This is a Logical Response to Prior Behavior

Matthew G. Saroff
2 min readSep 21, 2022


Given US behavior with regard to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (Aka the Iranian Nuclear Deal), it is no surprise that Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi is demanding binding guarantees from that the United States won’t pull of the deal.

Given that the US unilaterally withdrew 4 years ago, and up to that point the Iranians were in compliance with the deal, this is a logical request.

The US response in the negotiations has been to insist on no guarantees, and to demand further concessions, because the US Foreign Policy Establishment is delusional:

Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi, in his first U.S. media interview, said that the Biden administration’s promise to adhere to a new nuclear agreement was “meaningless” without guarantees that the United States would not again unilaterally withdraw from the deal in the future.

“If it’s a good deal and fair deal, we would be serious about reaching an agreement. It needs to be lasting,” said Raisi, speaking through an interpreter in an interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes,” conducted last week in Tehran and broadcast Sunday evening. But he added: “We cannot trust the Americans because of the behavior that we’ve already seen from them. That is why if there is no guarantee, there is no trust.”

Tehran’s demand for guarantees that the United States would stay in a new agreement has become a principal sticking point in the failure of Iran and world powers to negotiate a deal to replace the 2015 version from which the Trump administration withdrew in 2018. Negotiations that began nearly a year and a half ago have now sputtered to a virtual stop.

Administration negotiators have made clear from the beginning of the talks, which include Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China — all signers of the original deal, along with the United States and Iran — that no U.S. administration has the power to bind the actions of its successor.

So the US is asking for concessions in exchange for a neat photo op that could be overturned the next day.

The issue here is that the Iranians believe that that the US cannot be trusted to keep its agreements.

Given the history of United States foreign policy over the past 70 years, or the past 250 years if you want to count our interactions with aboriginal peoples in North America, it’s hard to argue with their assessment.

I’m not sure how you square this circle, but the likely outcome of US intransigence, a nuclear armed Iran, is the worst possible outcome.



Matthew G. Saroff

Husband, father, pinko, slave to cats