Iran, (see my video of yesterday).
There is no sense in harping on about Iran declaring that it has no intention of acquiring nuclear weapons. It has made that very declaration multiple times and is a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This demand is otiose and silly.
In return insist that Iran drops its demand for reparations from the US. I don't believe the Iranians believe in this demand. They must know that the Americans will never agree to it, and wouldn't pay reparations anyway even if against all expectations they did agree to it. For the Iranians getting the sanctions lifted is the prize. The demand for reparations muddles the issue.
The US should also encourage the Iranians and the Gulf States to set up with each other some sort of regional security structure to safeguard peace and freedom of navigation in the Gulf. The Chinese and the Russians have suggested it and it serves the interests of all parties. However this is something the regional states must agree with each other. The US should not let itself get bogged down in negotiations on this issue.
The approach I have suggested not only extricates the US from an unwinnable war. It also provides for an agreement which satisfies the core interests of all parties. Objectively it is good for both Iran and the US.
The Iranians would see the end of the long economic siege they have endured since 1979, giving their economy a route to grow. They would also get some reassurance for their long term security, though there can never be a full guarantee of this in the Middle East.
The Americans would get strong guarantees that Iran will never become a nuclear power, something it doesn't appear to want to become anyway. They would also bring to an end their long debilitating entanglement in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, which is what ever since Obama announced a 'pivot to Asia' they have said they want.
None of this should be difficult to agree. An agreement that so obviously satisfies the core interests of all sides never is
What stands in the way is that in the US it would be presented as a defeat, even though objectively, in the long term, it should be seen as a deliverance. The 'hyperpower' cannot fail in a war, especially against a country like Iran, and even though 'victory' now looks unattainable, it must be sought anyway, regardless of cost.
Moreover in Israel such an agreement would be treated as a disaster, failing to achieve the obsessively desired objective of regime change in Tehran, so earnestly needed in order to achieve Israel's maximalist objectives, even though by now it ought to be obvious that this objective is unachievable.
So we will probably see the negotiations fail, if they take place at all, which to say the least, currently looks doubtful.
Instead of a perfectly attainable and mutually beneficial agreement we are therefore likely to see a long, pointless and extremely dangerous struggle, ending almost certainly in a US defeat, leading to a global economic catastrophe.
The lesson, which in Washington they never seem to learn, is that if you play for all or nothing, you risk ending up with nothing. That however is where we are heading at the moment
@MearsheimerJ
@TheGrayzoneNews
@LarrySonar21
@Glenn_Diesen
@ggreenwald
@Consortiumnews
@aaronjmate
@RnaudBertrand
@barnes_law
@RealPepeEscobar
@AXChristoforou
youtube.com/watch?v=Bukq0oTY…
Getting the Western Powers to pull their embassies and personnel out of Kiev is probably for the Russians an objective in itself.
The Russian calculus probably is that Zelensky and the other key institutions of Ukraine would be very unwilling to leave Kiev.
Quitting Kiev might look like abandoning the capital, making it in effect a front line city.
It would also increase the physical distance between Zelensky and eastern Ukraine, where the battles are taking place. These it should be stressed are going badly, with Konstantynovka weeks from falling, and the Russians pressing hard on the two remaining important Donbas cities still under Ukrainian control, Slovyansk and Kramatorsk.
It is not difficult to see how the Russians might calculate that in such a situation Zelensky might worry that if he were to leave Kiev eastern Ukraine might slip out of his control.
Beyond that there is the question of the underlying stability of Zelensky's own position.
The Russians have been disputing his right to remain Ukraine's leader since May 2024. Though Zelensky is not being challenged in that way from within Ukraine itself, it is hardly a secret that Trump doesn't like him, and that his leadership is being criticised from within Ukraine itself.
It is easy to see how the Russians might think in light of all that, that Zelensky might worry that if he were to leave Kiev his authority would weaken, as the President who had fled his country's capital at a moment of danger and crisis.
However if Zelensky were to stay in Kiev after the Westerners left he would become isolated from the West.
The reality, as anyone who follows the situation in Kiev at all closely can see, is that Westerners (the diplomats, the personnel of the Western funded NGOs, the military advisers fulfilling advice and liaison functions, the officials who administer the aid packages etc) today form a key part of Ukraine's system of government. Severing the link between this structure and Zelensky would inevitably weaken the system as a whole.
Lastly, if travel in and out of Kiev becomes dangerous, with the Russians able to threaten the railway and road links (not impossible) then Zelensky's isolation from the West and the outside world were he to choose to stay in Kiev after the Westerners left would become greater still.
