Tasnim– A Berlin-based independent scholar and political commentator said renewal of anti-Tehran sanctions, known as the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA), is “clearly a violation” of US obligations under the JCPOA as the nuclear agreement has been reflected in a UN Security Council resolution.





“The renewal of the ISA and its extension for ten more years by the US Congress is clearly a violation of the US’s commitments under the JCPOA. As verified by the UN Security Council and the other parties of the P5+1, Iran has so far met all of its commitments under the agreement,” Wahid Azal told the Tasnim New Agency.

Following is the full text of the interview.

Tasnim: As you know, the US Senate on Thursday passed a 10-year extension of sanctions against Iran, sending the measure to the White House for President Barack Obama to sign into law. Members of Congress and administration officials have said the renewal of the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA) would not violate the nuclear agreement with Iran reached last year. Do you think so? What might the future hold as the move by the GOP-controlled House came after Republican Donald Trump won the election last month?

Azal: The renewal of the ISA and its extension for ten more years by the US Congress is clearly a violation of the US’s commitments under the JCPOA. As verified by the UN Security Council and the other parties of the P5+1, Iran has so far met all of its commitments under the agreement. As such nothing other than pressure by Israel and the Zionist lobby, as well as the bad faith which is America’s historically predictable modus operandi on the international scene, explains it.

With the most right-wing Tea Party/NeoCon elements of the US Republican Party now in control of the two major branches of government -- the legislative and the executive --  there is no question that the United States will be moving into a far more confrontational stance than we have ever seen with Iran as of 20 January 2017. The seeds of this were already laid well before the 2016 campaign almost before the ink was dry on the agreement itself. During the campaign, Trump outright said he would tear up the JCPOA agreement. So Iran can expect unprecedented belligerence from the US and the Zionist settler colony.

Tasnim: Two weeks ago, Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Khamenei said extension of expired sanctions is a breach of the JCPOA commitments, stressing that Iran will definitely respond. “‘Starting a sanction (from the scratch)’ is no different from ‘renewing it after its expiration’, and the latter is (also an example of imposing) sanctions and a violation of the previous commitments undertaken by the opposite side,” he said. Do you believe that the US is going back on its promises?

Azal: The Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Khamenei, is absolutely correct that starting a sanction after its expiration is a violation of the agreement. The point made by him echoes one of the jurisprudential hallmarks of international law in the principle known as pacta sunt servanda, i.e. that treatises must be observed, or kept, in good faith. Given this, by extending the sanctions the United States is 100% reneging on its commitments because there is no reason for renewing sanctions on Iran when the US Security Council has signed off on Iran’s observance of the agreement made in Vienna last year.

Tasnim: As you know, under the deal, all nuclear-related sanctions imposed on Iran by the European Union, the Security Council and the US should be lifted. Iran has, in return, put some limitations on its nuclear activities. So far JCPOA obligations have not been fulfilled. What repercussions will it have?  What should Iran and other parties involved in the deal do?

Azal: Since the JCPOA agreement is not solely between the US and Iran, where other parties besides the USA are signatory to this agreement, Iran has legal options open to it as the first resort, such as the Security Council as well as the International Court at the Hague. However, if it appears that the other major parties, especially the EU, are likewise reneging on their side of the agreement in some instances, in many cases under US pressure, so legally Iran is entitled and within its rights to henceforth consider the agreement to be null and void.

The repercussions of course will be more strident bellicosity from the United States and perhaps its European allies –- although this remains to be seen, especially from the Germans who are balking under the US’s duplicity in this regard. The US may  attempt a military option of some sort if Iran announces unilateral withdrawal from the agreement. However, as everyone knows, Iran is also well prepared for such a scenario. Be that as it may, social media online and the Western corporate controlled  press have recently begun ratcheting up their “regime change” rhetoric. Given this, as we are seeing this agreement unravel before our eyes, the authorities in the Islamic Republic of Iran should be doubly vigilant by taking extra, unprecedented measures internally. We have entered some very dangerous times now.