This outcome was predictable, and members of the UN Security Council and the UN officials had repeatedly stated that Washington has no legal or international right to trigger the JCPOA snapback mechanism, The United States can, in no way, activate the trigger mechanism because of its withdrawal from the nuclear deal, and the international community has a consensus on this. The recent defeats of the United States in the UN Security Council and in the joint commission of the JCPOA are proof of this.
Regardless of the legitimacy of the consensus of the members of the UN Security Council, there is also a hidden fact that the countries of the world, including the thirteen countries which voted against and abstention to the US resolution in the Security Council, are hesitant about Trump's survival. For the moment, they have no desire to play on Trump’s field; because they see Trump’s defeat in elections to be probable, and then they should work with Joe Biden; and they do not wish to take risks and give in to Trump’s wishes. Even the Zionist newspaper, Haaretz, recently suggested, in a note to Benjamin Netanyahu, to cooperate with Joe Biden. Of course, it is difficult to predict the outcome of the November 3 election in the United States, but countries take such issues into account in their calculations with the United States.
Given this situation, at a time when the United States is, more than ever, isolated and lonely, its efforts to activate the snapback mechanism against Iran will not bear any fruits, and it can be predicted that the arms embargo on Iran will end in due time.
Meanwhile, US officials have resorted to various arguments. Recently, Brian Hook, the resigned State Department's special envoy for Iran, claimed that JCPOA is a political agreement and is not legally binding. Of course, Hooke's words have no legal basis, because JCPOA is an international treaty or agreement, and the signatory States have made commitments to take actions and they have rights over each other. This treaty is subject to international law and is considered as a legal treaty. Therefore, considering it as a political pact is unprofessional and far from the existing facts. Such baseless and unfounded arguments are put forward in order to justify the US desire for triggering Snapback mechanism. All members of JCPOA believe that this agreement is legal; as this agreement sets out obligations for all its parties.
Sometimes this question is raised that since Washington was aware of the outcome of the vote before the Security Council voted against the US draft resolution for extension of sanctions on Iran, why did the US, knowing its failure, take such a risk? The fact is that, because of the presence of uninformed advisers and experts in the White House as well as the political motives of the US President, such a practice is precedent.
A series of chain decisions have been made during Trump's presidency whose failure were predictable. For instance, in the case of the relocation of the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, we saw that countries around the world, even former US allies, did not support this decision. Another wrong decision was the deal of the century with the aim of annexing the West Bank to the occupied territories, which was opposed by the world community, even by European countries and the United Nations. As for the US decision to annex the Golan Heights to the occupying regime, the global opposition was also predictable. In the story of the US withdrawal from the JCPOA, too, the majority of countries in the world considered the US action as a violation of the treaty and contrary to international standards.
This analysis also applies to the Snapback mechanism. Because of its policy of unilateralism and its spirit of arrogance, it has become commonplace for the United States to violate the international law and regulations. But the world does not support the non-expert decisions of the US. All in all, it is not uncommon for the United States, knowing its failure, to make unrealistic proposals again.
Pompeo's claim that unilateral sanctions will be reinstated on September 20, is also a baseless statement. If he means the US unilateral sanctions, one should say that they already existed and countries are not required to comply; and if he means international sanctions, one should notify him that there is no global consensus on this issue and it will not be supported by the countries of the world.
During the recent visit of Rafael Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency to Iran, a constructive and promising statement was issued, which indicates the willingness of the parties for cooperation. Grossi was pleased with the outcome of his visit to Iran, and the other parties, including Russia, China and European countries, expressed satisfaction with the agreement.
In Iran, there has always been a will to continue working with the IAEA, and the fact that Grossi announced that the IAEA would act independently, was a good position and illuminated the future of Tehran-IAEA relations. Countries around the world are well aware that Iran is seeking the peaceful use of nuclear energy, and in the meantime, projections and marginal discussions by the United States cannot disrupt this process.
The problem with the United States is that it does not want to accept its isolation and it does not value the national sovereignty of countries and the independence of international institutions.
The United States has done all it can against Iran; Washington is empty-handed in its action against Iran, and it does not appear that Washington's possible actions will come to fruition in the run-up to the presidential election.
At present, the P5 + 1 countries, despite the existing differences, unanimously agree to achieve their common goal, which is to maintain and continue the JCPOA, However, if any member of the JCPOA decides to take action against this agreement or activate the Snapback mechanism against Iran, then Iran will not be empty-handed and will make the necessary decision.
Your Comment