Blinken on reviving Iran nuclear deal: ‘We’re now in a place where we’re not talking about a nuclear agreement’

“There have been some developments and some changes since the time we got out of the deal and the time we were trying to get back in it. But fundamentally what we tried to do was to get back into the existing agreement with some modest modifications,” Blinken said. “An agreement was on the table. Iran either couldn’t or wouldn’t say yes. We’re not about to take any deal. Of course, it has to meet our security objectives. It has to meet our interests.”

“So, we made a very good faith effort to get back into compliance with them. They couldn’t or wouldn’t do it. We’re now in a place where we’re not talking about a nuclear agreement,” Blinken added, noting that administration officials want their Iranian counterparts to take actions to de-escalate the ongoing tensions between Tehran and Washington, D.C. 

“Maybe we’ll have an environment where we can get back into a conversation about their nuclear program. Right now, we’re not in it.” 

Blinken also said that U.S. officials are “working across a whole series of lines of effort to push back on them, to make sure we have a strong deterrent, to make sure we have the appropriate pressure, and then to see if we get back to an opportunity where we can work on a nuclear deal.”

“We continue to believe strongly that diplomacy is the best way to resolve this problem. That compared to all the other options, it’s the one that can produce the most sustainable, effective result,” Blinken added. “But that doesn’t mean that the other options aren’t there and if necessary we won’t resort to them.”

Goaldoost.  

You saw Wasserman- Schultz in RFK Jr hearing, where she did not allow RFK to answer a question she herself asked. She is an influential DNC member. 

Wasserman Schultz used to be the chair of the Democratic National Committee. In 2016 as part of the released leaked emails, it was revealed that she and other members of the DNC staff had favored Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders in the primaries in exchange for funding to eliminate the DNC's remaining debt from previous presidential campaign.  Bernie was furious and demanded her removal. She resigned. She was booed by Bernie fans in the convention and drove many of Bernie fans to vote Trump actually.

You see, Democrats and Liberals of now do not condemn corruption like these, instead they call it the party’s tactical moves.

Shahin and Goaldoost

Demonizing a figure by strong media blow-horn with an agenda became a sad norm unfortunately. And that’s what scares me about it.  It used to be a Republican tool if you recall,  through character assassination of Gary Hart, Ted Kennedy, or John Edwards. It no longer has anything to do with party affiliation, does not matter if you are a liberal Democrat like JFK Jr, or a Donald Trump, or a Tucker Carlson, or Bill Maher.  It is about demonizing individuals not on the same page of the agenda.

All you gotta do is label them conspiracist. That’s all you need to do. And ordinary liberals will take the bait and tag along.  Or censorship for example. Censorship within American political system and even within the American society was an absolute taboo and a vocabulary not used, but now we see that liberals are totally fine with censorship.  Right Shahin? If someone makes a negative claim about Covid Vaccine through his interpretation of scientific data and publish it through an article or a video, you as a liberal have no objection and you are totally fine and support the censorship or removal of that article or video, correct?  Because it is considered misinformation.  Why can’t we leave those articles as is if not scientifically correct, and instead argue or debate against it instead of censoring or removing them. Since when, American people cannot make a judgement if something is correct or does not make sense? Why do we have to censor it for them?

Anyways, it is all about the current agenda. A Democratic person like RFK Jr whom President-elect Barack Obama tapped to become his administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, is now considered a conspiracist and some of his videos on YouTube are either censored or removed.  Why is it a problem when he says “the Environmental Protection Agency is ran by the oil industry , the coal industry and the pesticide industry”? It is a true claim but why is it too sensitive that needs to be removed. 

Or a liberal like Bill Maher, what did he do to be labeled a conspiracist now? He was a die hard and dedicated liberal Democrat.

Here is the conclusion: It is not RFK Jr or Bill Maher who have changed position, it is Bill Maher and RFK Jr.’s previous positions which no longer match up with the Democratic Party of today. It is the party’s position which has changed. That simple. 

Thanks,  that did not tell me much about him. But reading his biography, he is essentially Chomsky but at ”right” side of the spectrum.  

Is he influential in US, or World politics?