Symmetry of adversary

Yesterday evening a framework document for (yet) further technical discussions on enhancing transparency about Iran’s nuclear activities was announced. A formal group picture was issued.

https://i1.wp.com/ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/625/media/images/82100000/jpg/_82100070_026598317-1.jpg

Anything peculiar?

Notice how symmetrical current and historic adversaries are paired up:

  • China – USA
  • France – UK
  • Germany – Russia
  • White over black – Black over white

A deeper message or a trick of the (English) alphabet and diplomatic decorum?

Advertisements

9 Comments on “Symmetry of adversary”

  1. Fiorangela says:

    Italian – Iranian!

    the one woman was Italian.
    the one person in white was Italian.

    Bellissimo!

  2. Johnboy says:

    It’s alphabetical, is it not?

    [C]hina, [F]rance, [G]ermany on the left, and [R]ussia, [U]nited Kingdom, [U]nited States of America on the right. So the P5+1 are arranged in alphabetical order.

    And in the centrepiece the EU and Iran, who represent the two sides who weren’t the P5+1, and in their case those two are also in alphabetical order.

    Or, alternatively, they are arranged by height, which is why Lavrov wasn’t asked to take his place in the lineup.

    I wonder how long it’ll take before someone photoshops that into a police lineup?

  3. Good assessment as usual, Dan. Several key elements of the JCPOA (suspension of enrichment, AP and Code 3.1 mod. implementation, etc.) actually were being implemented by Iran in the 2003-2005 period facilitated by the EU, and cooperation with the IAEA was going well, but then the Bush regime torpedoed the process — result: 20000+ centrifuges, 20% enriched uranium, a lost decade and unnecessary suffering of the Iranian people. Kudos to the Obama-Kerry, Zarif-Salehi and EU-EEAS teams for the JPA-JCPOA — but the nutcases are still out there 47+1 and increasing.

  4. tim says:

    There is absolutely no symmetry in this agreement, it’s a sell-out by Iran’s team. They have caved in to practically all the American demands without anything concrete in return. The IAEA can now present a made-in-Washington wish list of suspicious sites and access Iran’s military secrets and if they refuse, bam, snap-back. This deal is the Iraq fiasco all over again, please stop legitimating it it certainly is not in Iran’s interests. Iran is reduced to a third class NPT member that all its nuclear decisions have to be approved by outsiders for a long time. It is the opposite of national dignity.

    • Johnboy says:

      “There is absolutely no symmetry in this agreement, it’s a sell-out by Iran’s team.”

      No, not really.

      In its essential elements it resembles the same deal that the Iranians proposed to the E3 back in early 2005, and which was dismissed out of hand by the European negotiators because GW Bush would never have accepted it.

      It’s now a decade later, the Iranians have put the same proposal up for negotiations, and the Americans now accept it as a basic for a final deal.

      So I’m not quite sure who has folded here.

      Not the Iranians, apparently, since this has been pretty much their acceptable outcome for at least a decade, if not more.

      But the Americans?

      They’ve gone from “no enrichment, not now, not ever” to accepting a deal they could have accepted back in 2005.

      • tim says:

        You don’t know what you ‘re talking about. This deal is a travesty from Iran national interest point of view.

      • yousaf says:

        There is no deal yet. There are 3 factsheets: Iranian, Iran-EU, and US. And there are conflicts among those.

      • Johnboy says:

        “You don’t know what you ‘re talking about.”

        Based upon…..?

        “This deal is a travesty from Iran national interest point of view.”

        How odd. The Iranians don’t appear to agree.

        I take it you will concede that the only entity whose “point of view” counts with respect to “a nation’s interest” is…. the nation in question?

        Correct?

        Because if you don’t agree then, so sorry, you don’t know what you are talking about.

      • JP Zanders says:

        A perfect reply, Tim. You have just about destoyed your last shred of analytical capacity.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s