- Speaking about the agreement reached in Geneva, the West places special emphasis on the fact that Tehran was forced to sit at the negotiating table. It is implied that it was tough sanctions that took effect and drove the country's leadership into a corner.
- Of course, the sanctions have greatly affected the economy of Iran, and, accordingly, on the living standards of the citizens of the Islamic Republic. The devaluation of the rial struck the country and its inhabitants very painfully, but they not only survived, but also are ready to take revenge - in the development of the state’s economy. So the situation does not look as critical as it is trying to present in the West. Sanctions, among other things, stimulated domestic production in Iran - although, the medicine is, of course, bitter ...
Journalists almost convinced everyone and everything that sanctions were imposed only after 2005, and are associated exclusively with the nuclear program. In reality, the White House began to “tighten the screws” from 1979, immediately after the Islamic revolution and the fall of the regime of a reliable American ally, Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. I will not give the whole list of sanctions now, it is very long. Sometimes it comes to a frank "clinic": in February 2004, the US Treasury Department banned the editing and publication of scientific manuscripts from Iran - this is the freedom of speech and scientific exchange declared by Washington ... - and threatened American scientists who break the "taboo", criminal prosecution.
But Tehran did not sit at the negotiating table due to pressure from the West. Seeking a partial cancellation of the sanctions regime, the team of President Hassan Rouhani is simultaneously looking for ways to use internal reserves more efficiently for further development. And here it should be noted: to a certain extent, unemployment in the country was the result of cheap imports, which was made possible by the super-profits from commodity exports. If we analyze the structure of the sanctions, we can see that the last of them, related to the banking sector, automobile and shipbuilding, are caused solely by the fact that Iran not only did not capitulate, but also develops its own production.
Of course, in the republic everything is far from ideal, let's say, the issue of lending to small and medium businesses is very acute. The question is the implementation of the state program for financing the creation of jobs: along with social subsidies, it has led to an increase in domestic debt. However, for all that, a number of steps taken by the Hassan Rouhani administration in this direction give hope for a rectification of the situation.
- Recently, experts from the University of Georgia and Harvard presented their study entitled "The nuclear war between Israel and Iran: infinite mortality." Tehran’s statements about the absence of nuclear weapons weapons scientists did not take into account and modeled the consequences of possible nuclear strikes that Iran could allegedly inflict on Tel Aviv, as well as Haifa and Beer-Sheva. I will omit the details, the main thing is that the Western states and their allies in the Middle East region a priori proceed from the fact that Iran is about to acquire nuclear weapons. And therefore Tehran should "crush" and "crush."
- The real reason for the unprecedented sanctions and other pressure on Tehran is in the desire to “change the regime” in Iran. Iranian principles and independence are not satisfied with Washington, Tel Aviv and Riyadh - and that’s it!
The West can say anything. Another thing is important: for the entire period of hysteria around the Iranian nuclear program, not a single one was presented - I emphasize, not one - any weighty evidence of its military nature. Even the US intelligence agencies, with all the political pressure on them, have repeatedly stressed in their reports that Tehran does not conduct a military nuclear program. Also, the IAEA - in fact, a tool of US foreign policy toward Iran - has never presented independent international experts with evidence that the Atomic Energy Agency itself would consider “exhaustive”. Moreover, when several American nuclear physicists expressed their readiness to examine information about the “military component of the Iranian nuclear program” - which were transferred to the IAEA by the Iranian anti-Iran organization “Mojaheds of the Iranian people” - they were generally denied access to this information.
The solution to Tehran’s nuclear program could initially be reached at the negotiating table. The West missed this opportunity in 2003, when the Islamic Republic was ready for maximum concessions in controlling its own nuclear research. But then she made obviously impracticable demands for the complete cessation of any work in the nuclear field. And when Iran offered a compromise and, notice, unilaterally suspended nuclear activities, the West stopped negotiations and began a new round of the “war of sanctions”.
In August, 2012, in negotiations with the West, Iran proposed to completely abandon uranium enrichment to the 20-percentage level in exchange for the lifting of a number of sanctions. It would seem that more is needed, because this very question was the main obstacle. But the initiative was rejected because the West expected that the presidential elections in Iran in 2013 would lead to destabilization of the situation and, possibly, to mass unrest along the lines of “orange revolutions”. Miscalculated, and again had to sit at the negotiating table. But how much time, effort, finances and lives did this stubbornness of the West take? Has anyone asked a similar question?
- After the signing of the agreement between the Six and Teheran in Geneva, Western politicians began to make statements according to the “yes, but at the same time ...” scheme. That is, ahead of time they accuse Iran of compulsory violation of agreements. And Tel Aviv immediately called the agreement "a deception of the century" ...
- Let me remind you that it was Iran that offered an unprecedented measure of control - the installation of technical monitoring equipment and video surveillance equipment at its own nuclear facilities. This was precisely the initiative of Tehran, and it was accepted by the IAEA. If a country makes such offers, can we trust it? I think yes.