Nonetheless, despite this, my guess is that the Russians, for the reasons I set out above, still expect Zelensky to choose to stay in Kiev, even if the Westerners leave. After all, that is what he did in 2022, and what other leaders who have found themselves in Zelensky's position, have in the past also chosen to do.
If the Russians act on their current threats then I expect the Westerners to leave.
In February 2022 they pulled their embassies out of Kiev to protect their diplomats. To the best of my recollection they only returned in April 2022, after the Russians withdrew.
Notwithstanding all the defiant rhetoric, I don't believe Western governments would oblige their diplomats and other nationals to stay in Kiev if the situation there were to become dangerous.
For the record, my own view is that this has been the Russian plan all along.
The Russians have waited until the situation on the battlefields had sufficiently matured, and after stockpiles of the necessary weapons systems (Oreshniks, Kinzhals, Iskanders etc) had reached the necessary levels, before they implemented it.
Starobelsk undoubtedly hardened views, but even without that awful incident, the situation we are now seeing play out would at some point have happened anyway.
@unjoe
@MearsheimerJ
@DanielLDavis1
@Glenn_Diesen
@TheGrayzoneNews
@RnaudBertrand
@AXChristoforou
@barnes_law
@LarrySonar21
youtube.com/watch?v=toos2hmB…
Even as we hear of negotiations to end the War between the US and Iran, it is clear to me that someone is working hard to ensure that these negotiations fail.
The media over the last 2 days has been filled with reports about a Memorandum of Understanding ('MoU') supposedly close to being agreed between the US and Iran, which would in effect end the war.
Certainly it is true that negotiations are underway, and Pakistan has been taking the lead in them. However it is also clear that there continues to be strong opposition to an agreement in the US.
Over last few days we have had a procession of neocons arguing that agreement with Iran equals surrender. It began with an article by Robert Kagan in The Atlantic. Lindsey Graham, Mike Pompeo and Ted Cruz have since all followed suit, all basically saying the same thing. All these persons argue that anything that falls short of the US's maximalist objectives - regime change plus Iran's humiliation and effective disarmament - amounts to surrender by the US.
The latest briefing to the NYT that Iran is prepared to hand over its nuclear stockpile to the US - something Iran up to now has consistently refused to surrender - has the look to me very much of a further attempt by someone to derail the negotiations.
The Iranians in fact are saying that the MoU makes no mention of the nuclear issue, which is postponed to later negotiations. They specifically deny that they have already agreed to a 10 year halt on enrichment above 3.6%
tasnimnews.ir/en/news/2026/0…
They are also say that Iran is holding out for the release of part of its frozen assets as a condition for agreeing to the MoU. tasnimnews.ir/en/news/2026/0…
They say that there is still no final agreement between them and the US over the terms of the MoU
tasnimnews.ir/en/news/2026/0…
and that they are prepared for the possibility that the talks may fail and if so they are ready to walk away
tasnimnews.ir/en/news/2026/0…
Much of this no doubt is setting out positions such as normally happens in negotiations. The fact that Iran is serious about the negotiations is shown by the intense activity Aragchi has been engaged in over the last few hours. He has spoken to the foreign ministers of Oman, Turkey, Qatar, Iraq, and Japan.
However the 'deal' is not yet done, and claims that Iran is prepared to surrender something which up to now it has always refused to surrender, at a moment moreover when it believes itself to be in a position of advantage, looks to me very like someone is working overtime to make sure the 'deal' is not done.
@unjoe
@MearsheimerJ
@LarrySonar21
@barnes_law
@RnaudBertrand
@AXChristoforou
@TheGrayzoneNews
@DanielLDavis1
@Glenn_Diesen
@ggreenwald
@aaronjmate
@AlastairCrooke
@s_m_marandi
The Financial Times story which claimed that XI JINPING told TRUMP that PUTIN would 'regret' invading Ukraine is - as many are saying - obviously nonsense and almost certainly deliberate misinformation on the part of someone.
As an exercise in disinformation it is also extraordinarily stupid.
The FT says it was informed of the supposed comment by someone who read about it in a US government assessment of TRUMP's recent visit to CHINA. That identifies the source as a senior official of a Western government, probably an American, who has access to classified material produced by the US government.
That all but confirms that this is an intentional exercise in disinformation.
What however is the purpose? It has been suggested that it was to cause trouble between PUTIN and XI. However, it will not cause trouble between PUTIN and XI. It will increase CHINA's mistrust of the US.
