- Iran has successfully learned the lessons of cohesion and resilience
In the world that its nations have learned from the history how to solve their disputes through diplomacy and negotiations, we are witnessing bad omens of regressive trends toward political immaturity by non-diplomat politicians who resort to unilateralism for imposing their own orders. These trends need more vigilance from those who have historically suffered the brunt of wars and from those who believe the legacy of diplomacy and negotiations.
July 14, 2015, was an international milestone for the history of political negotiations; A determining time in which 10 years of onerous task for settling an international dispute with peaceful means (in compliance with article-2 of the charter of UN) came to the accepted result of Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between Iran, China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States, Germany and the European Union. The adoption of resolution 2231 in Security Council on 20 July 2015, which lifted all UN nuclear related sanctions against Iran, evoked a new global optimistic glance on the function of UN and SC in closing the long lasting hiatuses and peacefully dissolving the political stalemates. From that historic moment, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) privileged regular access to all Iranian nuclear equipment and reported for many times Iran’s full compliance with its nuclear commitments.
The combination of international political rationality with an unprecedented “heroic flexibility” in foreign policy of Iran that occurred on 14 July 2015, could lead to a new successful pattern of constructive interaction for those other countries that bear pessimistic attitude toward international system. Unfortunately, this opportunity for international patterning was missed by the rise of new administration on November 8, 2016 in the US. Assuming the illusion of unipolarism for the US, this new administration from the beginning resorted to international unilateralism and bully approach in enforcing economic benefits of few to the detriment of destroying historically reached political legacies of multilateralism and peaceful negotiations.
US withdrawal from international agreement of JCPOA was not the sole example of these unilateralism; their exit from Paris Climate Agreement, JCPOA, Trans-Pacific Partnership, UNESCO, UN Human Rights Council and most catastrophically, recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital are other examples of the list that should be seriously considered by those who have responsibilities for the future of peace and tranquility in the international relations. The silence of international community toward these unilateralism and rebellionisms, if not result in violation and extremism, will definitely sow divergence and schism between the states and will increase pessimism to international organisations.
The US withdrawal from JCPOA was more a big damage to the legacy of unilateralism and negotiation than a danger to a country that has passed 40 years of resistance
The arbitrary rescinding of US president from internationally agreed JCPOA was not related to Iran’s compliance with its commitments, but because unilateral policies of a non-diplomat politician who didn’t have too much knowledge about four decades resistance and defiance of a nation toward foreign pressures and oppression. What the supreme leader of Iran (Ayatollah Khamenei) in 2015 called a “heroic flexibility”, was an unprecedented permission for kicking off a new round of confidence building with an arch foe, and a real gesture to international community that Iran is ready for dialogue. This opportunity should have been seized by top negotiators of the JCPOA, not as a big challenge that wad need to be passed. For a nation that had successfully passed eight years of an asymmetric war with a coalition (1980-1988) and bypassed decades of sanctions and difficulties, this “heroic flexibility” was a political evaluation. An evaluation that the success of its negotiators could result in confidence building and trust of a nation to the main actors of the international system, what could construct a new era of constructive interaction between these parties.
In analysing the main reasons of US withdrawal from JCPOA, further than all political variables, the economic ones should also be considered. When resolution 2231 reached by consensus in UNSC and nuclear sanctions lifted, Iran earnestly stopped many of its nuclear power plants and changed function of some of them in compliance with the agreements. Consequently, Iran’s economic interactions restarted with the world and obstacles in economic relations started to be removed. JCPOA opened the big market of Iran to the world and facilitate the easy export of gas and oil to the countries that are economically considered as the US rivals. JCPOA accelerated the rise of new powers in the world, the new powers that could surpass the present situation of the US in the world. This was intolerable for a businessman who was now on the political saddle in the US (and also for its regional allies). So, regardless to the consequences of their actions, they needed to do s.th to reverse the situation.
The US withdrawal from JCPOA was more a big damage to the legacy of unilateralism and negotiation than a danger to a country that has passed 40 years of resistance. Iran has successfully learned the lessons of cohesion and resilience, but has the international community learned how to resist toward unilateralism and save its legacy of cooperation that are mentioned in the charter of UN?