Sir, – I was struck by the negative and disparaging stance of "A new Iran nuclear deal is needed, not a revival of the old one" (Alan Shatter, Opinion & Analysis, March 18th).
To suggest that the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs “landed in a quagmire” is an incorrect characterisation of such an important ministerial visit. Simon Coveney described his visit in the opposite way – focusing on its “productive” and “constructive” outcomes both in bilateral and multilateral terms.
As a result of his trip, Ireland will rejoin the more than 100 countries that already maintain a diplomatic presence in Iran. In addition to addressing important regional and international subjects, the means of getting the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) up and running again in light of the new circumstances surrounding the issue were also discussed.
Such positive developments have been greatly welcomed by the Irish people and Government.
Mr Shatter’s demand for a “new deal” is a recipe for disaster. The JCPOA is a significant multilateral agreement thoroughly negotiated by its participants, supported by the international community, sanctified by international law and endorsed by the UN Security Council. Calling for its arbitrary nullification and for the unjustifiable imposition of further conditions on Iran undermines the very foundations of law and challenges conventional wisdom. Surely, it is common sense that imposing a forced agreement under duress could never lead to a durable, substantive deal. Legally speaking, even if the JCPOA were to be renegotiated, new terms and conditions would have to be imposed on the United States, rather than Iran, as it was the United States that so recklessly abrogated its obligations.
Calls for a “new deal” resemble Donald Trump’s elusive ambition of a “better deal” to replace the JCPOA. Long before he woke up to his brilliant idea, the arch-enemies of multilateral diplomacy like Binyamin Netanyahu, John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, Mohammad Bin Salman, and Mohammad Bin Zaed pooled their efforts to undermine the JCPOA in an attempt to force Iran to succumb to a new deal through an inhumane maximum pressure policy. It took them five years to realise that the pressure would fail. Now their calls for a “better deal” can be truly seen for what they really were all along – a cynical delaying tactic and time-killing ploy meant to derail the process and kill any real opportunities for resolving the issue once for all, thereby sacrificing international peace and security for their own interests.
It is wrong to compare Iran with North Korea in the nuclear context. Iran has no nuclear weapons and has always been at the forefront of the international call for the elimination of nuclear weapons in the Middle East region and the entire world. It should also be pointed out that Iran’s membership of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the subjection of its nuclear programme to the tightest and most stringent restrictions ever known contrasts very sharply with Israel’s failure to join the NPT and its continued insistence that its nuclear weapons arsenal remain secret and illicit. Repeating accusations and exaggerations about the “Iranian threat”, often resorted to by Mr Netanyahu, is by now surely the most worn-out method of spreading phobia against Iran.
Whether its opponents like it or not, the JCPOA which was the outcome of marathon negotiations by experts over several years, has been aptly characterised as “comprehensive” and is widely regarded as a landmark achievement of multilateral diplomacy. It has also proven to be a compelling test case for the credibility of its parties. It has shown to the global public that the loud claims by the US and its European allies of support for human rights and the principles of international law are often hollow.
It is a pity that Mr Shatter, a former minister for justice and equality, fails to address the unjust and discriminatory sanctions illegally imposed on Iran with brutal and detrimental effects for ordinary people. The JCPOA was not only about assurances regarding the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program. It was also about ending the illegitimate sanctions against the Iranian people.
It would be more useful for commentators to consider the most relevant question of all – as long as the United States and Europe remain in breach of their obligations under the original deal, why should Iran consider a new one? – Yours, etc,
Dr MASOUD ESLAMI,
Ambassador,
Embassy of the
Islamic Republic of Iran,
Blackrock,
Co Dublin.