A stunning curly response was recently made by Iran's President Rouhani during talks over the nuclear Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA). This one sends the Geiger counter of confusing argument well into the red zone. It's a head-scratcher.

He was speaking about Joe Biden's refusal to cancel the sanctions ordered by Trump against Iran and rejoin the agreement. Biden's position is that until Iran limits uranium enrichment to the specified level, he won't budge. Iran refuses to negotiate until the US cancels the sanctions, so the issue is a stalemate.

Mr Rouhani is quoted in FARS as stating that the US withdrawal was a unilateral action, saying they did not negotiate their way out of the JCPOA, and therefore, do not need to negotiate their way back into the deal.

Now, that's curly! What exactly does his statement mean? It seems vaguely, conceptually correct on the surface but the true underlying meaning is quite obscure. This argument is not really logical at all, though it's clever enough to appear so. In truth, the US didn't need to negotiate their way out of the agreement. They weren't happy, so they left. That's usually how it works. There's no logical reason why their manner of re-entry must match their manner of exit, which is what the argument implies.

We don't really know if Mr Rouhani was making a pun or being sarcastic. Nor if he was simply constructing what he thought was a piece of undefeatable logic that both impresses his supporters and carries a derailing effect on people critical of his stance. When you have to stop and scratch your head about someone's comment, you lose serious ground. Skilled diplomats would just ignore it, but the general public aren't quite so sharp.

Possible valid meanings are that it was the US who walked away from the agreement all by themselves without anyone else's agreement or approval. Therefore they can walk back into it any time they like, but we don't have to negotiate with them for that to happen. Alternatively, the US are the ones with an issue here, so that's between themselves and God, but it has nothing to do with us. We are not budging.

It could mean that no one else agrees with the US because the other signatory countries didn't also leave the agreement, so why should we negotiate with just one party? Or it could mean that the US sanctions are the US administration's choice so don't make it our responsibility to end them.

It probably means all of the above. Clearly the argument is designed to reinforce Iran's position that "we will put down our gun only after you have dropped yours".

This author offers no opinion about who is right and who is wrong in this dispute. The only representation made here is the cleverness of the argument that neatly conceals its killer point in a way that makes it very difficult to argue back.

Whether that is intentional, we don't know. However, one thing is certain. When the most you are willing to offer is a Mexican standoff, this is precisely the type of argument you need to use. On that score, Mr Rouhani was right on target.


Photo by HUST WILSON on Unsplash