The positions and actions of Britain, France and Germany in response to the nuclear deal are reminiscent of the positions of the three European countries on the Saadabad agreement, events that sometimes seem far-fetched, are in fact very close.

NOURNEWS - The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors on Friday passed a resolution against Iran, with 25 votes in favor, two negative votes, seven abstentions and one absent.

The IAEA Board of Governors resolution is still in place, and has allowed the IAEA's unprecedented inspections of its nuclear activities to continue. About 20 percent of the agency's total inspections are related to Iran's nuclear program alone.

The Saviors of JCPOA, The Founders of the Resolution

It is interesting that the new resolution was drafted and proposed by three countries, Britain, France and Germany, that is, those who were supposed to be the saviors of JCPOA from the point of view of our government, are the founders of the anti-Iranian resolution in the agency. This event is a very important lesson for our country, and that is that hope and trust in the West, including Europe, will not go anywhere. Perhaps if the government and the diplomatic apparatus had learned from previous experiences, they would not have taken the path of remaining in the JCPOA and issuing resolutions against those who did not live up to their commitments.

Bitter Experience is Ignoring those Experiences

Europe's separation from the United States during the JCPOA and the lifting of sanctions is a mistake made by the government, knowingly or unknowingly, although previous experiences and positions show how much it knew.

President Hassan Rouhani has written a book, National Security and Nuclear Diplomacy, about the Saadabad agreement reached during the reformist government. In the seventh chapter of this book, page 328, he writes: "Our problem was that whenever negotiations took place, the Europeans would not be able to do anything important without the green light of the United States."

He also writes on the same page of the book: "Large European companies could not cooperate with Iran in expanding trade, commerce, economics and technology without US consent." The Europeans told us "We give advice to our companies, but they are free and we don't know if the companies will eventually agree with you or not, because these companies have a large volume of transactions with American companies and in the current situation the American side will not be satisfied with that."

Rouhani wrote on page 259 of his book: "In fact, the Europeans were incapable of fulfilling the commitment they had made ... In general, the Europeans were always looking for some kind of consensus or at least coordination with the United States."

All of the above statements have been made or true by Iranian or European officials, or very similarly, that is, if the source of these statements had not been mentioned a little higher, the closest and most immediate perception of the audience was that these statements and points about JCPOA and the current situation has been stated.

This shows that the developments related to Saadabad and Borjam are two sides of the same coin, which happens to be the same on both sides, in both cases the "European buck" is considered. In violation of the covenants, "there has always been an American foothold." This is not strange, it is strange that some people have not learned from their past mistakes. Instead, as much as some inside the country have not learned from the past, the Western Front has become as arrogant about how to achieve its repetitive goals.

According to pages 144 and 199 of the book, Iran's humiliation in the proposal went so far that the three European countries promised to keep unemployed Iranian scientists if they "stopped" enrichment.

Europe's proposals at the time were almost identical to their current proposals for JCPOA without the United States; While Iran expected billions of dollars from the lifting of sanctions and a mechanism like Instex, the Europeans made humiliating million-dollar offers. Interestingly, despite not compensating for the US withdrawal from the JCPOA, the foreign ministers of the three European countries said in a joint statement yesterday that they had "fully" complied with their commitments to lift the sanctions. Three European ministers have gone so far as to say that Europe has gone beyond its JCPOA commitments, unaware that Instex remains like a highway through which no car can pass and where football can be played, for example, if Foreign Ministers joked about these remarks, which was ugly, but on a clear day and in front of everyone, they made these humiliating remarks. These statements, positions and actions of Europe are essentially a flipchart of the history book and a reminder of what they did with Iran in the past, like an album of photographs that takes a person back to their past memories by looking at the photographs.

Misuse of diplomatic toolbox

The current government made other mistakes in addition to removing the rearview mirror, which could move forward in a more appropriate and desirable way towards the future. The misuse of diplomatic tools has prevented Iran from pursuing its interests, especially in international organizations, as it should and perhaps should. The current government says it is familiar with the language of the world and diplomacy. Assuming such a statement is correct, it seems that the government does not know at least how and in what quality to use this language. However, if this language and tools were used well, fewer countries in the Governing Council would have cooperated with the United States and Europe.

Statements and tweets from government officials over the past day or two are evidence of this claim. The threat posed by Europe and the West to the passage of the Anti-Iranian Resolution at the time of the vote does not seem very reasonable and timely. It would have been better if these effective threats and consultations had taken place much earlier. Active and active politics respond better than reactive politics.

It is good to compare the results of passivity and hope for the West and Europe with the results of active resistance, despite any rhetoric. In the first case, the statements and suggestions of the million-dollar Intex are raised, but in the other, the leaders of the world's powers beg to negotiate with Tehran and launch a billion-dollar credit line at the beginning of the talks.

Perhaps if the tools of diplomacy and consultation with at least some independent countries such as China and Russia had been used a little more seriously, we would have seen stronger and more effective positions from these countries in not passing yesterday's resolution. By spending more decisively, these countries could use their bargaining power to persuade other countries not to cooperate with Europe and complete Iran's efforts.

New measures to reduce nuclear commitments or intensify previous ones could also offset European pressure on Iran or make them understand that Iran would respond to any escalation of tensions.

Progressive path

All the events of the last few months and years show that solving the country's problems does not go through the path of hope and looking to Europe; Because their goal is not to solve Iran's problems, but to control and weaken them, in such a situation, the task is clear and the way forward is more specific. Certainly, the plan to boost domestic production and increase non-oil exports will have far greater effects and benefits for the country, up to the Instex multi-million dollar investment in which the transaction is Kimia.

Various economic versions have been proposed or proposed to improve the situation in the country, the most important of which is to believe in it first and then take practical steps to implement it, even if negotiations and understanding with the West do not do that for Iran so, the key to the country's problems is the determination to solve them. One who does not use the real key to unlock locks in such a situation will not do so in a slightly better situation. If there is a will, the lock can be opened by turning the key several times. But if there is no will, it is not locked, but the package cannot be opened.


Post a comment