Essay on Etemad Newspaper February 19, 2023 -
The original text is in Persian and the following translation was done by Ai.
In recent years, given the centrality of the nuclear issue and the subsequent sanctions imposed on Iran, the very issue of diplomacy as a solution to the problem has become a matter of disagreement between different political tendencies in the country: The basic question in this regard is whether diplomacy is an implicit and marginal matter that should be carried out in a formal manner or is it the tip of the arrow of the country's foreign policy, and especially given the current conditions in Iran, the main solution to the problem?
Of course, even on a deeper level, what is the independent and dependent variable in the country's fundamental issues and challenges was itself a topic of discussion that was raised in the last elections, but given the failure to revive the JCPOA in the new government, despite the existence of problems in other areas, foreign policy is increasingly recognized as the main bottleneck in solving problems in the country, even among those who are compatible with the government.
However, the previous question still stands: Should the problem of sanctions be resolved by lifting them, or is cooperation with other countries possible and problematic despite the existence of sanctions? And should diplomacy be used as the main tool to lift sanctions, or is our view of diplomacy minimal and limited to observing formal relations? Different answers to these questions can make a significant difference in adopting solutions: If diplomacy is the country's main hope for lifting sanctions, then choosing an experienced diplomat is inevitable, otherwise, simply observing formal relations and expressing positions does not require an expert in this profession. Furthermore, the initiative and initiative of diplomacy requires creativity and, above all, requires authority and support. The support and authority that is given to a diplomat or a capable and expert diplomatic team is commensurate with the mission that is given to them, and in addition to the authority to make decisions, support will be more effective in preventing sabotage and the influence of external factors.
For example, if in the military industry, despite all the care and expertise, an event causes damage in any way, the destruction of the design or production site, and even the death of the affected people, while investigating the circumstances of the accident, the principle of the aforementioned activity continues. Or as another example, with the emergence of a security hole and significant damage to a nuclear site, efforts are made to close down or not to include the security or nuclear work, but to continue, and efforts are repeated to draw conclusions from it and insist on doing it.
In the case of diplomacy, if we pay attention to similar cases in the world, we find that this is the case, and following the imposition of the effect of external factors on the work of an agreement, diplomacy is not closed, but rather an effort is made again to remove the obstacles that have arisen, return to the main track and continue moving: we can see this even with the entry of a factor such as Donald Trump and his unpredictable and unwise policies regarding the NAFTA agreement with American partners, the United States, the Paris Agreement, and the issue of tariffs with China. Whether during Trump's presence or after his departure from the White House, these cases, like other examples not mentioned, have returned to the original path with the actions of interested parties and efforts have been made to prevent further damage. Regarding the JCPOA and its revival for any reason, the country's macro policy during the Trump era was not to negotiate with the US government. However, with the change of government in Washington, it was appropriate to take advantage of the momentum of change and in the very first weeks and months, even if formally, a path to returning to the implementation of the JCPOA was agreed upon by all parties and the issue was removed from the identity category, but this did not happen and despite reaching a suitable point for a revival agreement, this was not possible. With the change of government and the negotiating team, this matter has not only not been accomplished, but has also been essentially dropped from the scope of application until further notice due to other factors that occurred in the international environment.
It does not matter whether a negotiation reaches a conclusion or not, that even if all kinds of professionalism and honesty are shown by one side, the other side may hinder progress on this path. But the issue that should be addressed and given importance is our view of effective action in the international environment, and especially on this specific issue: If we were to act professionally and fully in this path, in our own way and in the manner mentioned, and like other cases, try again to return our project - which was first to prevent the securitization of Iran and, consequently, the normalization of the country in the international environment and the opening up of energy and economic relations, etc. - to the initial and main path that we agreed on, it was necessary to first enter the scene with an approach that agrees with what we had done at the sovereign and national levels, and secondly, to advance this issue with the maximum specialized capacity of the country.
Untying the knot of sanctions and preventing their increase was in everyone's interest; especially since today it is clear to everyone that neither cooperation with neighbors under sanctions can solve the country's economic problems, nor can other powerful countries such as China engage in much economic cooperation with Iran beyond meeting their needs - especially in the form of investment - under sanctions.
However, today, given Russia's attack on Ukraine and the accusation or rumor of Iran's drone cooperation with the Putin government, it can be said that the possibility of effective dialogue in the field of revitalizing the JCPOA is less than ever. Because on the one hand, returning to the JCPOA commitments has a high cost in public opinion for European governments, and on the other hand, it has a high and definite cost and a low and possible benefit for the Biden administration in the field of domestic politics and upcoming election competitions.
In other words, today the world is a different environment in which revitalizing the JCPOA is not a priority, and of course, we have borne and will bear the greatest and most direct cost from this failure to revive it.
Etemad Link
File