In fact, the issue of trust is better addressed to Washington and the leadership of the IAEA. Can we assume that Washington will cease to regularly make deliberately impracticable demands that go far beyond what the Iranian leadership has signed? In order to say: “You see, Tehran does not fulfill the requirements of the international community, which means that it cannot be trusted, it means that it is conducting a military nuclear program.” Can we trust the leadership of the IAEA and the agency’s inspectors - mostly the US military - that they will not demand access to Iranian military facilities unrelated to the nuclear program? My answer is: we can not. Too often they did it.
Iran’s main opponent is Israel, which accuses Tehran of being closed and reluctant to put a nuclear program under international control, completely refuses to internationally inspect its own nuclear arsenals. So who actually hides what?
- Again, based on the distrust of Teheran’s fulfillment of its obligations, Washington is already threatening to “tighten the screws” today if, from his point of view, everything goes wrong. Is this a “preventive measure” or an attempt to appease its main ally in the Middle East, Israel?
- For the current US administration, the normalization of relations with Iran is the only chance to restore the system of checks and balances in the region. The one that the United States created since 1950, and which they themselves have destroyed: first by defeating Saddam's Iraq, and then by supporting the “Arab spring”. Two US strategic partners in the region, Israel and Saudi Arabia, are frankly spinning out of control. And to apply to them the tried-and-true "Divide and Conquer" from Washington fails. No regional antagonist player. More precisely, it exists, it is Iran, but it is not under control, which means there is no balance, the maintenance of which would ensure respect for the interests of Washington in the region.
Making Iran an element of its Middle Eastern architecture is the most important task of the Barack Obama administration. Here she is trying to solve it by any available means - from recognition of Tehran’s right to participate in the dialogue on Syria to a breakthrough in the issue of Tehran’s nuclear program.
In this, however, the United States is hindered by their closest allies: the uncompromising Tel Aviv and Sunni Riyad that support radical extremism, on the world map of which the state of Israel does not exist, come together in a rare alliance. The last weeks have shown: these allies play a major role in the process, both in the international arena and within the United States - right on Capitol Hill, in Congress.
The position of this three-headed political monster, we repeat, is very clear - a complete halt of Tehran’s nuclear program and the subordination of the Iranian leadership to the interests of external centers. No options and compromises. As the head of the republican majority in the House of Representatives, Eric Kantor, said: "Any agreement that does not require a complete shutdown of the Iranian nuclear program is worse than no agreement." He explained: “The sanctions brought the Iranian leadership to the negotiating table, but история teaches us caution in relation to their tactics. We should not rush to conclude an agreement, but continue to exert pressure until the Iranians are ready to make substantial concessions. ”
This means that the Geneva accords are very fragile, and the process of normalizing relations with Iran is completely reversible, and its opponents will do their best for the new round of confrontation with Tehran. Of course, the matter will not come to an armed conflict, but the undeclared war against Iran will unfold with a new force, claiming millions of dollars and hundreds of human lives. Need it Europe? Do you need it for the people of the USA?
- If statements by Israeli politicians are considered a guide to action, then events in a psychosis situation can develop according to the worst scenario. Will Washington be able to "calm" Tel Aviv?
“The policy of Tel Aviv persistently shows that Israel is not part of the solution, it is part of the problem. It is time to urge him to become a responsible international actor. Not only the international community, but also Washington, should call Israel to this, no matter how difficult it is.
In Israel itself, everything was decided long ago. At a meeting of the Cabinet of Ministers held on November 24, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said: “What was signed in Geneva is not a historical document, but a historical mistake.” And he reiterated that Israel will now deal with its own security issues. The rest of the cabinet members spoke no less harshly. However, Naftali Bennet, the Minister of Economy, went the furthest: "If a suitcase with a nuclear device blows up in America or Europe in a few years, this will be the result of the Geneva agreements."
What will Israel be doing in the near future with regard to Iran, its nuclear program and the Geneva agreements? This was very eloquently said by the former chief of staff and Israeli defense minister, Lieutenant General Shaul Mofaz: “The military option is the last thing Israel can do. Tel Aviv must choose the path of "quiet diplomacy." It is necessary to influence the permanent contract, because in this case we have not been able to exert any influence, and now we are fighting rearguard battles. We can strike and destroy part of the Iranian facilities, but we cannot stop the Iranian nuclear program. ”
Saudi Arabia and Canada have already expressed their dissatisfaction with the Geneva agreement. So the anti-Iranian coalition does not intend to lay down arms, and intends to fight with all its might against the peace process, against security in the region and in the world.
The champions of the war only surrender when they are found backed against the wall by peace initiatives of those whom they consider to be their enemies. So it was with reference to Syria, so it is in the situation with Iran. In both cases, Russia plays a key role, preventing military "problem solving". Our foreign policy is more and more similar to the policy of an influential world power, which we have wanted to see the country for more than twenty years.