Mehr News Agency – US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo‘s remarks on the nuclear deal with Iran have been widely reflected in the world’s political circles. Many of the international affairs analysts consider these statements to be “the White House full confrontation with Iran,” and they argue that terms stated by the new US Secretary of State are not to be realized.
Pompeo’s speech was delivered as the negotiations between Iran and the European troika on maintaining the nuclear deal are going on. Although the United States seemingly doesn’t play any roles in these talks, but behind the curtains, the American authorities are busy negotiating with European officials in opposition to Tehran’s interests. In recent days, many American media and international affairs analysts have warned Trump about his biased approach towards Iran; warnings that have not been taken seriously so far by the president of the United States and his administration members like Nikki Haley and John Bolton, but can turn into their Achilles’ heel in the near future.
Many of international affairs analysts believe that Pompeo’s remarks are in fact the White House’s absolute and explicit opposition to Iranian government and nation, and are considered as the official announcement of the US attempt to overthrow the Islamic Republic of Iran. This is while such a goal was followed by Jimmy Carter, Donald Reagan, George Bush, Bill Clinton, George W Bush, and Obama, and ended up with no results but failure for Washington. In this equation, Mike Pompeo has become a messenger for Trump’s defeating government against the Islamic Republic of Iran. It seems that the US Senators’ initial disagreement with Pompeo’s being the US Secretary of State wasn’t without a reason!
A recent New York Times’ article on Pompeo’s remarks reads: Mr. Pompeo promised to bring “unprecedented financial pressure on the Iranian [government]… and to inflict “bigger problems than they’d ever had before… There are many things wrong with this approach, but let’s start with this: It’s not a strategy. It’s wishful thinking that will make regional tensions worse, if not lead to outright conflict.
The author then continues: It’s no coincidence that John Bolton, one of the George W. Bush administration’s architects of that disaster, is now at the center of American policymaking as Mr. Trump’s national security adviser.
The next thing to note is about the European troika’s real approach to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The European troika is at the same time negotiating with Mike Pompeo and other American diplomats, and holding talks with our country’s foreign ministry officials on “maintaining the JCPOA”.
In a speech to the conservative Heritage Foundation, Pompeo said the administration intended to use all of America’s economic and military strength against Iran. The demands contain 12 points in all including inspection of Iran’s military sites, termination of our country’s missile program and releasing American prisoners; demands that are basically unrealistic.
However, by adopting a paradoxical approach, the European troika is attempting to persuade Iran to accept a new agreement with the United States. As noted above, since the very moment that the United States pulled out of the nuclear deal, Mike Pompeo began his negotiations with European foreign ministers on how to deal with the atmosphere formed in the international system after the US unilateral withdrawal. In a formal statement, the US State Department emphasized on Pompeo’s talks with his British, German and French counterparts over the Iran deal.
Obviously, if the European officials are incapable to provide the necessary safeguards to ensure the realization of the JCPOA (as mentioned by the Leader of the Islamic Revolution), and continue to play by the US rules, the consequences of Iran’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal is going to struck them as well. We can well see that the talks between the United States and the European troika resulted in nothing better than the joint emphasis of the German Chancellor and the French President on the inclusion of our country’s missile capability and regional activities in the nuclear deal. The European authorities’ insistence on “changing the JCPOA” can be analyzed in the same vein.
The fact of the matter is that the European authorities are well aware that due to the unilateral withdrawal of the United States from the nuclear deal, there can’t be any more arguments over “changing the JCPOA”. But US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the foreign ministers of the European countries are all after managing a common plan in this regard; a plan whose final outcome is not going to be to our country’s benefits. At this period, Iran is standing at the one side of the equation while Washington and the European troika are cooperating together on the other side. Thus distinguishing between America and Europe in this game would be the biggest strategic mistake by our country.
The US Secretary of State stated that despite withdrawing from the JCPOA, Washington has called for continued cooperation with Europeans on a new agreement with Iran. In other words, European officials, while speaking of resistance against the US measures, are in talks with the White House to form a new nuclear deal with Iran. Under such circumstances, the only remaining option for the European troika is to take an utterly separate way from that of the United States in this game towards the JCPOA, and attempting to realize the rightful demands of the Islamic Republic of Iran in all the aspects which were previously mentioned in the nuclear agreement. Undoubtedly, as far as the European Union is concerned about playing by the US rules and for Trump’s satisfaction, the cost of the Brussels’ defeat will go higher in this equation. This is what many analysts of European affairs has warned about.
