JCPOA 2 is also set ablaze
Gradually, whispers from within the parliament opposing the upcoming nuclear agreement with Iran are being heard. Is the conservative parliament willing to set fire to JCPOA 2 as well? The main issue for the parliament members is that most of them claim to be completely uninformed about the negotiations and do not know what the negotiating parties have achieved so far. Probably, more than anyone, the members of the National Security and Foreign Policy Commission are aware of the negotiation process, but they are not inclined 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 seems that what Ebrahim Raisi’s nuclear team has managed to achieve is likely something similar to the JCPOA, or perhaps even less. This might be why a rumor circulated on social media and some Telegram channels a while ago, suggesting that the media has been instructed not to compare any new agreement with Rouhani’s JCPOA text if reached. Otherwise, the entire revolutionary conservative faction would have to answer to the nation for all their attacks and hostilities against the JCPOA and Rouhani’s nuclear team. Although Mojtaba Zonnouri, a member of the National Security Commission, has preemptively spoken of being ready to set JCPOA 2 ablaze, it remains to be seen whether this desire and readiness exist among other parliament members, or if all their claims of autonomy will be questioned.
Preemptive Justifications
From the tone of the statements of the hardline opponents of Rouhani’s JCPOA, it can be understood that they are preparing the ground for an agreement that is evidently not going to be ideal, and they themselves believe it won’t be ideal. 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 probably the result of all the efforts of the nuclear team. Now that they 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 Zonnouri, the representative of Qom and a member of the National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, claims that this agreement is very different from Vienna 6, and many of the issues that concerned us have thankfully been included, and what is happening is in the nation’s favor. Although there might be scattered criticisms or objections from me or another expert, it’s not always the case that my ideal or someone else’s is fulfilled. In any case, I am confident in the work of the negotiating team and am aware of the ongoing efforts, but some of them cannot be disclosed yet as they might influence the media atmosphere in the negotiation process. Interestingly, Amir-Abdollahian has said exactly similar words to Zonnouri, mentioning that last week I was in parliament, and they said we saw the draft and it has these flaws, but from now I say if we reach an agreement tomorrow and someone scrutinizes it, surely the text we wrote has flaws. But the flaws are because our negotiation counterpart has demands, and we cannot say what you say is wrong and unacceptable to us. The text we have might have JCPOA flaws because of the nature of negotiation, and those who have worked know the art of negotiation.
Daring to Ignite
From Ali Khezrian’s series of tweets, a member of the National Security Commission and the Stability Front, it seems that the claim that the revolutionary conservative faction has pointed out from the beginning remains unresolved in these negotiations and the potential agreement, which is the issue of guarantees in implementing 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 under these circumstances.
Interestingly, Zonnouri himself repeated the same reason for opposing the JCPOA just yesterday, saying all our talk was that guarantees should be taken, and you make an agreement, and we give away all nuclear capabilities. Burning the JCPOA 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 be ignored? We had a duty as soldiers of the system and the leader to implement his command. We did exactly that. Even now, if those conditions arise, I will do the same thing again and am not worried about any attack or criticism.
This Agreement Also Lacks Guarantees
And now Khezrian and Kayhan are exactly pointing to this issue and other things, indicating that what is to be achieved is, at best, a copy of the alleged JCPOA. Khezrian wrote on his Twitter that based on the latest reports received from the Vienna negotiations, unfortunately, the draft agreement to revive the JCPOA still has a significant gap with the country’s definitive policy, in such a way that the text still places the US President’s speech as a guarantee and the verification of sanction lifting is entrusted to the US instead of Iran. Moreover, the minimum essentials of a good agreement, such as lifting oil and banking sanctions, resolving remaining issues with the International Atomic Energy Agency, converting oil sales revenue to needed currency, and identifying customers for establishing seamless commercial and economic relations, have not been resolved in the draft. One of the dangers that could lead to the failure of negotiations and the West gaining concessions from Iran in the future on issues beyond nuclear, such as defense and regional matters, is the failure to address 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 also, in its warning headline today addressed to the government, stating that an agreement without guarantees and lifting sanctions is a sheer loss, wrote that the country’s diplomatic officials must be vigilant not to succumb to Western pressures for an agreement without guarantees and lifting sanctions, which is nothing but a sheer loss, and continue to emphasize the main conditions and Iran’s economic benefits from the JCPOA, as they have done so far. Let’s not forget that the Americans have repeatedly said they will not provide guarantees regarding the next US government’s decision.