Although the US and Europe take the same positions toward North Korea, but there is dichotomy in their policy regarding the Iran’s nuclear program. Despite pressure from US, Europe’s governments try to save Iran nuclear deal. Political analyst on international affairs Zohreh Ghadbeigy answered Eurasia Diary’s questions on this issue.
Historical background and political aspects of Iran nuclear deal
Iran's first attempts to achieve nuclear technology are back to the 1950s, interestingly, the first country to welcome Iran's move was the United States of America. In 1958, Iran became a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (I.A.E.A), and since then Iranian representatives have been present at the IAEA meetings.
In 1968, Iran accepted the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and passed it in the National Parliament in 1970. Subsequently, Iran signed a ten-year nuclear fuel cycle agreement with the United States in 1974, West Germany in 1976, and France in 1977. But with the victory of the Islamic Revolution of Iran in 1979, Western policy changed towards Iran and became a policy of technological sanctions on Iran. The German company Siemens refused to complete the Bushehr nuclear power plant and instead proposed to complete the project with reactors that worked with natural gas that Iran disagreed it. Since Iran could not bring a lot of international pressure to Western Germany at this time, legal disputes over this unfinished plan continued until 1988 and Iran requested compensation, but eventually, Siemens refused to pay compensation with the support of the International Trade Commission in Paris, and no compensation was paid to Iran.
Therefore, in general, the issue of establishing the Iranian nuclear program (from the perspective of the West) goes back to the international and regional developments. The most significant changes that have aggravated intensified US-Iran confrontation, back to the events of September 11, 2001, then the US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and Iran's effective role in the containment of terrorism, the victories of Islamists in Palestine and Egypt, the victory of Lebanese Hezbollah in the 33-day war and the false claims of a terrorist group (Rajavi group) that Iran is looking for a nuclear weapon in its nuclear program.
So this made the world problematic. Indeed, the fears of the United States and its allies from the emergence of Iran's power in the region and the threat of the Israel's survival in occupied Palestine provided the basis for a mock crisis over Iran's nuclear program.
Trump’s sanctions and Iran’s economy
First, Iran's sanctions are not specific to the Bush, Obama, or Trump administration, but also from the very beginning of the victory of the Islamic Revolution of Iran in 1979, this country is in a state of sanctions. Therefore, it is a mistake to imagine that comprehensive sanctions will only go back to a certain period of American presidents. Namely, that is the sanctions have existed during the 39 years since the Islamic Revolution of Iran.
Sometimes, due to the developments in the international system, the emphasis and intensification of sanctions against Iran were necessary from the United States and its allies. On the other hand, after the economic crisis in Europe was felt the need to negotiate to cancel or reduce sanctions by the three European powers; However, it only took place at the negotiation level and did not result in practice. In this regard, Iran has always shown its goodwill. Also, in the international system, every country seeks to survive and secure its own interests.
Thus, European interests required that they respond positively to Iran's nuclear program; given the problems that existed in the interior of Europe. Anti-Iranian sanctions prevented Business and Economic and Energy Transactions between Iran and Europe, especially after the Ukrainian crisis. In addition, the United States did not entirely focus on North Korea. According to the United States and the Security Council, there are several countries that are being blamed as a threat to international security: Iran, North Korea, Libya, etc. But with recent international events, it should be acknowledged that while North Korea is considered a threat to international security from the perspective of the United States, it still focuses on Iran rather than Korea North. For example, the lack of attention to the provisions of the agreement (JCPOA), the charge of Iran to cooperate with the terrorist group of al-Qaeda and the attack on the official organs of Iran, including the Revolutionary Guards and this like. It is somewhat fictitious and unbelievable that the United States wants to modify Iran's attitude to its nuclear program alone. Because in every country, there are institutions, decision-making organs, various devices that organize its program in the international arena, internal and external politics, and behave according to a set of specific actions and procedures in the international arena.
Therefore, the change in the attitudes of one country to Iran and to other countries is aimed at some kind of independence and freedom of the countries, and it is a clear intervention in the countries. Therefore, it cannot be imagined that the United States or any other country can change Iran's perspective on its nuclear program. Also, regarding the impact of the sanctions on the Iranian economy, sanctions should be considered as an undeniable fact on the economies of the countries. But how to cope with the conditions of sanctions is an important issue. As stated above, Iran has been in a state of sanctions for over 39 years, despite some of the effects that sanctions on Iran's economy, always has been continued the process of domestic production and development and during sanctions, many achievements, such as space satellites, the production of some medications inside, self-sufficiency in some areas of agriculture, the construction of power plants, the construction of tunnels, road construction, the construction of docks and the development of oil and gas facilities and ... came to Iran. In fact, Iran's massive sanctions were ineffective (unsuccessful).
How much US military intervention in Iran is real?
No agreement can be completely rejected or endorsed. Namely, the attitude of zero-hundred has the international agreements. Because, the agreement is two-way that the parties for benefit from the relative benefits of the agreement, somewhat moderate some of their interests. That is, they ignore some of their interests in order to gain more profit.
In this agreement, Iran has consistently adhered to its commitments. But some American and European leaders accuse Iran of violating it (JCPOA) and are not willing to adhere to their commitments. American and European leaders seem to be pushing for more pressure on Iran. Given Iran's role in post-JCPOA situations in the Middle East, and in particular the successful performance of Iran in the fight against terrorism in Syria and Iraq, provided a threat to the interests of the United States and the survival of Israel. It is likely that further pressure and sanctions, and even groundless charges against Iran, will continue.
As for the the probability of a war: America has been struggling against Iran since the beginning of the Islamic Revolution, and none was successful: Faced with a military and political defeat in Tabas, in the course of the Iraq war against Iran, he supported Saddam's full height, but during the eight years of the war he did not allow himself to directly enter into war with Iran.
The cost of war with Iran for the United States is irreparable and its future is unknown. Increasing the defense and military capabilities of the Iranian armed forces as deterrent and allegations of unjustified threats against the attack on Iran.
The United States uses the negotiating and refers to some aspects of the nuclear program to confront Iran. Therefore, the attack on Iran's nuclear and missile programs is being evaluated by US officials in this regard. The missile program is separate from the nuclear program. But America wants to tie the two together.
Farid Hasanov
