It is likely true that French President Emmanuel Macron informed Washington of the “surprise” visit of Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. This means that even if Paris didn’t also inform their Israeli allies, Washington surely breathlessly relayed the information to their Zionist partners.
As soon as they got wind of Zarif’s accepted and well-received arrival in Paris on August 23, Israel immediately went into murderous overdrive, in an effort to change the media’s focus and to try to discredit Iran.
They bombed Syria on August 24, hysterically claiming to have thwarted an "imminent, as in real-time” large scale attack by Iran. That would have certainly left Zarif with a lot of explaining to do at the G7 on August 25… were the accusations true, which they obviously were not.
But Israel will do and say anything to discredit Iran; Israel, of course, is impossible to discredit in the Western media - their pro-Zionism bias is so total and pathetically servile that anything Tel Aviv claims is presented as credible, whereas Tehran is viewed with skepticism if they claim the night sky has clouds and stars.
Israel was not done, because they have to wage constant murder in order to maintain their colonial grip: Two drones crashed in Beirut on August 25, one of them armed and on a kamikaze mission. Tel Aviv is so worried by Iranian victory that they launched their first attack against Lebanon since 2006.
They then bombed Palestinians on August 26, furthering what Lebanon’s president called a “declaration of war”. It’s a reminder that Israel’s crimes against the Iranian people pale in comparison to their genocide against the Palestinians.
The murders show that Israel is ready to bomb and kill merely to change the media’s agenda from even discussing the possibility of peace with Iran: across the Western TV media on August 26 “Iran Detente” was rightly the leading story with “Poor Israel Defends Itself” the fake-news follow-up.
Israel’s leaders have an election coming up next month, and such attacks likely played a part in their decision-making as well, but Tel Aviv remains the most pathetic and the most Godless of the world’s bullies, and their crimes unfairly discredit non-Zionist Jews and Judaism itself.
Give Macron some credit for trying, but what is really changing?
There is confusion about what is changing: The Iranian government’s position has not and will not change - the West must accept the Iranian Islamic Revolution of 1979 and all its sovereign laws and mores. What the G7’s events show is that Europe is being slowly and publicly weaned away from the US-Israeli position of total cold war on Iran.
The EU has always had the power to tip the scales in favor of Iran and Palestine - will they do it? That sounds like a revolution, and the repression of the Yellow Vests shows that the EU’s diplomatic and philosophical tone-setter is decidedly reactionary.
Furthermore, there is a delusion among the non-US parts of the West: they mistakenly believe that they do not profit from an imperialism which they falsely perceive as being entirely waged by only Washington. We can call this the “Canada delusion” - their citizens are among the most jingoistic in the world yet they justify inherently reactionary stances by saying, “But it’s not like we are not the US”. Macron’s attempt to play “good cop” to the “bad cop” in Washington is nothing new - it is “audacious” only to his spokespeople, who are concerned with superficialities and not unjust Iranian suffering.
However, at least Washington correctly grasps that the Iranian Revolution poses a huge threat to their comfortable existence. If true, independent Muslim Democracy ever take root anywhere besides Iran the financial costs to the West would be enormous: No more super low-cost uranium from for French power plants from Mali, no more depressed oil prices, no more compliant puppets in Egypt and all the Arab monarchies. Iran is a threat because it is democratic, genuine and modern - these are all then things the West has fought to prevent in the Muslim world for two centuries.
However, this modern analysis is beyond the ability of the neoliberals in Brussels - they only see Iran as an untapped market they can despoil; they want reconciliation economically and politically because they only see short-term profits and not their long-term neo-imperial culpability. What the EU claims as their motivation for their Iran efforts - that they are desperate to ensure that Iran does not gain a nuclear weapon - is so absurd that it cannot be believed, which gives more credibility to this anti-imperialist/anti-capitalist analysis. Iranian Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons, and he is not about to risk fatally undermining this Islamic practice by all of a sudden rushing for a bomb.
The idea of the binding importance of upholding Islamic mores is, of course, never taken seriously among Western so-called political analysts, nor is it even treated objectively in Western media despite its importance.
But the reality remains the US will never accept Iran for two reasons: Firstly, the US political structure is dominated by lobbies and not votes, morality or national interests, and the pro-Zionist lobby has a stranglehold on any issue regarding the Middle East and Muslim world. As long as Iran refuses to accept the destruction of Palestine this lobby will push American soldiers to destroy Iran. Secondly, the Iranian economy is - in a patriotic, leftist and decidedly anti-neoliberal fashion - totally opposed to any foreign domination/globalization. Until Iran “sells out” its oil companies and industries, the capitalist-imperialist dogma which hysterically motivates Americans from the Pentagon to Wall Street to even Main Street demands that Iran be treated as a threat to American existence.
The opposition of some Principlists, demonized as “hard-liners” to the West, is not really to talks with the US but to the idea that too much talking could lead to backsliding and then concessions on these principles of the modern Iranian nation. Many Reformists share the same concern.
Zarif did what diplomats are supposed to do: talk to enemies during wartime to probe the depth of their deranged commitment to the murder of the Iranian people.
Unlike the West, Iran is not ruled by 18th century bourgeois principles; therefore top diplomats, kings and presidents do not unilaterally decide major policy shifts. The balances of Iranian democracy, its revolutionary post of a Leader who must be far-sighted and patriotic, and a citizenry which is undoubtedly willing to prioritize anti-imperialist, internationalist values (such as the welfare of Sunni, Arab Palestinians) instead of the self-interest promoted by Western individualism all combine to ensure that detente with Washington and Tel Aviv will not be one-sided nor a betrayal of modern Iranian sacrifices.
Talks in weeks would be nice…but such a pleasing daydream was motivated solely by French self-interest.
(The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of islamic-awakening)