Space Exploration, Iran’s Inalienable Right

By: Kayhan Int’l

"If you can pass through the confines of the heavens and the earth, then do pass through. But you will not pass through except by an authority [from Allah].” (Holy Qur’an 55:33)

"And He has disposed for you[r benefit] whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth; all is from Him. There are indeed signs in that for a people who reflect.” (Holy Qur’an 45:13)
What a brainless idiot Donald Trump is!

The terrorist nature of the U.S. president which is fully evident in his tweets, threats, and theatrics, has now exceeded all bounds.

The fool in his obsession with sanctions now says he has sanctioned Iran’s space programme, when the fact of the matter is that, this particular project of the Islamic Republic – like several other projects – is not connected, even remotely, with any American technology, raw materials, or currency.

Iran, which has the right to explore outer space, as per the commandments of God Almighty, doesn’t need Washington’s permission.

In the words of Iran’s Minister of Information and Communications Technology Mohammad Javad Azari Jahromi:

"I can’t even locate the U.S. in this picture, let alone sanctions on Space! The universe & Bright Future belong to everyone, not to a few!”

The U.S, may have pressured certain countries to stop buying Iranian crude, after having breached the international nuclear agreement to launch economic terrorism, but even in the atomic field he has not been able to stop Iran’s progress.

Neither his military might has awed the Islamic Republic nor his various sanctions.

This is evident by the latest remarks of the Iranian government regarding the deadline it had announced a couple of months ago on its inalienable right to gradually distance itself from certain articles of the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action), as the per the clauses of the agreement signed in 2015.

The U.S. will end up as the main loser, since there is no stopping of Iran’s resolve to continue its efforts, in accordance with Divine Commandments, since it is not human power, but the authority of the Almighty Creator, as is evident by the above cited Ayahs of the Holy Qur’an, that ensures success or failure in the exploration of space, which is beneficial for all mankind.

Iran Nuclear Accord: The Third Act is Now Starting

by Rene Wadlow

            The first act of the Iran Nuclear Accord took eight years. The backdrop kept changing from Geneva to Vienna but the actors were nearly all the same.  Except for the representative of the European Union it was an all male, middle-age cast with little comic relief, at least on stage.  The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, to give the play its formal name was signed in 2015 with polite applause and some anticipation of what the next acts might hold.

The second act started with the election of Donald Trump as the US President. He  was used to faster-paced TV shows and so left  the theater, saying that there were no lines concerning Iranian missiles.  The development of Iranian missiles is not a subject directly covered by the Iranian nuclear accord.  However, there is the Hague Code of Conduct aganst Ballistic Missile Production (HCOC) which came into force on 25 November 2002 which calls for restraint in their production, testing, and export.  The Hague Code could be strengthened although we have seen little leadership on the part of those States which have extensive missile programs.

One can understand the boredom of some.  The action was very slow.  The Iranians kept to the script, and IAEA atomic inspectors came periodically from Vienna but were largely nameless.  The Iranian economy did not improve dramatically and so some Iranian “hardliners” started wondering  who had written the play.  But as the Second Act continued, the drama started heating up. Off stage, one could hear war drums starting to beat. Armed conflicts continued in Syria and Yemen. One could hear the sounds of weapons off stage but rather close. Tankers with oil were menaced. Regional States not part of the Nuclear Accord such as Saudia Arabia and Israel were watching closely and even throwing some oil on the fire. As the Second Act ended, there was serious discussion of the possibility of a regional war.

Now the Third Act has started with two signs of hope that the drama will have a “happy end” or at least as “happy” as current world politics will allow. However, both signs of hope may require that we in the non-governmental world, stop being just spectators of the drama and ask to become actors as well and add lines to the script promoting negotiations in good faith.

The first sign of hope comes from Moscow.  On 23 July 2019, the Russian Government’s “Collective Security for the Persian Gulf Region” was presented in Moscow by the Deputy Foreign Minister, Mikhail Bogdanov.  Bagdanov stated that “ The main principles are incrementalism, multilateralism, and strict observation of international law, primarily the U.N. Charter and Security Council resolution.  The looming strategic challenge outlined is creating among all states in the region on an equal basis” a collective security institution.

