• Trilogy3452
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    4 days ago

    Except for Iran’s reps not shaking hands I didn’t really understand what was so humiliating. Doesn’t seem to mention the points that “made it clear who’s desperate and who’s not”

    • luciferofastora@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      Without knowing what else went down, a lot of diplomacy hinges on otherwise minor gestures to signal intent. Stuff like the head of state summoning the ambassador to receive an admonishment on behalf of their country isn’t technically a big deal, but it’s a safe, nonthreatening way to express discontent. It doesn’t threaten sanctions or worse, but it does demand the other take it seriously.

      To extend your hand is a token of trust and good faith, or just basic respect for the other party. Snubbing it is then an act of disrespect, a breach of protocol that could end up sabotaging negotiations. Why should I trust you to negotiate in good faith, if you refuse even the most basic gesture of good faith?

      But Iran clearly isn’t worried whether the US will take offence or trust them. That is the part that makes it clear who’s desperate: Iran believes and signals that belief that the US has no choice but to trust them. They can afford to be rude because the US has no effective recourse. The negotiations are going to happen on Iran’s terms, because the US needs them to happen at all.

      It’s kind of a bully move, but Iran can’t exactly afford to choose the moral high ground and the US doesn’t have a leg to stand on to complain about bully moves either.

      Edit to add, upon reading the article: The same logic applies to making the US delegation wait. It’s not polite, but the US needs the negotiations and accordingly their delegation will grit their teeth and wait rather than making their indignation clear by walking out.