BY: Mohammad Ghaderi
"Iran is accelerating its nuclear program as it delays the talks," State Department spokesman Ned Price said yesterday, confirming the progress of the talks. "We have made it very clear that this does not work."
The remarks were made by the government, which, after taking office, explicitly stated that we have a long way to go to revive JCPOA, and wasted five months just pursuing its extrajudicial demands.
To better understand why Westerners insist on a time limit for reaching an agreement, it is necessary to reconsider the new US administration's position on JCPOA and the ups and downs of starting new negotiations.
One of the main points that Joe Biden emphasized during his election campaign with former US President Donald Trump in the context of his foreign policy criticism was Trump's departure from the JCPOA and damaging the prestige and credibility of the US government.
Accordingly, it was widely believed that after Biden's arrival in the White House, one of the steps that will be taken quickly by his foreign policy team is to abandon Trump's policy of maximum pressure and sanctions against Iran, and conditions at least before the withdrawal of the United States from JCPOA will return.
Shortly after the establishment of the new US administration led by Joe Biden, remarks by foreign policy officials on the new White House tenants indicated that he intended to take a different approach to return to the JCPOA.
The first remarks made by Biden's foreign policy officials at congressional hearings indicated that Biden wanted to try his hand at using Trump's sanctions as a tool to keep up the pressure on Iran and reach an agreement beyond JCPOA.
The translation of Biden's policy toward returning to the JCPOA was translated by US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken at the beginning of his term, who stated that Washington intended to reach a "stronger and longer-term" agreement with the JCPOA.
"We have a long way to go before JCPOA returns," Blinken said in a statement to Congress.
"The geopolitical situation in the region is very different from 2015, when we agreed on the UN Security Council; "So the way forward for us to return to JCPOA must change."
Iran's response to this extravagance of the Biden government, however; Taking tough positions was, of course, principled.
In the framework of the "policy of active resistance", Iran, while pursuing the path of gradual reduction of its commitments, stressed the need to: The United States can return to JCPOA once it has lifted all JCPOA and post- JCPOA sanctions in a verifiable manner and provided strong guarantees to ensure that the previous administration's illegal actions are not repeated.
Increasing the level of uranium enrichment from 5% to 20% and continuing this process until reaching the enrichment level of 60%, as well as the production and activation of new-generation centrifuges, including Iran's practical measures in response to the Biden administration's dual behavior and his fraudulent use of Trump's maximum pressure policy was for more points.
The passage of the Strategic Action Plan for the Abolition of Sanctions and the Protection of the Rights of the Iranian Nation by the Iranian parliament and the leap in Iran's peaceful nuclear program and the limitation of IAEA oversight to safeguards sent a strong message to the new US administration that Tehran never will give in to bullying, whether by Republicans or by Democrats.
The new US government game lasted nearly 5 months, and after Biden's foreign policy team was disappointed with the possibility of forcing Iran to negotiate under the shadow of pressure, the Joint Commission talks were held again, without the direct presence of the US and in the form of P4 + 1 talks with Iran. Took.
During the six rounds of negotiations in the Twelfth Administration of Iran, the Western side of the negotiations tried to continue to impose its demands on Iran by using various political, psychological, and media pressures, but despite some unacceptable softness by the previous government, The Supreme National Security Council of Iran did not approve the results of the six rounds of negotiations to reach an agreement, and the continuation of negotiations was left to the 13th government.
The 13th presidential election in Iran and the election of Ayatollah Raisi carried a clear message and a significant warning to the United States and the West.
Undoubtedly, one of the main reasons for the election of Ayatollah Raisi by the Iranian people should be considered as the result of the people's disgust and disgust with the continuous negligence and inaction of the United States and the West and the supporters of the idea of cooperating with them to solve the country's problems.
Now that the Americans have been forced to back down from their irrational stances in the face of Iran's backlash against their extravagance, they are trying to passive Iranian negotiators with new psychological pressures by focusing on the keyword time constraints.
The question that the Western parties to the negotiations, especially the Americans, have not answered so far is why the element of time should only act in the opposite direction of Iran's interests ?!
Whether in the years of Trump's withdrawal from the JCPOA and the most severe sanctions on Iran, or even during the five months that the new US administration took office and without trying to shape the negotiation process to lift sanctions, only by taking extravagant positions to use sanctions tools? Trump was to put more pressure on Iran, was there no time limit?
Certainly, Iran's principled positions will not be affected by the past political and psychological games of the United States and Europe, and the Iranian negotiators will not sacrifice the realization of the legal rights of the nation to false time constraints.
If the Western parties feel that they are in a time of urgency, the best and quickest way out of it is to lift the sanctions and post-sanctions, and to return to their obligations under the agreement.
No comments:
Post a Comment