The Russian proposal for Collective Security for the Persian Gulf follows closely the procedures which led to the 1975 Helsinki Final Act and the creation of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe.  Bogdanov stressed multilateralism as a mechanism for all  involved in the assessment of situations, the decision-making process, and the implementation of decisions.

The second sign of hope comes from the decision within the G7 meeting which ended on 26 August 2019 to mandate the President of France to see what negotiations were possible to continue the Iran Nuclear Accord. This G7 agreement opens a door, at leat a bit, to renewed negotiations between the U.S.A. and Iran.  The first step may be to stop beating the war drums off stage. A second step will be to see what issues other than the Nuclear Accord can be discussed as the provisions of the Nuclear Accord are not really open to re-negotiation given the time it took to reach the original agrrement and the States involved.

Thus, it is probably around the Russian proposal of a Helsinki-type regional security conference that non-governmental organizations, such as the Association of World Citizens, can play an active role.  NGOs were active during the nearly three years that the  Helsinki Accord was being negotiated.  After a short start in Helsinki, the negotiations moved to Geneva.  Although NGO representatives had no direct avenue into the  discussions, all the key States in the negotiations had Diplomatic Missions to the U.N. in Geneva.  We often knew diplomats at these Missions from our work in U.N. meetings, so ideas could be passed on to the Helsinki Final Act negotiators.  It is still too early to know how the Russian proposal will be acted upon.  However, the Russian proposals are a positive sign. We need to work to see what issues can be negotiated.  The Third Act is not written in advance.

Rene Wadlow, President, Association of World Citizens

Why Europe cannot use ‘snap back’ mechanism against Iran

TEHRAN, Jul. 02 (MNA) – Europe cannot use the so-called snapback mechanism stipulated in the 2015 nuclear deal to renew United Nations sanctions against Iran. An international lawyer, Reza Nasri, gives fives reasons why.

Western media are likely to jump on the ‘snapback mechanism’ wagon now that Iran has released details about the second stage of its reduction in commitments to the nuclear deal, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

The snap back mechanism is a tool that allows the old United Nations sanctions to be reimposed on Iran without a vote on the Council, in the case of Tehran being found to be in serious violation of the terms of the nuclear agreement, under certain conditions and after following the predefined steps.

The other side wants to make it look as if the recent measures by Iran in reducing the level of its commitments to the JCPOA – which are in accordance with Article 26 and 36 of JCPOA – are a violation of the agreement in order to use the snap back mechanism against Iran.

But there are five reasons as to why the snap back mechanism cannot be used against Iran in this case.

One: The snap back mechanism has been designed to prevent Iran from violating the agreement. In other words, the mechanism has been set up in the case of Iran being the first party to withdraw from the nuclear deal. Of course, the first side to have left the agreement was the United States, and Iran’s compliance with its commitments have been confirmed time and again in all of the IAEA’s reports.

Two: According to the text of the JCPOA, the other side can use the snap back mechanism only when it “believes” that Iran’s performance is an instance of a major lack of compliance. According to a fundamental legal principle, this “belief” must be accompanied by “good faith”.  This is while none of the remaining parties to the JCPOA can actually claim with “good faith” that they “believe” in Iran’s major lack of compliance, since all of Iran’s measures have been legal, and are clearly taken so that all sides to the deal would fully implement their own commitments.

Three: Europe’s resorting to the snap back mechanism would be in fact a mockery of the international law, the UN Security Council and the UN’s collective security system. In other words, it would be the first time in history when the Security Council would be used to punish a country that only intends to use its legal tools to force others to implement a Security Council resolution (2231), and an agreement endorsed by the body.

Four: In order to accuse Iran of a violation, European powers first need to prove Iran’s ill intentions. This is while they all know that Iran’s only motivation and intention to reduce commitments is a way to actually revive the nuclear agreement.

Five: What European powers promised under the deal was never a “ceremonial” removal of sanctions. Article 3 of Appendix 2 of JCPOA clearly tasks Europe with removing the “impacts” of economic and financial sanctions. This means that the European sides are now clearly in violation of their commitments.