EU’s poor record in JCPOA

MNA | Mohammad Ghaderi: The European troika are still insisting on having negotiations over a second or complementary agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

After the withdrawal of the United States of America from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) despite the official support of the European troika and those like “Federica Mogherini”, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs, the unreasonable demands of European authorities over the conditions set by Trump, including “limiting Iran’s missile power”, “controlling Iran’s Regional Activities”, “Inspection of Iranian Military sites and permanent nuclear restrictions after 2025” remain strong.

Thus “preserving the JCPOA”, doesn’t necessarily mean the European authorities support for the nuclear deal as it is. And this point should be seriously taken into consideration in our country’s foreign policy equations. On the other hand, the Western media maneuvers in this regard should be smartly pursued, and there’s no place for a mistake in this regard.

Some Western media believe that the JCPOA without the cooperation of the United States is no longer valid. Because with the introduction of secondary sanctions, practically other European countries won’t be able to have an effective economic engagement with Iran. However, some other media speak about the possibility of preserving the JCPOA without the United States. In any case, the European troika, along with the two countries of China and Russia, should officially guarantee this position, and declare their commitments to Iran in this regard.

Decoding the recent positions of Western officials can play an effective role in understanding the European troika’s demands on the “new JCPOA”. During his visit to the United States, the British Foreign Minister Boris Johnson, once again proved London’s direct play on Washington’s ground. Johnson first wrote at the beginning of a note in The New York Times:

“I believe that keeping the deal’s constraints on Iran’s nuclear program will also help counter Tehran’s aggressive regional behavior. I am sure of one thing: every available alternative is worse. The wisest course would be to improve the handcuffs rather than break them.”

The British Foreign Secretary then uncovered his true face, and instead of “restraining Trump’s nuclear ambitions”, he stressed:

What has been gained from the nuclear deal? Imagine all the mutually contaminating civil wars and internecine conflicts that rage across the Middle East today. Then turn the dial and add the possibility of a regional nuclear arms race triggered by Iran dashing for a bomb. That is the scenario which the agreement has helped to prevent….It has weaknesses, certainly, but I am convinced they can be remedied. Indeed at this moment Britain is working alongside the Trump administration and our French and German allies to ensure that they are.

As we can see, European officials are trying to make public opinion ready for accepting new limitations on the nuclear deal. Meanwhile, limiting Iran’s missile power is considered to be the main demand of the West.

Last summer and during the United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York, senior British officials were committed to American and Zionist authorities to do their best to “change the nuclear accord”, or “cancelling it”. In other words, British officials have promised Trump and Netanyahu to accept their final decision, even if it didn’t agree with the JCPOA. In this period, the European troika is attempting to implement the “JCPOA without US” formula, based on “Iran’s greater commitment” compared with “less commitment” of the West.

The fact is that US Congress and government authorities didn’t really consider the JCPPOA as an “independent phenomenon,” but defined it as one of the pieces of the puzzle of “controlling and restraining the powerful Iran”. On this basis, the JCPOA was supposed to be merely an “introduction”, or a “symbol” for controlling Iran’s immense power. In the negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 members in November 2014, John Kerry tried to attach a “nuclear-missile” dimension to this “introduction”, so that it would not be limited to Iran’s nuclear capability. Even it has reached a point that the United States has made the resolution of Iran’s nuclear case subject to the inclusion of the country’s missile power in the agreement.

However, the wise and determined positions of the Leader of the Islamic Revolution eventually led to the withdrawal of Obama administration from this demand. However, at the same time, Democrats in the United States emphasized that the project would be incomplete without imposing a limitation on Iran’s missile power. This is a formula that is already followed by Europe.

Even during the time when nuclear negotiations were held, the European troika (Britain, Germany and France) agreed that Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities complement each other, and limiting of one of these two without the other will not decrease the regional power of Iran to the extent they had in mind. In 2015, however, the European troika and the White House Democrats concluded that Iran’s missile power could become the second priority of Iran’s negotiations with the members of the P5+1, and then in the near future the issue of limiting our country’s missile power could be discussed. The British Foreign Minister Boris Johnson, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel all emphasized that according to the European troika, believes the issue of “limiting Iran’s missile power” should be included in the text of the nuclear accord in any way possible.

The French, German and British authorities has repeatedly expressed their concerns about the missile power of our country. That well indicates their common agreement on limiting our country’s defensive power, and the European troika seeks to enter into negotiations with our country in this regard. Hence we should carefully and smartly watch the positions of the European Union, and especially the three countries of Germany, France and Britain on Iran’s nuclear and missile programs to be able to take the proper decision and measures.

Now that Trump has walked out of the JCPOA, there is no longer any place for issues such as “complementary” and “secondary” agreements. In the meantime, the European troika should be committed to the strict implementation of the content of the nuclear deal as it stands, and it should provide Iran with the necessary economic guarantees. It’s obvious that our nation will never allow the Europeans to impose the “JCPOAII” through the smile tactic, and our country’s foreign policy system should make sure that the European authorities well understood this issue.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *