|
    
                         Website in Spanish       Website in Portuguese coming soon
Member Area

Nonproliferation for Global Security Foundation - NPSGlobal

Friday
Nov 24th
Home
Zero Diplomacy: Trump refused to sign an agreement with Iran Print E-mail
Share

By @irmaar, October 15, 2017

He finally decided not to ratify Iran’s compliance within the so called P5+1 nuclear agreement that the Islamic Republic signed with the great powers.

Contrary to multiple recommendations and warnings, both from his close collaborators and experts from around the world and officials from other governments, Trump finally decided not to ratify Iran’s compliance with the so called P5+1 that Islamic Republic signed with the great powers (United States, Great Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany) in July 2015.

Under the agreement, Iran is committed, among others, to stop its advanced uranium enrichment programs and the future plutonium collection, both of which are two roads to nuclear weapons. In return, Iran has obtained substantial relief of trillions of dollars from the multiple sanctions imposed by the international community for violations to its commitment to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

In this case, Iran’s compliance with the agreement was verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in more than eight opportunities since the pact has been in force. In other words, it has indeed blocked the possibility of enabling Iran to have nuclear weapons when the country was close to achieving it.

During his speech, the president of the United States justified in great detail his refusal to ratify it indicating that the relief from sanctions is not proportional to the restrictions imposed to the nuclear program. He focused the objections, rather than on the technical aspects of the agreement, on the essence of the Iranian regime, its strategies and, above all, on its role as sponsor state of the Islamic terrorism, all aspects of extreme relevance that nobody disclaims, but that go beyond that which was agreed.

On the basis of these general rather than specific concepts, Trump, who always considered the agreement as a disgrace to the United States, indicated that he would work with the Congress in a possible modification, and if it is not attained, he will drop it.

Although expected, this approach of the president Trump caused a deep shock and rejection inside and outside the United States. John Kerry, former Secretary of State and one of the authors of the pact, considered the decision as highly irresponsible, indicating that its terms cannot be renegotiated nor altered. The highest authorities of the governments of the other signatory states and of the European Union had already declared the same. Iran, for its part, promptly issued a statement indicating that it would not be the first state to withdraw, but if its rights and interests are not respected, it will stop the implementation of the agreement, resuming completely its nuclear activities.

There is a high degree of international consensus on that Trump’s unilateral decision not to ratify creates an unnecessary international crisis of great magnitude and danger at a time when the world is plunged into other major crisis, such that of North Korea and Syria, and the precarious strategic stability between the United States (with its allies) and Russia. This adds up to the ever present threat of Islamic terrorism spreading across the world after the military defeat of ISIS in the Middle East.

The approval of the nuclear agreement with Iran that was forged during the Obama administration was proposed as an executive decision to avoid the almost impossible approval from Congress, dominated by a republican majority. However, the current legislation sets regular parliamentary monitoring, as the president has to confirm to Congress every ninety days whether Iran has complied with the pact and whether the suspension to the sanctions to Islamic Republic remains critical to the interests of the nation.

In this state of crisis, and even admitting in several ways Iran’s negative impact on the maintenance of regional and global stability, it is clearly convenient to protect the agreement, since Iran has abided by its commitment. Any other scenario could accelerate Iran’s return to its unrevealed intentions of obtaining nuclear weapon capabilities, this time with no control whatsoever.

This reality significantly weakens both the domestic front and the foreign policy of the United States, with potentially disastrous consequences for the security of all the countries. In this way, the alliance with Europe, and therefore the cooperation with the North Atlantic could become vulnerable to the attacks of Russia and China, since credibility of the United States as international negotiator can become severely resentful, with direct impacts in the North Korean conflict.

All this sets an international scenario of extreme danger in which Trump’s poor level of caution has achieved what no one has achieved before: to turn the Islamic Republic from aggressor into a victim. In Argentina, since we have experienced first-hand Iran’s action over our territory, with their support to the attacks to the Israeli embassy in 1992, and that of the Argentine-Israeli Mutual Association (Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina, AMIA) in 1994, in addition to the shameful Memorandum of Understanding agreed with the government in 2013, we have a lot to say about how harmful it could be if Iran took advantage of the international vulnerabilities to impose its radical ideology and interests beyond its borders.

Back

 
Follow us on