XI and PUTIN know each other extremely well. All the signs are that they like and trust each other. PUTIN is not going to believe that XI said such a thing about him to TRUMP. He will recognise the story as the disinformation that it obviously is.
TRUMP has just gone to CHINA presumably with the intention of improving relations between CHINA and the US. Yet as soon as he returns to the US a false story is published intended to cause trouble between CHINA and the leader of RUSSIA, CHINA's key BRICS partner, on the eve of that leader's visit to CHINA.
The Chinese will certainly not see this as a friendly act. They will see it as the action of an antagonist seeking to make trouble between CHINA and its friends. The sharp response of the Chinese Foreign Ministry denying the story points to CHINA's irritation.
Planting stories of this kind in the media does not serve US interests. It is schoolboy Machiavellianism which merely irritates foreign governments and sows mistrust of the US, which is already extraordinarily high. It harms the US.
youtube.com/watch?v=rRPwqWA0…
The two parts of what can just about still be called the WESTERN ALLIANCE seem each to be drifting closer and closer towards armed conflict with the two countries they have each chosen to label their enemy: IRAN and RUSSIA.
President TRUMP's rhetoric about IRAN has again become very belligerent. I am sorry to say that does not surprise me, coming as it does directly after a disappointing trip to CHINA.
Renewing the war with IRAN is a terrible idea.
It is not disputed that US arsenals of precision guided weapons have been severely depleted. By contrast, according to US intelligence, IRAN has preserved a large proportion of its missile arsenal, and is busy replacing its drones, which are cheap and easy to produce.
How does the US conduct a war with inventories so depleted? Advocates of doing so never answer this question.
The US did not deliver a knock out blow in March and April. Why assume it can now?
None of the suggestions - attacks on Iran's infrastructure, killing more of its leaders, seizing islands, a ground invasion - seem remotely adequate to the task and all come with enormous risks.
In the meantime energy prices continue to rise, as even Lindsey Graham has noticed. A fresh attack on Iran can only make an already bad situation worse.
In EUROPE there are identical levels of belligerency, this time towards RUSSIA. The folly here however is even greater.
In the case of the US it has a problem of depleted arsenals which can only be replenished over time and at great cost.
In the case of EUROPE it is a case of inventories that are not just depleted but in fact exhausted, with even some of EUROPE's hardest liners (KALLAS, RUTTE) starting to understand that it may not be possible to replenish them in any reasonable timescale at all. It is extremely unwise to invite conflict with a nuclear power. Doing so when one's militaries are so inadequate to the task is beyond reason.
In both conflicts diplomacy is possible. In neither conflict is it happening.
In the case of IRAN, TRUMP's idea of diplomacy is to repeat constantly the same unreasonable set of demands the IRANIANS have already rejected.
In the case of RUSSIA, EUROPE cannot even agree on the person who will represent them in negotiations, much less agree on a negotiating strategy.
Diplomacy is dead, and in its absence I fear war is coming.
youtube.com/watch?v=lOGxx0Wv…
The XI TRUMP Summit was momentous in ways that no-one is saying. It was the second time TRUMP was given a CEASE AND DESIST Demand, this time backed by an implicit warning of Great Power armed conflict, in a period of just over 2 weeks.
Here is the Chinese Foreign Ministry's official translation of the readout which sets out XI's Demand:
"President Xi stressed that the Taiwan question is the most important issue in China-U.S. relations. If it is handled properly, the bilateral relationship will enjoy overall stability. Otherwise, the two countries will have clashes and even conflicts, putting the entire relationship in great jeopardy. “Taiwan independence” and cross-Strait peace are as irreconcilable as fire and water. Safeguarding peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait is the biggest common denominator between China and the U.S. The U.S. side must exercise extra caution in handling the Taiwan question."
It is the word 'must' which stands out. For the first time that I can remember, certainly since the end of the Cold War, the leader of another country is telling the United States what it 'must' do.
The US often talks in this way to other countries. It does not expect to be talked to in that way. The Chinese President has however just done precisely that. Moreover, as the photo attached to the Chinese readout makes clear, this was said by the Chinese President to the US President not in a private conversation, where they were the only ones present with translators, but during the full plenary meeting with the entire US delegation present.
The word 'must' is backed by a clear threat of armed conflict. How else to interpret words like 'clashes and conflicts', which might put the entire relationship in 'great jeopardy'?
