The real goals of the negotiators in Vienna

BY: Mohammad Ghaderi

Examining the complexities of the Vienna talks confirms the fact that West's insistence on time constraints is a deliberate attempt to disrupt the peace and focus of the Iranian negotiating team to meet the two European and American achievements: "Disagreement with blaming Iran Or bad deal"

NOURNEWS - The formation of the JCPOA agreement in 2015 was the result of many ups and downs, which on the one hand were rooted in the parties' assessment of the other side's intention to enter into the agreement, and on the other hand, the specific conditions of the talks and the approach of the governments in 2015 in Iran and the United States. Was related.

The passage of time and the incomplete implementation of JCPOA, while clearly defining the dimensions of the parties' strategies towards each other, also determined the extent to which the results of the talks were real in the practical stage.

Now, in the last days of 2021, and more than 6 years after the signing of the JCPOA, and with the decision taken by the parties to continue the talks in order to revive the previous agreements, very wide and profound changes have taken place in various fields that will definitely have an impact on the formation of a possible new agreement.

If we accept that the JCPOA agreement had two main pillars, including "resolving the concerns of Europe and the United States about Iran's nuclear activities" and "lifting economic sanctions against our country", assessing the current situation on these two axes will help to predict the future prospects of the current negotiations.

The IAEA and the significant increase in IAEA oversight of Iran's nuclear activities have helped the West to become more aware of the dimensions of Iran's peaceful nuclear activities and to believe that Iran, despite its rapid progress in this area, has no intention of making weapons has no core.

The reluctance and even sabotage of Europe in the process of forming an agreement in the current Vienna talks is mostly due to the assurance that Iran's nuclear program will not deviate towards the construction of weapons.

Because before and in 2015, Europe, because it saw the so-called nuclear threat of Iran closer to itself geographically, made great efforts to reach an agreement with Iran while increasing the IAEA oversight, and Iran's nuclear program completely be limited.

In the issue of lifting sanctions, two very important events have caused the parties to the JCPOA agreement to pay different attention to the role and function of sanctions.

After the implementation of JCPOA, the Islamic Republic of Iran became convinced that the Western parties have no will to abandon the structure of sanctions, and that there is a big gap between what is written in JCPOA paper and the practical action of those committed to lifting the sanctions.

In addition, contrary to the simple view of the former officials of our foreign policy apparatus, who believed that sufficient guarantees had been obtained from the United States and Europe to remain committed toJCPOA, and that they could not default on their commitments, it turned out that JCPOA could be easily removed. He left and it is possible to refuse to fulfill his obligations while attending JCPOA under the pretext of ridiculous shaving.

Gaining these experiences caused the Islamic Republic to use all its internal and external capacities in the way of circumventing sanctions and ineffective its effects on the country's economy by establishing a policy of "active resistance" from the end of 1997, and to create conditions. That the instrument of sanctions is out of the scope of efficiency claimed by the United States and Europe and its value for use in the new agreement is severely reduced.

In such a situation, several political factors such as the establishment of a new government in Iran and the United States, China-Russia dispute with the United States over sanctions, Britain's withdrawal from the EU and its effects on domestic and foreign policy, changing US foreign policy priorities and reduction The presence in the Middle East and efforts to contain China, as well as France's new strategies to replace the United States in the Middle East, have also fundamentally changed the key political components influencing the Vienna talks.

From all the mentioned developments as well as the behavior of the main actors of the Vienna talks so far, it can be concluded that:

First; With no plans to evade nuclear weapons, Iran tends to use its sanctions-lifting capacity to develop its economy more quickly in the form of a "good deal."

Second; The United States is trying to reach an agreement that has more output than JCPOA and less data, while maintaining the structure of sanctions and continuing pressure on Iran.

Third; Because of its concerns about Iran's nuclear activities, Europe is more inclined to ignore any economic interests in Iran and to avenge Trump's humiliating treatment of Europe by withdrawing from the JCPOA, by sabotaging Biden in the Vienna talks.

Fourth; Russia and China are working to respond appropriately to the 13th administration's approach to strategic cooperation with the East, and to prove the failure of US sanctions policies, which it also addresses, by foring a new agreement.

An examination of the complexities of the negotiations in the new context confirms the fact that the West's insistence on time constraints is a deliberate attempt to disrupt the peace and focus of the Iranian negotiating team to achieve the two desired European and American achievements: "Disagreement with Blaming Iran or Bad Deal »

The sheer volume of media production by the Western side of the negotiations and the repetition of deviant keywords reflects the fact that the Western parties negotiating in Vienna are trying to distort the facts by forging an atmosphere rather than by negotiating, to poison negotiations and replace psychological operations with diplomacy and dialogue.