The diplomatic expert said: We should not consider the will and position of the United States and Europe in the negotiations to revive the JCPOA to be the same or even similar. In the current situation, Europe has more desire, will, and interests in reviving the JCPOA, and therefore regularly takes the initiative to mediate, but the United States, with its heterogeneous power, unfavorable government conditions, and the upcoming elections in November, will likely act with a stick because the Biden administration will have more costs and less benefits in reviving the JCPOA than Europe, which has the opposite conditions, especially in the context of the war in Ukraine and the threat from Russia.
Sasan Karimi, a researcher at the Faculty of World Studies at the University of Tehran, in an interview with an ILNA reporter, in response to the question: What is your assessment of the current state of the negotiations? Considering that a session was held in the parliament yesterday with the presence of Mr. Shamkhani, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Mr. Bagheri, and according to one of the representatives, the political decision of the Iranian government has been made, how will the negotiations proceed now? He said: It seems that Iran has made its decision to revive the JCPOA with a non-controversial level of reservation. Of course, with the passage of considerable time and numerous rounds of negotiations, it seems that there are not many details left for negotiation. Regarding the remaining issues, which are reportedly two to three items, Iran has adjusted its position in some cases and therefore expects the other side to show flexibility on the remaining ones. Therefore, without knowing the contents of Iran’s response, it seems that what was called by one of the European officials as Iran’s “conditional acceptance” of the European proposal is correct.
In response to the question of what your analysis of Mr. Ulyanov's words about the guarantee of cooperation with Iran being taken from the other side, Karimi said: The fact is that the meaning of guarantee must be clarified. In international law, agreements, contracts, and resolutions are "binding." But this does not mean that they are "guaranteed." We all remember the positions and discussions surrounding this issue. What is certain is that no legal guarantee can be expected from any party in the JCPOA to implement the remaining obligation. He clarified: There is no guarantee even for Iran to remain in the JCPOA, and Iran and any other member can immediately withdraw from the JCPOA and any other agreement at their own will, but they must accept its consequences. Naturally, the nature of the JCPOA and international equations make the consequences different for Iran and the United States. At the same time, the violation or withdrawal by the US was not without consequences, and it is enough that without withdrawing from the JCPOA or violating it, Iran was able to continuously improve its nuclear capability under the compensatory measures seen in the text of the JCPOA.
Karimi said: But the US promise or written commitment may be considered as a guarantee, which of course increases the credit cost of the current US administration to withdraw from the JCPOA (which is not foreseen). Of course, it also increases the motivation of the next possible extremist movement that comes to power for this withdrawal. In addition, such promises will have a more symbolic aspect.
In response to the question of what behavior the US should show now, given that Iran has announced that it has made its political decision, is it now America's turn to decide? What will America's political decisions be like, Karimi said: We really don't know. Because we don't even know exactly what Iran's response was. If the US has enough will, it will try to use the will and determination of Europe on this issue and show a similar flexibility to what Iran has done.
He added: The main difference between what the American team has to do and what Iran has done is the internal atmosphere of the country. The internal atmosphere in Iran in society, the ruling party and even the opposition party generally agree with the conclusion of the negotiations to revive the JCPOA. But the team present in the US is once again experiencing an atmosphere similar to what we had in the country in 2016. Because conservatives, moderate Republicans, as well as some Democrats, Israeli lobbies, some Arab advisors, etc. have severely pressured the American team. Therefore, the US Democratic government may not have much room to maneuver in the negotiations and finalize them.
Karimi emphasized: We should not consider the will and position of the US and Europe in the negotiations to revive the JCPOA to be the same or even similar. In the current situation, Europe has a greater desire, will, and interest in reviving the JCPOA, and therefore regularly takes the initiative to mediate. However, the United States, with its unbalanced power, unfavorable government conditions, and the upcoming elections in November, will likely act with a stick, as the Biden administration will have more costs and fewer benefits in reviving the JCPOA than Europe, which has the opposite situation, especially in the context of the war in Ukraine and the threat from Russia.
In response to the question of what your analysis of the package proposed by Europe to the American side regarding the lifting of secondary sanctions, the issue of providing guarantees, and the resolution of the Agency issue with Iran in a constructive and positive manner, and whether Iran's demands will be met, this diplomatic analyst said: I consider Europe's efforts to be more than anything a product of Europe's conditions on the issue of energy and its sales market. This, of course, will also seriously cause America's efforts and greed to gain concessions from Europe. Let us remember that America is the biggest winner of the current energy situation and the Ukrainian war in the international environment, and one of America's most important wins is the increase in its hegemony over Europe, both in terms of security and energy.
He added: The issue of guarantees seems more symbolic than effective. The issue of safeguards and the Agency is somewhat ambiguous. It seems that we should have tried more than anything to cite a text similar to Article 14 of the JCPOA text and repeat the same regarding the new accusations. Another important point in this case is to strengthen the technical, legal and political specialized team of the Atomic Energy Organization as the main custodian of interaction with the Agency, in which case it will not be impossible to remove these obstacles before or after the revival of the JCPOA.
ILNA Link
File
