By Hanif Ghaffari

It's All About a Complementary Agreement!

April 29, 2018 - 11:13

Finally, Donald Trump and Emmanuel Macron met in Washington, under heavy and extensive propaganda of the Western media.

 Most Western media tried to introduce this visit between Macron and Trump as a courageous move by the French president to save the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)!  While according to existing documents, this visit was actually the last coordination with the President of the United States to fulfil his unreasonable demands in opposition to the JCPOA through a separate agreement.

In other words, the visit of the US and French presidents wasn't for the sake of saving the nuclear deal, but rather to deform it and turn it to a new agreement. Here are some points that should be taken into consideration:

Firstly, since last year, Trump and Macron have been working together on forcing Iran to re-negotiate over the nuclear deal, and thus turn it into an agreement which fulfils the demands of the United States. In other words, Macron has long agreed to change the nuclear deal. He has, by no means, taken any steps to stop the irrational demands of the President of the United States.

 The French president, instead of "restraining the US", has bargained with the White House over the JCPOA. It should not be forgotten that Macron was the first European president who discussed the issue of limiting Iran's missile power, and the need to re-negotiate the so-called Sunset Clauses. In August 2017, Macron made public positions in opposition to the current text of the nuclear accord. On the one hand, he emphasized the importance of preserving the JCPOA, but he never pointed out what his true meaning of "preserving JCPOA" was. Macron and other European officials are actually pursuing a political bargain on a legal case called "the nuclear deal with Iran". "Changing the JCPOA", under the pretext of "preserving the JCPOA" is the one subject that has been repeatedly taken into consideration by European authorities over the last year.

Therefore, "real commitment to the nuclear accord as it was agreed upon", has not been intended by American and French officials from the beginning.  Before the members of the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives, Macron has mentioned that his country doesn't walk out of the JCPOA, but this sentence doesn’t necessarily mean that France is to remain committed to the current nuclear accord, since he resorted that France was after a more comprehensive agreement with Iran in this regard.

The second point is that though talks between American and European officials have continued in recent weeks, the President of the United States and his national security adviser, John Bolton, have not yet announced their final decision on the JCPOA and how to deal with this agreement, but almost all the Western media agree that the draft of a supplementary agreement on the JCPOA has been accepted by American and European diplomats. The talks between the Western authorities were mainly focused on three subjects: "inspection of Iranian military sites, the removal of so-called Sunset Clauses, and limiting Iran's missile power."

Third, the talks between Washington and the European troika over reforming the nuclear deal have been met by the reaction of both China and Russia. Meanwhile, Moscow has revealed most explicit reaction. The Russian envoy to the United Nations said that since negotiations on the fate of the nuclear deal with Iran have taken place between the United States, Britain, France and Germany, and other members of the P5+1 had no role in them, Moscow will not be obliged to be committed to these negotiation's outcome.

Chinese officials have also said they will stick to the current nuclear accord under any circumstances. However, the main question is, what role would this probable agreement between Washington and the European troika play in this equation?

Obviously the agreement reached between the United States and Europe has no credibility and is in no way considered authentic by Iran, Russia and China. That's because this agreement was based on changing the JCPOA. All that is referred to in the complementary agreement by the Western countries is in conflict with the objectives of the JCPOA, and hence, it can't be credible and authentic.

A new agreement on all three subjects (removing the so-called Sunset Clauses, limiting Iran's missile capabilities, and inspection of our country's military sites) is in conflict with the original and comprehensive texture of the nuclear accord. And since Iran, Russia and China haven't participated in these negotiations and don't recognize them as legal, the outcome won't be performable. This is spite the fact that Western media are trying to pretend that signing a complementary agreement between Washington and the European Troika on the JCPOA is quite normal and legal!

Indeed, it's necessary for our diplomacy apparatus and foreign policy system to condemn any complementary agreement that is in contradiction with the nuclear accord (JCPOA) along with China and Russia, and declare that such secondary agreements are legally and politically unacceptable. Obviously, at this time, the European troika is trying to assume a "devoted gesture", and hide its bargain with the United States under terms such as "attempts for saving the nuclear deal". Here it is necessary for the Iranian authorities to explicitly address the European troika and their representatives and to condemn them for their policies in bargaining with Trump over the nuclear deal, and also for their lack of commitment to their main responsibility, namely restraining the US in regard of the JCPOA.  

Leave a Comment

2 + 1 =