XI also made clear that for China Taiwan is the paramount issue, overriding all others. Questions of trade, technology, rare earths, Iran, the Strait of Hormuz etc. are secondary. No doubt it was precisely for this reason that China, so as not to dilute the message, declined to enter into substantive discussions on these secondary issues.
In other words China cannot be bribed or bullied or bought or frightened into changing its stance on Taiwan.
It may be that the words in the Chinese language original are softer. It is the Chinese Foreign Ministry however that translated them in this way. I do not believe that Foreign Ministry's translators do not understand the force and weight these words in English carry.
The Chinese, as they always do, were careful afterwards to soften the pill, hosting TRUMP in a banquet in the Great Hall of the People, and giving him tours of the Temple of Heaven and of Zhongnanhai.
That however does not soften the impact of the words. On the contrary, it makes the warning starker still. The fact the Chinese gave TRUMP nothing on any other matter - Boeings, trade, rare earths, Iran, the Strait of Hormuz etc - underlines the point.
This is the second time a Great Power leader has given the US President a warning of this kind in the space of just over 2 weeks.
The previous such warnings were given by PUTIN on 29th April when he warned TRUMP over the phone not to attack Iran again, and gave TRUMP a further warning of the overwhelming retaliatory action Russia would take against Central Kiev if the Victory Day Parade in Moscow on 9th May were attacked.
The fact TRUMP is now repeatedly getting warnings like this from Great Power leaders shows that China and Russia consider him a reckless leader barely under control who cannot be trusted. Certainly the Chinese, after seeing how he has acted in the last few months against Venezuela, Cuba and Iran, and perhaps against Russia in connection with the Valdai attack, don't trust him on Taiwan. Thus the decision to give him the warning.
It also shows the change which has taken place in the global balance of power. Other Great Powers now feel able to make peremptory demands to the US dictating how it should behave over issues like Taiwan.
Previously it was the US alone which did that.
@RnaudBertrand
@AlastairCrooke
@AXChristoforou
@thecyrusjanssen
@Glenn_Diesen
@TheGrayzoneNews
@unjoe
@MearsheimerJ
@Consortiumnews
@barnes_law
@RealPepeEscobar
@JamesWebb_16
@DanielLDavis1
youtube.com/watch?v=RsMRz7Ur…
The disturbing truth about Iuliia Mendel's interview with Tucker Carlson is that the media, certainly in the UK, but I suspect across Europe, has mostly ignored it.
This is terrible. In any sane world Mendel, who is a Ukrainian patriot and a stern critic of Russia, and who knows ZELENSKY and the inner workings of the system he operates, is someone who the media should want to interview, and whose articles they should want to publish.
This is all the more extraordinary as the various legal moves which have been playing out in Kiev over the last few days corroborate what she is saying.
Perhaps there are political motivations behind NABU's anti-corruption actions and the steps taken against YERMAK. For the record, I believe there are. That however is not the most important fact about these actions. What is important is the extent of the corruption they expose.
Corruption, as is clear at least to me, is today the organising principle of Ukrainian politics, and will remain so whilst ZELENSKY continues in charge.
Every European citizen is required to accept a reduction in standard of living because of the support our governments give to Ukraine. We pay for this support through higher taxes, higher food and energy bills, higher interest payments, and through funds spent to support Ukraine, which are not spent on domestic needs. We see the results of this all around us. Our governments and media however want us to know as little as possible about the true nature of the political system in Kiev we are supporting. Witnesses, such as Iuliia Mendel, must not be heard. In the meantime ZELENSKY gets hosted by our King.
This does not help Ukraine or its people. It corrodes our democracy and impoverishes us. It is immoral and wrong.
youtube.com/watch?v=ayN1VXz4…
TRUMP'S response to the Iranian offer is disturbing and further proof that he is out of his depth.
It is also further evidence for my contention that the US is not just 'agreement incapable' - as the Russians say - but 'negotiation incapable' as well.
TRUMP - the 'Great Dealmaker' - doesn't seem to understand that diplomacy requires negotiation. Though the US has so far failed to defeat Iran, and though the situation in the global economy is deteriorating every day, TRUMP becomes incensed the moment the Iranians make a proposal that falls short of his maximalist demands. That the current proposal is a perfectly reasonable opening bid in intended negotiations is a possibility that doesn't occur to him.
Disastrously, and indicatively, there doesn't seem to be wide understanding of this within the wider US leadership either.
The result is that we are now back looking at the possibility of war, with disturbing suggestions that TRUMP may again be thinking of a ground invasion.
