JCPOA 2 is also set on fire
Gradually, whispers from within the parliament opposing the upcoming nuclear agreement with Iran are being heard. Is the conservative parliament willing to set JCPOA 2 on fire as well? The main issue for the parliamentarians is that most of them say they are completely unaware of the negotiations and do not know what the parties have reached so far. Probably, more than anyone else, the members of the National Security and Foreign Policy Commission are aware of the progress of the negotiations, although they are reluctant to discuss the details. However, from the recent tweets of a member of the Stability Front in parliament and the warning headline of the Kayhan newspaper, it is inferred that what Ebrahim Raisi’s nuclear team has managed to achieve is probably something akin to the same JCPOA, or perhaps even less than that. Perhaps this is why a rumor was spread on social media and some Telegram channels a while ago, suggesting that the media has been instructed not to compare the new agreement with the text of Rouhani’s JCPOA if an agreement is reached. Otherwise, the entire revolutionary conservative movement would have to answer to the nation for all their attacks and hostilities towards the JCPOA and Rouhani’s nuclear team. Although Mojtaba Zolnour, a member of the National Security Commission, preemptively spoke about being ready to set JCPOA 2 on fire, it remains to be seen whether this desire and readiness exist among other parliament members or if all their claims of autonomous action will be questioned.
Preemptive Justifications
From the tone of the hardline representatives opposing Rouhani’s JCPOA, it can be understood that they are preparing the ground for an agreement that is clearly not going to be ideal, and they themselves believe in this lack of idealism. This is exactly what was said to opponents and critics at the time of the JCPOA, that no agreement is ideal and 100%, and the JCPOA was likely the result of all the efforts of the nuclear team. Now that they themselves are in charge, they are repeating the exact same words, with the difference that this time there is no attack or assault from the opposing faction. Mojtaba Zolnour, a representative from Qom and a member of the National Security and Foreign Policy Commission of the parliament, claimed that this agreement is very different from Vienna 6 and many of the issues that were our concerns have thankfully been included, and what happens is in favor of the nation. Although I or another expert may have scattered objections and criticisms, it is not always the case that my ideal or someone else’s is fulfilled. Anyway, I am confident in the work of the negotiating team and am aware of the things that are happening. However, some of them are currently not expressible because they might affect the media atmosphere to some extent in the course of the agreement. Interestingly, Amir-Abdollahian has also said exactly similar words to Zolnour. He pointed out that I was in the parliament last week, and they said we saw the draft and it has these flaws. But from now on, I say if we reach an agreement tomorrow and someone scrutinizes it, surely the text we wrote has flaws, but the flaws are because, after all, our negotiating party also has demands, and we cannot say what you say is wrong and your words are unacceptable to us. The text we have may have the flaws of the JCPOA in it, and this is due to the nature of negotiation, and those who have worked know the art of negotiation.
The Courage to Ignite
From the series of tweets by Ali Khezrian, a member of the National Security Commission and the Stability Front, it seems that the claim that the revolutionary conservative movement had pointed out from the beginning remains unresolved in these negotiations and potential agreement, and that is the issue of guarantees in the implementation of the agreement. This is why these revolutionary representatives are now faced with the question of whether they are still willing to set JCPOA 2 on fire in parliament.
Interestingly, Zolnour himself reiterated just yesterday the reason for his opposition to the JCPOA. Our whole point was that guarantees must be obtained, and you agree, and we give away all nuclear capabilities. Setting the JCPOA on fire was because the Leader had said if they tear it up, we will set it on fire. When Mr. Trump left, it meant he tore it up. Should the Leader’s words remain unheeded? We had a duty, as soldiers of the system and the Leader’s command, to execute his order. We did exactly that. If the same conditions arise again, I will do the same, and I am not worried about any attacks or criticisms.
This Agreement Also Lacks Guarantees
And now Khezrian and Kayhan are precisely pointing out this issue and other things, which shows that what is supposed to be achieved is, at best, a copy of the same JCPOA, which they claim is false. Khezrian wrote on his Twitter that according to the latest reports received from the Vienna negotiations, unfortunately, the draft of the JCPOA revival agreement still has a considerable distance from the country’s definitive policy, such that in the text, the speech of the US president is still considered a guarantee, and the verification of sanction relief is entrusted to the US instead of Iran. Moreover, the minimum necessities of a good agreement, such as the lifting of oil and banking sanctions, the closure of remaining issues in the International Atomic Energy Agency, the conversion of oil sales revenue to the needed currency, and identifying customers for establishing problem-free commercial and economic relations, have not been resolved in the draft. One of the dangers that may prevent the completion of negotiations and lead to the West gaining concessions from Iran in future issues beyond nuclear, such as defense and regional matters, is the non-resolution of the FTO sanction issue in the agreement and deferring it to after the agreement. Therefore, setting any deadline for the agreement without resolving these issues is unacceptable.
Kayhan newspaper, in its warning headline today addressed to the government, stated that an agreement without guarantees and the lifting of sanctions is pure loss. The country’s diplomatic officials must be vigilant not to succumb to the pressures of the West for an agreement without guarantees and an agreement without the lifting of sanctions, which is nothing but pure loss, and must continue to emphasize Iran’s main conditions and economic benefits from the JCPOA, as it has been so far. Let us not forget that the Americans have repeatedly stated that they do not guarantee the decisions of the next US government.