By Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi
TEHRAN - One year ago, U.S. abandoned its nuclear deal with Iran and imposed a wide range of sanctions on Iran. Furthermore, over the last year, U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Economic War Room, created by Donald Trump’s administration, adopted a series of strategies to impede Iran from exporting oil and transferring foreign exchange to other countries.
Amid all these pressures from U.S., Europe could not, or did not want to, find a way to deal with U.S. who had chosen to violate its nuclear deal with Iran and Iran was left alone with a useless deal.
Following our country’s strategies that were based on waiting and not taking any immediate action, on the anniversary of America’s withdrawal from the deal, U.S. revealed the second part of its scenario: offering Iran to negotiate for signing a new agreement and suggesting the Deal of the Century that would guarantee the safety of the Zionist regime.
We still remember that Condoleezza Rice, U.S. Secretary of State during the administration of George W. Bush, called for redrawing the Middle East map by “the Greater Middle East Project”. The idea of removing borders in Middle East was put forward again during Obama’s presidency; this time by offering a Islamic State for Iraq and Sham (ISIS). This project, eventually, led to the creation of ISIS, in a bid to protect the Zionist Regime.
It seems that both democrat and republican governments have been adopting the same foreign policy and it proves that the main policy of these both American parties are the same.
After ISIS gained the control of more than 80% of Syria and many parts in Iraq, it seemed that U.S. project was going to be successful, but the resistance army rose just in time to thwart their plans.
The next part of this scenario was to destroy the ideology of resistance in the region, and that could not happen unless they could weaken the Islamic Iran so that the Deal of the Century would be born.
U.S. officials took advantages some loopholes that were embedded in Iran nuclear deal and unilaterally withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
On the anniversary of U.S. withdrawal from the nuclear deal, Trump once again is only trying to support the Zionist regime. Contrary to some views that believe violating the JCPOA was solely based on the radical policies of Trump or the like of John Bolton, the truth is that all American administration, whether democrat or republican, are only following one single strategy and that is protecting the Zionist regime.
According to the Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, for better resisting the oppressors in the world, we should try to develop a complete understanding of the U.S. and it's tyrannical polices. So here, we take a look at U.S. specialized and detailed reviews about the JCPOA and relations with Iran.
On the anniversary of U.S. pullout from JCPOA, the Institute for Science and International Security published an article named “Opportunity for a New Iran Nuclear Deal - Stop driving into the sunset looking through the rearview mirror”; it was written by David Albright and Andrea Stricker.
The article is trying to respond to the view of some American politicians and Europeans who think that U.S. should return to Iran nuclear deal without setting any conditions.
David Albright, the article’s author, is an American physicists who has close relations with SIA and Mossad who was an inspector of Iraq's nuclear program and who also accused Iran of trying to build nuclear weapons. Iran had long refused such accusations, and in fact, agreed to sign a nuclear deal to prove that such accusations were false.
Albright, who is an anti-Iran theoretician, in this article has concluded that U.S. officials should completely abandon the JCPOA and don’t return to it without setting new conditions. It says “returning to the JCPOA is not in U.S. national security interests. It would sacrifice key negotiating leverage.”
Then, he says, as the two sides are not willing to get into a military conflict, a new round of negotiations would be a good option. According to him, “the United States is demanding that Iran meet a dozen conditions relating not only to the nuclear and missile issues but also to its malign regional activities and support for terror.”
The authors advise the United States and its allies “to look forward and create a better deal that addresses the current one’s well-known weaknesses, such as sunsetting nuclear limitations, inadequate inspections of Iran’s former and possibly on-going nuclear weapons program, and ineffective ballistic missile constraints.”
In the end, the Zionist authors openly reveal that their goal is for Iran to have no defense against its neighbor countries who are armed to the teeth:
“Conventional arms and ballistic missile embargos and regional issues will inevitably need to be part of any negotiation. Although it will be difficult, the United States should seek new nuclear negotiations addressing these issues.”
Finally, they refer to Iran’s policy that is not negotiating with U.S. until the next round of elections, hoping that a Democrat administration go to the office:
“Re-joining the deal and abandoning newfound U.S. leverage, instead of addressing these problems in a new deal, would play into Tehran’s hand and gravely threaten U.S., regional, and international security over the next decade, particularly as the nuclear, missile, and conventional weapons limitations sunset.”
The article goes as far as describing “rejoining the deal” as a disaster.
These Zionist politicians openly state that they see no right for Iran to have a “nuclear program”. For them, new negotiations must prevent Iran from having “any kind of nuclear enrichment program” forever.
“Advocating for re-entry means supporting and providing international legitimacy to the provision in the JCPOA that allows Iran to start building up its industrial infrastructure to manufacture advanced gas centrifuges that enrich uranium beginning in 2023, or during the next presidential term. Iran is scheduled to start deploying an ever-increasing number of advanced centrifuges starting in 2025, as envisioned under Iran’s long-term enrichment plan developed alongside the JCPOA.”
They also reveal that all these prohibitions are intended to protect and support the Zionist regime. They say “this program continually poses a threat to regional peace and stability.” In another part, they say “new, negotiated solutions are needed that protect vital U.S. and allied security interests in the Middle East.”
If today, Trump administration says that they are not intending to change the regime in Iran, it is because of the strength of the Islamic Republic; and they are trying to diminish this power by offering a new deal that would limit and destroy Iran’s defensive systems. And they clearly state this intention in this part of the article:
“Advocates of re-joining should understand that doing so also means accepting the end of the United Nations conventional arms embargo on Iran, slated to happen no later than October 2020, as codified in UN Resolution 2231, which implements the JCPOA. Given the consensus in the United States and Europe that Iran’s conventional weapons have been used for malign and dangerous activities, this provision is not in the broader interest.”
They also reveal that they currently don’t seek war with Iran because of Iran’s military power, but they intend to diminish this power by closing a new deal with Iran: “By unconditionally re-joining the JCPOA, Iran would also have a blessing to build up its conventional military forces, making U.S. military strikes much riskier in the event of a breakout to nuclear weapons. This is simply too dangerous a future to support.”
Finally, it seems that in this critical point in our history we need to try to protect the power and dignity of our country and keep our promise to the founder of the Islamic Republic, Imam Khomeini who established the idea of resistance. And follow the wise words of the Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who said: “over the last 40 years, whenever we resisted, we became successful and made progress and whenever we gave in and surrendered to the desires of our opposing sides, we got hurt.”
No comments:
Post a Comment