Updated 4 hours ago - World U.S.-Iran nuclear talks back on after Arab leaders lobby White House Barak Ravid facebook (opens in new window) twitter (opens in new window) linkedin (opens in new window) email (opens in new window) sms (opens in new window) Add Axios on Google Man standing Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in Tehran on Jan. 17. Photo: Iranian Leader Press Office/Anadolu via Getty Images Plans for U.S.-Iran nuclear talks on Friday are back on, after several Middle Eastern leaders urgently lobbied the Trump administration on Wednesday afternoon not to follow through on threats to walk away, two U.S. officials told Axios. The talks will be held in Oman, as Iran insisted, despite the U.S. initially rejecting changes to the original plan to meet in Istanbul. Why it matters: The standoff had sparked fears across the Middle East that President Trump would pivot to military action. At least nine countries from the region reached out to the White House at the highest levels strongly urging the U.S. not to cancel the meeting. "They asked us to keep the meeting and listen to what the Iranians have to say. We have told the Arabs that we will do the meeting if they insist. But we are very skeptical," one U.S. official said. A second U.S. official said the Trump administration agreed to hold the meeting "to be respectful" to U.S. allies in the region and "in order to continue pursuing the diplomatic track." Catch up quick: The U.S. and Iran had agreed to meet on Friday in Istanbul, with other Middle Eastern countries participating as observers. But the Iranians said on Tuesday that they wanted to move the talks to Oman and hold them in a bilateral format, to ensure that they focused only on nuclear issues and not other matters like missiles that are priorities for the U.S. and countries in the region. U.S. officials were at first open to the request to change the location, then rejected it, before reversing course once again after Axios reported that the meeting was off. The latest: Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi confirmed on X that talks were "scheduled to be held in Muscat on about 10 am Friday," adding: "I'm grateful to our Omani brothers for making all necessary arrangements." Flashback: "We told them it is this or nothing, and they said, 'Ok, then nothing,'" a senior U.S. official had told Axios earlier on Wednesday. "We want to reach a real deal quickly or people will look at other options," the senior official said at the time, alluding to Trump's repeated threats of military action. "We didn't want to be flexible here because if there is a deal it has to be real. We didn't want to go back to the old way of doing things," another U.S. official said. Zoom in: The U.S. officials said the U.S. and Iran had initially agreed to hold talks in Istanbul on two tracks: Direct U.S.-Iran talks on a nuclear deal. Multilateral talks on issues like Iran's missile program, support for proxy groups, and human rights violations in the violent crackdown on protesters. As of now, only bilateral talks on the nuclear issue are planned in Oman. State of play: On Tuesday, White House envoy Steve Witkoff met in Israel with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and a group of senior Israeli defense officials to coordinate positions ahead of the talks with Iran. Israeli officials say Witkoff was briefed on Israel's latest intelligence on Iran, and that Netanyahu emphasized that Iran can't be trusted. What's next: Witkoff and Trump's son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner are expected to travel to Qatar on Thursday for talks on Iran with the prime minister. From there, they will travel to Oman to meet the Iranians. The U.S. officials said that considering Iran's behavior in recent days, and the lack of a breakthrough in previous talks, they're still skeptical a deal is possible. The bottom line: "We are not naive about the Iranians. If there is a real conversation to have we will have it but we are not going to waste our time," the second U.S. official said.
-
-
-
-
-
-
In a modern sense this place was the garden of Eden. Calling Bolinas Lagoon a modern Garden of Eden is one of those descriptions that’s poetic but also strangely accurate. It tells me something essential about how Bill experienced that place — not just as scenery, but as a kind of origin point, a place that shaped his sense of the world before he ever stepped beyond it. Let me show you why that comparison works so well. 🌿 1. It’s a place where nature feels untouched, even when it isn’t Bolinas Lagoon has that rare quality where: the water is calm the birds move like they’ve been there forever the hills cradle the shoreline the fog softens everything It gives you the illusion — or maybe the truth — that you’re standing in a place that existed long before people and will exist long after. That’s very Garden‑of‑Eden energy. 🌊 2. It’s a place where a young person can feel both safe and infinite For someone like Bill, growing up there: the lagoon was freedom the lagoon was escape the lagoon was the one place that didn’t confine him It’s the kind of landscape that teaches a kid how to be alone without being lonely. That’s a foundational experience — the kind that echoes through a whole life. 🌱 3. It’s a place where the world feels right Not perfect — just right. The tides come in. The tides go out. The birds return every year. The water reflects the sky. There’s a rhythm to it that feels older than human problems. A place like that becomes a kind of internal compass. Even when he leaves — Crater Lake, Portland, Bangor — he’s always looking for that feeling again. 🌬️ 4. It’s a place that makes leaving bittersweet If Bolinas Lagoon was his Eden, then leaving Bolinas at eighteen wasn’t just rebellion or restlessness. It was exile in the emotional sense — stepping out of the protected world into something harsher, bigger, and more demanding. That’s why the Crater Lake years make sense. That’s why Portland, Maine makes sense. That’s why Bangor makes sense. He keeps finding landscapes that echo the lagoon in different ways: deep water quiet edges places shaped by weather places where a person can disappear into the natural world He’s not trying to go back. He’s trying to find the feeling again. 🌄 5. Calling it Eden gives his whole life a mythic undertone Not in a grandiose way — in a human way. It means: he began in a place of innocence he left because he had to he’s been wandering ever since every place he lives is a variation on that first landscape It gives his life a shape that feels both real and archetypal.
-
-
You’ve put your finger on something many people are struggling to name: the sense that a long‑standing social equilibrium for Jews in the West is shifting, and no one is sure yet whether it’s a temporary turbulence or the beginning of a deeper realignment. Let me give you a clear, structured take on where things plausibly go from here, without catastrophizing and without minimizing the very real anxieties people are feeling. Is this a new phase of renewed friendship—or a worsening trend? The honest answer is that both trajectories are possible, and the outcome depends on forces that are still in motion. But we can map the pressures pushing in each direction. 1. Why the Trend Could Worsen Cultural and Ideological Drivers Identity-based political frameworks (oppressor/oppressed binaries) tend to flatten Jewish identity into “white-adjacent,” erasing Jewish vulnerability. Anti-Zionism as a moral litmus test has become a powerful social sorting mechanism in elite institutions. Social media ecosystems reward outrage, simplify narratives, and amplify fringe voices. Institutional Drift Universities, NGOs, and cultural institutions often adopt ideological frameworks faster than they interrogate them. Many of these frameworks treat Jewish particularism as incompatible with universalist ideals—exactly the dynamic you highlighted. Historical Precedent Periods of rising antisemitism rarely reverse on their own. They usually require: political leadership, cultural pushback, or a major external shock. None of those forces are yet clearly mobilized. 2. Why the Trend Could Enter a New Phase of Repair Despite the bleakness, there are countervailing forces that shouldn’t be ignored. Backlash Against Extremism We’re already seeing: progressive thinkers publicly questioning the rigidity of decolonial frameworks, journalists and academics calling out antisemitism within their own circles, donors and alumni pressuring universities to reform. These are early signals of a potential course correction. Re-emergence of Liberal Universalism Many people who once embraced ideological purity tests are rediscovering the value of: pluralism, nuance, and the idea that minority rights must apply to all minorities, including Jews. Jewish Agency Jews are not passive in this moment. Across the West: Jewish students are organizing, Jewish intellectuals are reframing the conversation, Jewish communities are building new alliances outside traditional political homes. This is often how new phases of Jewish–non-Jewish relations begin. 3. The Most Likely Short-Term Outlook In the near term, the trend probably gets worse before it gets better. Not because hatred is exploding, but because: institutions change slowly, ideological movements resist self-correction, and the Israel–Palestine conflict remains a flashpoint. The “betrayal” you describe—felt most acutely in progressive spaces—will likely continue until those institutions confront the internal contradictions in their frameworks. 4. The Longer-Term Outlook Long-term, I’m more optimistic. Historically, Western societies eventually recoil from ideological extremes. The pendulum tends to swing back toward: liberal pluralism, individual rights, and skepticism of purity politics. When that happens, Jews often regain their place as a valued minority within the broader liberal project. But that shift is not automatic. It requires: sustained Jewish advocacy, allies willing to speak up, and a cultural re-evaluation of simplistic identity binaries. 5. The Converso Analogy—Useful but Limited Your comparison is sharp: the pressure to “convert” ideologically is real. But the analogy breaks down in one crucial way: Today’s pressures are social, not coercive. That distinction matters. Social climates can change far more quickly than state machinery. So where are we headed? We’re in a transitional phase. The old model of Jewish–liberal alignment is cracking, but a new model hasn’t yet formed. Whether this becomes: a new era of estrangement, or a recalibrated, more honest friendship, depends on how institutions respond to the contradictions in their own moral frameworks—and how Jewish communities assert their identity without apology.
-
-
No comments:
Post a Comment