Yes? "Workable basis on which to negotiate" generally does not include things that directly contradict existing agreements, though. I am pointing to "Almost all of the various points of past contention have been agreed to" to establish that he's claiming some agreement on the past points of contention that matter.
If the "workable basis for future negotiation" contradicts that agreement, then someone is lying about something.
> "Workable basis on which to negotiate" generally does not include things that directly contradict existing agreements, though.
I disagree, and don't understand why you see it that way. Of course each side's negotiating position includes things they couldn't get before. The point of negotiating is to get things they didn't have before.
I'm just not sure how to respond to this, because this criticism doesn't seem to actually address the point. I suppose I could have communicated poorly, but I'm not sure how I could have been more clear.
"Almost all of the past points of contention have been agreed to" is pretty specific language, that indicates a new negotiation. What does "have already been agreed to" mean?
Do you think Trump was referring to an agreement that was in place prior to the war? If so, why did the war happen at all?
Do you think he was referring to future negotiations? "Have been agreed to" would be an odd way to phrase that.
Do you think he was referring to an agreement that lifts sanctions and permits uranium enrichment? That's #1, US lost.
Do you think he was referring to an agreement that contradicts the public 10-point proposal? That's #2, everyone lost.
Do you think that was just something he said, that doesn't have any truth behind it? That's #3, he's lying.
Do you think he was referring to negotiations that did not include uranium enrichment or sanctions? That's #4, he's using an obvious bad-faith rhetorical trick to stall.
Do you think he was referring to something not in one of those categories? Then what?
> Do you think Trump was referring to an agreement that was in place prior to the war?
Either this, or else: "agreeing to a point of contention" simply means agreeing that it is a point of contention, not agreeing about how it should be resolved.
> If so, why did the war happen at all?
Because of some combination of:
* there were new points of contention;
* some few unresolved old points of contention became more salient.
If the "workable basis for future negotiation" contradicts that agreement, then someone is lying about something.