If the American president is personally opposed to the nuclear agreement, in addition to pro-Netanyahu members, there are other people inside the American administration and the Zionist entity, however, who disagree with them and support the position of the signatories of the agreement. They consider the American president's declarations about revoking the agreement a breach of traditions and conventions, which call for the implementation of the agreements regardless of the orientations and objectives of the signatories.
The new administration realized this fact and started to look for excuses in order to modify the agreement without further discussing its abolition. It accuses Iran of continuing to develop nuclear weapons, interfering with the internal affairs of US allies in an effort to destabilize them. It also accuses Iran of being a sponsor of terrorism and identifies its Revolutionary Guards faction of its military as a terrorist organization.
In addition to these provocative accusations, the American administration announced that it would observe Iran’s level of commitment to the implementation of the agreement, and that upon detecting any violation, it will take the necessary measures to revoke the agreement. This comes at a time when no signatory country announced any violations on the part of Iran.
In respect to this policy, the question concerns the backgrounds and interests that control the divergent positions of the United States and the European countries' takes on this agreement.
The position adopted by the European countries is based on:
– Iran's commitment to the implementation of the terms of the agreement and its consent to allow the concerned parties, i.e., the "IAEA" to monitor the implementation process and to send periodic reports without any obstructions that prevent them from doing their professional mission.
– Their stance against Trump's arrogant and racist policies that do not abide by the principles of friendship, collaboration, and cooperation held by the previous American administration in dealing with Europe.
– Maintaining the economic interests of European businessmen and companies that have entered into economic agreements and investments with Iran.
As for the American position, it is based on American economic capitalism (other countries paying to receive American protection) and an increase in foreign revenues to be spent domestically. In their stance against the nuclear agreement, they would be responding to:
– The desire of their allies in the Gulf to oppose Iran.
– The Israeli position that considers the agreement to be a step forward in the direction of "upsetting the balance between deterrence and an Israeli horror," and that giving Iran the chance to progress through developing nuclear energy – even if used for peaceful purposes – is a way that brings knowledge and awareness, something, Iran, as the greatest threat to Israel, must not attain.
– The importance of exerting pressure on the Iranian leadership that has not changed its positions and options in the face of the American project of controlling the region.
It is obvious that the European position in opposition to the revocation of the agreement is based on respect for international conventions, opposition to American intransigence, and attainment of economic interests, especially in light of Iran’s commitment to the agreement.
As for the American accusations, they are out of context and irrelevant to the agreement. For example, the issue of the missiles was not mentioned in the agreement. The terms of the agreement did not mention anything concerning the development of non-nuclear weapons. For these and other reasons there is no international consensus on Trump's aggressive policy against the agreement.
What is noteworthy now is that aside from Iran’s friends among the countries of Western Europe, the traditional allies of the US in the UN are not ready to accept its policy. There is fear of diverging and agreeing with the Russian position in its assessment of the agreement. This will necessarily lead to spurring the institutions that affect American decision-making, in order to stop the escalation that is aiming for abolishing the agreement, and to turn it into a kind of observation and intimidation to prevent it from reaching a bad end. This will happen unless new unexpected events that could turn everything around happen.
This article was translated and edited by The Syrian Observer. Responsibility for the information and views set out in this article lies entirely with the author.
