Tehran, June 18, The Iran Project - Nowadays, negotiation is the best diplomatic tool to deal with the international affairs and the Iran's nuclear talks isn't an exception to this principle.

There is no question that Iran's diplomatic delegation led by Mohammad Javad Zarif has masterfully negotiated the Iran's concessions since despite the previously vague recognition of the right to uranium enrichment and five resolutions by the Security Council to sanction Tehran, now it has secured not only its nuclear right but also its legitimacy.

The above notion, however, doesn’t mean that the Western side should be trusted enough, irrespective of how satisfactory is the proposed deal. The nuclear breakthrough and any accord between Iran and P5+1 over finalizing the deal should be indisputably met with skepticism. In rest of this text, it is firmly believed that both the European and the US willing, together with some structural barriers are the reasons why any final nuclear agreement should be dealt with doubt.

US and Europeans records

In October 2003, in negotiations with EU-3 including France, Germany and United Kingdom, Iran agreed to correct all the past safeguards failures, to suspend all uranium enrichment, to ease all IAEA concerns and to ratify the Additional Protocol.

In return for this transparency and suspension, Iran received little things. Although EU3 had recognized that Iran voluntarily suspended the enrichment, it never honored its recognition of Paris agreement of November 2004 that "Iran's right under NPT implemented in conformity with its obligation". Later, EU3 simply tried to prolong Iran's suspension by dragging the fruitless negotiations. As such, the deal finally collapsed in January 2006 and then the EU3 reported to the United Nations for the failure in fulfilling the commitments.

US also has long history of breaching international treaties particularly when it finds them challenging to its interests.

A brief look at the US history in the Middle East not long ago, clearly proves how it sacrifices the rules when it deems necessary. The last example of this is the US so-called fact sheet published after the Lausanne deal in last April. While the only joint document issued publicly was a statement from Javad Zarif, Iran's Foreign Minister and Federica Mogherini, the European Union foreign policy chief, the US also published a fact sheet, detailing its account of the agreement.

] This statement raised many questions and indicates number of notable differences with the document particularly over the issue of the time for removing sanctions. The move was called "spin" by Dr.Zarif, and as he stated the US fact sheet had been provided under the Israeli and congressional pressure.

Apart from such seemingly unstable position by the US and other instances, there are some structural impediments which may put any possible nuclear deal in danger. Under the US constitution, Congress plays a notable role to ratify any international agreement, while the president only negotiates it.

In addition to this constitutional obligation, President Obama has lately signed a compromise bill, providing the Congress with a voice on the nuclear deal with Iran. This legislation clearly means that the Congress is allowed to vote on the final deal and has the authority to veto the sanction's termination or suspension.

These structural provisions indicate how limited is the Obama's power in international decision-making and specifically in case of nuclear talks with Iran.

The Single solution

The truth is that no matter what deal emerges with the US and the great powers, the prospect of the nuclear accord seems blurred. In short, the serious challenges are on one hand, how Iran has to make sure that the Western side doesn't comply with the same old policy of deception and on the other hand what would guarantee that the US Congress doesn't veto any proposed deal?

Such ambiguities leaves Iran with a single choice: to strongly insist on the immediate sanctions termination and not suspension once the deal is reached, as it has restated in all rounds of negotiations.