There are 2 other factors in play:
(1) NETANYAHU, whose whole position depends on continued war, continues to pour poison into TRUMP's ear. The fact that everything NETANYAHU told TRUMP at the Oval Office meeting on 11th February about Iranian weakness has turned out to be untrue doesn't seem to have made any difference. TRUMP still listens to him.
(2) The rumours the Saudis are disillusioned with the US and are looking seriously at some sort of arrangement with Iran, as the Russians and Chinese have been urging, are certain to spook the Americans (not Just TRUMP). A renewal of the war to block this (very improbable) possibility from happening may be attractive to some people in Washington.
By the way, it is difficult to know how much weight to place in these rumours. Prince Faisal, the Saudi Foreign Minister, did talk to Aragchi yesterday. However there is nothing to suggest so far that serious talks between the Iranians and the Saudis are underway.
Whatever, a renewal of the war looks like a disastrous idea. Any number of well informed people have spoken of the immense risks. Every assessment of Iranian weakness up to now has turned out to be wrong. I personally can see no sign of such weakness.
Robert Kagan, the arch neocon, has written in The Atlantic about how Iran is shaping into the biggest defeat the US has suffered since the end of World War 2.
TRUMP and his advisers are working hard to prove him right.
@barnes_law
@unjoe
@MearsheimerJ
@DanielLDavis1
@Glenn_Diesen
@AlastairCrooke
@Consortiumnews
@ggreenwald
@RnaudBertrand
@AXChristoforou
@TheGrayzoneNews
@aaronjmate
youtube.com/watch?v=6aV9-8xx…
Putin's press conference yesterday was interesting because it highlighted his deep feeling of anger and betrayal by Europe.
(1) He reminded the journalists (all Russians) that the crisis began with the EU insisting Ukraine ratify an Association Agreement incompatible with Ukraine's free trade agreement with Russia. When Ukraine demurred the Maidan coup was the result;
(2) He said Europe's objective in 2022 was to engineer Russia's collapse so that the Europeans would be able to help themselves to its parts. In a truly extraordinary passage he spoke of Finland joining NATO in order to participate in the plunder;
(3) He gave a very bitter account of the events of April 2022 and of the failure of the Istanbul Agreement.
Briefly:
He revealed for the first time that it was Macron who called him and tricked him into pulling Russian troops back from Kiev, telling him that "the Ukrainians could not be expected (to sign the Istanbul Agreement) with a gun pointing at their head". He was careful to say that the Russians recorded the conversation and have Macron saying all this on tape.
He then spoke about how, once the Russian troops had been withdrawn, 'another colourful character' - Boris Johnson - told the Ukrainians to ditch the Istanbul Agreement in return for unlimited Western support.
I came away with the clear impression that Putin believes Macron and Johnson were working together and had it all worked out in advance;
(4) he accused the Europeans of using Ukraine as a proxy in their conflict with Russia;
(5) he signalled that the only major West European political figure in whom he retains any trust is Gerhard Schroder, who is of course out of power;
(6) Contrary to many reports, Putin did NOT say that he believes the Ukraine conflict is coming to an end. This belief stems from misreporting of his words by a TASS journalist.
If Putin's words are read carefully it is clear his meaning was quite different. It is that with the failure to bring about the collapse of Russia that which on The Duran we call 'Project Ukraine', ie. the West's (in Putin's view, Europe's) bid to use Ukraine as a tool to destabilise Russia, is coming to an end.
Perhaps wrongly, Putin appears to blame the Europeans more for 'Project Ukraine' than he does the Americans.
(7) Putin did float the possibility that with the failure of Project Ukraine, and with the crisis this has caused in Europe, a new generation of European leaders might find a way back towards a reconciliation with Russia. However he did not seem to me to say this with much conviction;
(8) As for the Americans, Putin appears to think that their various diplomatic initiatives of the last year to end the war have run into a wall and are effectively over.
Many people will say that Putin has a paranoid view of Europe and its intentions. He however would point to Europe's actions (eg. he spoke about Europe's work fabricating Ukraine's drones) and its rhetoric, which is frankly terrible. Certainly in Russia his opinions are widely shared.
This is where in Europe relentless hostility, extreme rhetoric, and a total rejection of dialogue with the Russians, has led us. If the Russians and their leader now entertain these views of us, we should not be surprised.
youtube.com/watch?v=4YnCu_xC…
@MearsheimerJ
@Glenn_Diesen
@LarrySonar21
@DanielLDavis1
@Consortiumnews
@unjoe
@TheGrayzoneNews
@GarlandNixon
