By Mohammad Ghaderi

JCPOA; legal case or subject for Western Authorities bargain?

May 5, 2018 - 10:45

As we're approaching the 12th of May, more diverse analyzes and opinions are raised by Western politicians and media on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and that how would the U.S. government deal with it.

 U.S. President Donald Trump announced that he will walk out of the nuclear deal with Iran in two weeks. French President Emmanuel Macron also mentioned that his attempt to persuade Trump to remain as part of the JCPOA has failed, and probably the U.S. president will withdraw from the nuclear accord. However, most Western media and news sources reported that talks between Washington and the European troika on the JCPOA still continues. These talks are taking place between European and American experts and foreign ministry officials.

 This is while 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 hadn't participated in these negotiations and doesn'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!

But right now the main question here is, to what extent are these talks considering the legal part of the issue? Is "the JCPOA" discussed as an "independent legal agreement"? Or is it regarded as a "political document" and a beneficial subject among Western players? Here are some points that requires attention:

Western sources reported that Trump was indifferent to the talks of European and American experts in a meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron on changing the JCPOA. He has announced that he wasn't basically aware of the details of these talks! This is while Bryan Hook, on behalf of the U.S. Department of State, has begun intensive talks with European authorities on the JCPOA and how to change it.

 Then Trump's words indicate that the U.S. President has already taken his decision, and even the "legal agreement between American and European experts" has no importance for him." In other words, Trump's decision on the nuclear deal with Iran has a completely "political" and "predetermined" nature. Therefore, Trump and his government don't look at the nuclear accord as a legal agreement. Interestingly, the European troika also has the same approach towards the nuclear deal.

 They focus on the JCPOA merely as a "political agreement", and accordingly, don't care about bringing change to its content, clauses and its nature. The agreement of the three countries of Britain, France and Germany on reviewing the JCPOA, and their negotiations with the United States aimed at changing the nuclear deal, can be interpreted in the same vein.

 Newsweek has recently pointed out a considerable subject in the bargains made among the U.S. and European troika over the JCPOA. It is written in the article that if President Trump, is seeking an agreement with Pyongyang in the real sense of the word, he should "devour" European proposals for the nuclear deal. This analytical approach is raised and regarded in most Western media: That the JCPOA is actually a joint game between the United States and the European Union, and is considered a determining factor in the future developments in the international system.

 Here the talks aren't about sticking to the JCPOA as an independent legal agreement, rather regarding it in the framework of a "political deal". Interestingly, the United States and the European troika aren't basically concerned with the legal background of the nuclear accord (United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231), since they can get out of it using their veto power in dealing with the JCPOA. Of course, the Western authorities have considerations about the costs and consequences of this action, but these considerations are also "political", and not "legal"!

 The reality is that the United States and the European Union continue to regard themselves as "great powers" in the world, and their confrontation with the JCPOA is from this perspective. This was a term used in the post Napoleon Europe for the first time.

Today, the United States and European players are stuck in the same illusion! They continue to claim that they "have the right to enforce or refrain from implementing international agreements", regardless of its legal consequences. And they can change an agreement or stop it in the form of a joint political decision. They consider the JCPOA as a subject for "bargain", and that's because the Americans and their European allies have never considered themselves to be responsible for following the legal rules resulted from the international developments.

 But these "great powers" should not forget that today they're faced with a powerful player called the Islamic Republic of Iran. Islamic Republic of Iran will never accept the "unilateral agreement of Western players on the JCPOA", and is going to seriously response to the "violation of the nuclear accord" by American and Europeans. Undoubtedly, any direct or indirect measures taken by the foreign policy system of our country which confirms the American and European troika's "superiority" illusion and the "Western political attitude towards the JCPOA", will be condemned.

 Today, the time has come to send strong signals to Washington and Europe. The regret of the United States and the European troika about their lack of commitment to the JCPOA must become a historic lesson for Western politicians in the near future. In this equation, silence against the U.S. and EU treasons towards the JCPOA will be in no way tolerable.

Leave a Comment

4 + 14 =