Iran Daily: US Talks of Withdrawal from Nuclear Deal

21
1079

The US has again said that it may leave the July 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and the 5+1 Powers, while avoiding any commitment to do so.

The US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley (pictured), read a 20-minute statement at an appearance in Washington on Tuesday, asserting that Iran’s compliance with the agreement — twice certified by Donald Trump as well as repeatedly by the International Atomic Energy Agency — is not sufficient for continued American adherence.

Haley put the wider argument, reflected in new sanctions adopted by the Congress in late July, that aspects of Iran’s “hostility towards the US” and its behavior in the Middle East must be considered.

Congress adopted the new restrictions on the grounds of Iran’s continued ballistic missile testing, alleged support of “terrorism”, and human rights records.

Depicting a “very flawed and very limited agreement” that was “designed to be too big to fail,” Haley said yesterday:

What I am saying is should [Trump] decide to decertify, he has grounds to stand on. It’s very easy to just talk about compliance and the JCPOA [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action]. But there’s so much more to the story that we need to be looking at….

Everyone hoped the deal would make the Iranian government good people, but no one looked at the history of Iran, no one looked at all the past aggressions they have shown.”

But Washington immediately appeared to run into trouble with European countries, whom Iran has been trying to detach from the US line on the deal, notably in a televised appearance by President Hassan Rouhani last week.
The French Ambassador, Gerard Araud, issued a rebuke on Twitter:

Far from stepping back, Haley appeared to accept a split from British, France, and Germany, who were involved in the deal alongside Russia, China, and the European Union.

She asserted that the European countries understood US concerns but chided that Washington’s job was not to make sure allies were “comfortable”: “This is about US national security, this is not about European security.”

Haley spoke dramatically of the situation as the formal terms of the JCPOA ended in a decade, necessitating a review of the limits on Iran’s production of 20% enriched uranium: “What if we just gave them 10 years, and all the money they wanted to do what they want to prepare for, when that 10th year hits and they start nuclear war?”

Although Trump again certified Iranian compliance in July, his officials said the US would look to step up pressure on Iran. The Administration has attempted in recent weeks to apply this through a demand for inspection of Iranian military sites, with Haley visiting IAEA headquarters, but has gotten little traction so far.

Related Posts

21 COMMENTS

  1. So, it’s the 1994 Framework Agreement all over again: senile Yankistan commits to an international accord then welshes on the terms before the ink is even dry, blaming everyone else for the rupture, in a patent manoeuvre to blackmail the other parties into accepting new terms which were never even discussed.

    Amazing ‘diplomacy’, i.e. thuggery. Art of the Mafia.

    I suppose one advance is that there is now no need to go to the trouble of intercepting Nuland-style phone calls, as Rabid Haley just comes out the gate screaming “Fuck the EU!” straight in their faces already.

    • Rouhani misled Iranians into thinking the U.S had lifted sanctions. In fact, the President has to periodically waive sanctions that have clearly not been lifed.

      • While that may be perfectly true it really never mattered what the Iranian public thought of JCPOA, as the question of adhering to it was never put to a plebiscite. The only Iranian who had to be convinced by what Zarif brought back was Ayatollah Khamenei, and I very much doubt he was under any illusions as to what he was getting into.

        Conversely, if the SL was in fact misled and essentially tricked into this agreement, why is Zarif still walking around with his head on his shoulders?

    • the agreement — twice certified by Donald Trump as well as repeatedly by the International Atomic Energy Agency — is not sufficient for continued American adherence.

      That is not correct for two reasons:

      1. The IAEA only admitted Iran had not exceeded limits imposed by the agreement. It did not state Iran was in complete compliance wth the entirety of the agreement.

      2. The Iran nuclear agreeement review act requires the President to certify that Iran is not engaging in covert activities. something neither the IAEA nor the POTUS is not in a position to do unless Iran allows anywhere anytime inspections.

      • 1. False. IAEA has reported 100% compliance every time since the agreement. Neither the US nor IAEA has found Iran to be in violation of any terms.

        2. False. The P5+1 never agreed to those terms or there would have been no agreement.

        Stop making stuff up.

        • Here’s the latest IAEA report:
          https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/gov2017-24.pdf

          Which, in summary at §28 states that:
          The Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at the nuclear facilities and locations outside facilities where nuclear material is customarily used (LOFs) declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement. Evaluations regarding the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities for Iran remained ongoing.

