Wednesday, 15 January, 2020

US Multifold Positions on JCPOA

By: Abdolreza Ghofrani

As the review of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is drawing to its final days, there is optimism, or if you like hopefulness, that JCPOA will be concurred by the two sides and then it is expected that be effected.

US President Obama so far has won the approval and support of 37 senators that is sufficient for backing up the presidential veto; and if the President can gain more approval and support votes for instance up to 41, then he will be able to obstruct the rejection of JCPOA by the US Senate.

Certainly, as the process goes on this way, that probability will be the unavoidable outcome. There is no doubt; this will be perceived a success for democrats and the present US Administration.

So far so good for JCPOA, since everything has advanced well and quietly. However, in spite of endeavors of Obama administration to bring the plan to a good upshot, which US high ranking officials consider a great break for President Obama, over the past couple of days, Secretary of State John Kerry - he himself having a remarkable role in making this plan - has said the words and taking some positions that are not appropriate, and not serving the purpose and nature of the plan.

These will make uncertainties in the execution process of the JCPOA. Definitely to serve her best national interests, any country entitles to take its own policies. Admittedly, those policies have to be made in line with international regulations and requirements; therefore any policy made by any state should not violate the commitments and deals that country has made with other states.

A few days back, Secretary John Kerry in Philadelphia on the occasion of winning the support of one more senator of JCPOA, defending the Plan and calling it a great success serving the best benefits of US government. However he said some words and did take positions that if are not considered obstructs, they are, at least, not quite clear, also being pretty ambiguous.

Before a group of people, supporting the plan, John Kerry said that “United States would not cease arms sales to Israel and her Arab allies (doubtless including Saudi Arabia)”.It is not so difficult to figure out Israel and US Arab allies will use against which countries and what purpose they will pursue.

Moreover, US Secretary of State, in his words, reiterated the so called “Iron Tomb” , that is the defensive umbrella on Israel. Now the question here is who on earth is going to invade Israel that has made the iron tomb so vital for this country? Being pretty obvious for everyone that over the past six decades, it has been Israel that constantly invades other countries of the region and occupied their lands.

By and large, United States, in spite of this position, has imposed sanctions on two Russian companies for arm sales to Iran. It is quite ironic that United States reserves the rights to sell arms to others for their so called self-defense; however other countries, and Iran among others, should not purchase arms, being for defensive purpose, from others. This is not but merely a US double policy.

It sounds quite plausible and principle, that United States has to take and pursue a more transparent policy. Since, otherwise, the existing non confidence edifice between that country and others will be higher. Besides, pursuing these multifold policies will certainly make any country, including Iran suspicious that US may not be serious for advancing JAB that will not certainly have desired fallouts.

The last but not the least, United States should not lose sight of the fact that by adoption and eventually execution of JAB ( now a United Nations Security Council resolution ) the sanctions system will collapse and certainly the other concerned countries ( as John Kerry himself bluntly admitted ) would not link their policies to those of the United States’.

Having all these facts in mind, well measured words and sound policies in these sensitive and historical conditions on the parts of all stakeholders and mostly the United States as a principal party sounds quite unavoidable.

fair to share...Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterPin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on LinkedInPrint this pageEmail this to someone

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *