Non-negotiable state« Back
During the annual press conference, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stressed that "the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA) on the Iranian nuclear program is one of the most important achievements of the world community in terms of stabilizing the situation in the Middle East region".
That is why Russia, China, Germany, France and the United Kingdom, as participants in the "nuclear deal" with Iran, have repeatedly stated to the United States about the need to preserve the JCPA and paid attention to the unpredictable consequences of the termination of this document, including for the global nuclear non-proliferation regime. However, Washington continues its policy of breaking this agreement, unreasonably stating Tehran's violations of its obligations under the treaty, which is not confirmed by the IAEA.
Now the United States is trying to change the content of the JCPA, including, for example, restrictions on the implementation of the Iranian program to improve existing ballistic missiles. Formally, this is indicated in the relevant resolutions of the UN Security Council. But these restrictions were not included in the document by mutual agreement, given the considerable superiority in the combat aviation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the regional rival of the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI). This is also the case with regard to the unofficial nuclear state - Israel. In such conditions, Iran's missile weapon is only an element of deterrence, not the delivery of weapons of mass destruction.
Unacceptable for Iran is the US demand for a significant extension of the validity of the JCPA (Americans even insist on its perpetual character). In Tehran it is rightly noted that this violates the rights of the Islamic Republic of Iran as a member state of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. This is not in accordance with the IAEA statute.
In the US they say that Iran interferes in the affairs of neighboring countries and the region as a whole, and also violates human rights at home. But this has nothing to do with the "nuclear deal". Nevertheless, the US Congress is developing a new package of financial and economic sanctions against Iran, and the Trump administration requires a significant change in the treaty from its European allies. Otherwise, the Americans are going to withdraw from the "nuclear deal" unilaterally. At the same time, it is forgotten that the JCPA was put into effect by UN Security Council resolution 2231 of July 20, 2015, which is binding for each UN member state. And the United States in this respect is no exception.
Undoubtedly, by its actions, the Trump administration actually destroys the global nuclear non-proliferation regime. If through its fault the "nuclear deal" with Iran breaks, then, firstly, Tehran will resume the implementation of its own nuclear program, which will include not only the production of highly enriched uranium under the pretext of, for example, the creation of nuclear submarines, but also build a heavy water reactor that can serve as a developer of weapons-grade plutonium.
This, in turn, is likely to lead to a nuclear missile and military attack on Iranian nuclear and military targets, possibly even nuclear execution by Israel (some nuclear facilities of the Islamic Republic of Iran, such as the underground uranium enrichment plant in Fordo, cannot be destroyed by conventional means of destruction). The US will be forced to support its ally, which will lead to a regional war with unpredictable consequences.
Secondly, all regional rivals of Iran, including Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt, will consider the issue of creating nuclear weapons and their means of delivery. Now, in this respect, the greatest successes have been achieved in Egypt, where experiments were already conducted with highly enriched uranium and ballistic missiles were created. It is alarming for Turkey to create long-range ballistic missiles, which may in the future involve the installation of nuclear warheads on them.
And Saudi Arabia has enough financial resources to build its own nuclear missile capability or purchase nuclear warheads, for example, in Pakistan. In such conditions, the nuclear non-proliferation regime, at least in the Middle East, will cease to exist.
Thirdly, Pyongyang closely watches how the situation with the Iranian nuclear problem develops. At the same time, from the leader of the DPRK Kim Jong-un, the international community demands stopping the program to create nuclear weapons in exchange for the lifting of international and unilateral sanctions. But that is what constitutes the essence of the "nuclear deal" with Iran.
If the JCPA ceases to exist, North Korea will not have any incentive even to reduce its nuclear-missile potential. After this, no one can exclude the "nuclear domino" process in Northeast Asia (under certain circumstances, South Korea, Japan and Taiwan can follow the way of the DPRK).
Thus, in the short term, the United States will most likely not withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. However, they will continue to provoke Tehran to withdraw from the SVPD by introducing new unilateral financial and economic sanctions against Iran on the pretext of supporting terrorism and implementing the missile program by Iran. Indirectly this will also affect European states, which at some point may partially support Washington in exchange for withdrawing their companies from anti-Iran sanctions.
This will not change the position of either Russia or China on the issue of preserving the treaty, but this is still not enough. Therefore, Moscow, considering the incompetence of Washington, it is necessary to work actively with its European partners (first of all, with Germany and France). The role of Russia, China and European colleagues in this matter will be crucial to the security and economic stability of the entire Middle East, and perhaps the world as a whole.