          So, yes, IAEA has declared Iran in complete compliance with all its positive undertaking as per JCPOA, but the hook is in the Rumsfeldian final formulation, adding that at a moment’s notice and with no better reason than preemptive obeisance to the diktat of warcriminal Yankistan, it can “evaluate” that ‘absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’ of some fabled secret nuclear weapons program for which Mossad/CIA will forge up some flimsy cause for “concern”, the pretext to justify embarking on a wild-goose chase to ostensibly “prove” the negative at the expense of Iran’s military sites being exhaustively sifted through by Yanki spies, as per the Iraqi model, until they are quite sure it is safe to overtly aggress and where exactly to hit them.

          It goes without saying that Yankistan has operated in entirely bad faith to craft this exceedingly fragile ’agreement’, combined with its own continuing sanctions blackmail mechanisms designed to work against it, but it remains to be seen what the other parties will make of their efforts to sabotage it, and how far their hand-picked worm Amano is willing to abase himself in facilitating their ulterior and transparently hostile designs.

          So it is not so rosy as you may wish to believe, Andre, and Razmjoo makes a fair point that Yankistan can and most probably will reimpose the suspended unilateral sanctions then withdraw from JCPOA despite 100% Iranian compliance.

          • The IAEA has used the same formulation — “Evaluations regarding the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities for Iran remained ongoing” — for years to describe their monitoring. It was there before and during the negotiations of the nuclear deal and has remained as the IAEA has continued to support the case of Iranian adherence.

            If anything, the IAEA assessments have bolstered those backing the deal and stood in the way of those urging withdrawal.

              • The problem is that he has nothing with which to counter the strong evidence that Amano is a morally malleable stooge hand-picked by Yankistan to complete the dirty work the half-way honest ElBaradei refused to do, i.e. entertain their sub-standard forgeries [see ‘Laptop of the Hidden Imam’ case] and general manipulation of IAEA in furtherance of their transparently warmonglerish purposes.

              • Well, no. In the case of the Parry article and your comment, the problem is that there is not a shred of information post-2003 about the UN and the IAEA to back up the polemic.

                Such polemic is the mirror image (without the scientific trappings) of folks like Dubowitz, Albright, and Heinonen denouncing the Iranians. Neither side is actually dealing with the substance of the IAEA’s findings.

          • So it is not so rosy as you may wish to believe, Andre, and Razmjoo makes a fair point that Yankistan can and most probably will reimpose the suspended unilateral sanctions then withdraw from JCPOA despite 100% Iranian compliance.

            Iran is a signatory to the JCPOA, not to the motorized goal posts Trump and Congress have unilaterally decided to construct. If they have evidence of non compliance, they have to present it to the other signatories and the IAEA. Haley is trying to argue that the agreement is fluid and can and should include all manner of peripheral issues not actually mentioned in the agreement.

            So as the article suggests, if the US wants to go it alone they will themselves have to pull out of the agreement.

            • Technically nobody actually signed the JCPOA but it was attached as an annex to UNSCR 2231 which rescinded the multilateral [i.e. UNSC] sanctions against Iran while establishing the verification and monitoring procedures above and beyond the requirements of NNPT, thus becoming part of an international agreement.

              Razmjoo’s point is that outside of that nothing legally prevents Yankistan from attempting to sabotage the whole rickety arrangement, as its only obligation per JCPOA was to suspend its unilateral nuclear-related sanctions for as long as it felt so inclined, which, with these sore losers, always turns out was about 10 minutes.

              Another obvious weakness from Iran’s POV is that nothing prevents the otherwise constipated Yanki Congress from shitting out a steaming fresh batch of unilateral sanctions for any or no other reason [e.g. Iran having any missiles at all, producing Syria butthurt for NeoCons in general or just mild angst for Netanyahudniks], which can be equivalent to or worse than the ones they temporarily suspended, in which case they will be right back to blackmailing banks worldwide into conforming to their boycott of all Iranian business.

              The difference this time around is that, given Iran’s continuing compliance with JCPOA, there is no foreseeable way for Yankistan to make the UNSC agree to reactivate its multilateral sanctions against Iran, and, when the 10 years’ or whatever period is up, this possibility also expires.

              This ultimately is the payoff for Iran and the only reason it entered the agreement, as its designed defects and the predictable course of Yanki welshing were abundantly clear from the outset.

              • Razmjoo’s point is that outside of that nothing legally prevents Yankistan from attempting to sabotage the whole rickety arrangement, as its only obligation per JCPOA was to suspend its unilateral nuclear-related sanctions for as long as it felt so inclined, which, with these sore losers, always turns out was about 10 minutes.

                That is my point exactly. What Haley and Trump are aiming to do is to sabotage the JCPOA by the back door, because Iran’s compliance means they cannot cite violations.

Leave a Comment