Mohammad Sadat Khansari
snapback, Iran, NCRI, Nuclear
The United Stated activated the snapback mechanism that was a proviso of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal last Saturday. Now the question is that how the Iranian regime could prevent it from becoming operational? In this regard, the state-run Arman daily on Thursday, in an article answered this question, confirming that the mullahs’ regime has received a major blow.
Following the activation of the snapback mechanism by the U.S. and the return of global sanctions and six UN Security Council resolutions, the Iranian regime is now obliged to suspend reprocessing and heavy water enrichment activities. This puts an end to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA.
“The U.S. administration says it has triggered the snapback mechanism against the nuclear deal agreement. This means, in the eyes of the White House rulers, the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 is canceled, and from now on, Resolution 1929 must be the basis of the international system’s interaction with Iran. According to this resolution, all countries are obliged to inspect suspicious shipments destined to Iran and to destroy them if they find prohibited goods,” read the article.
While referring to the regime’s international isolation and deadlock, Arman’s article added: “The United States has two tools to implement Resolution 1929. First, to impose sanctions on any country that violates the provisions of the resolution, and second, to establish a strong inspection system to fully control any trade with Iran, especially at sea. If all countries opposed to the revival of Resolution 1929 wanted to enter into arms trade with Iran, the U.S. embargo is unlikely to work to deter them all, but the Americans are convinced that such a will does not exist. For example, the three European countries that signed the JCPOA still want to extend the arms embargo on Iran, and Russia and China are not interested in selling offensive weapons due to their regional security considerations.”
“Thus, the only possibility is the limited sale of advanced defense weapons by Russia and China to Iran, which also allows the U.S. to impose effective sanctions on the two countries’ arms companies, effectively neutralizing the potential benefits of such a trade. On the other hand, Iran’s arms exports do not have a profitable market and an enthusiastic customer that the U.S. wants to worry about,” the article added.
In answering the question of “whether the U.S. is capable to inspect ships alone?” the state-run Arman added: “The key question now is whether the U.S. wants to take on this task directly. Inspection of ships and seizure of their cargo naturally requires the establishment of a robust inspection system, which is costly. Is the U.S. ready for this? The seizure of the oil products of several Iranian-used ships bound for Venezuela indicates that the U.S. is prepared for this action. Therefore, it will not be unlikely that this behavior will be repeated under the pretext of preventing arms trade with Iran. In fact, the inspection of cargo ships interferes with Iran’s limited normal trade process with other countries and turns the benefits into costs for both buyers and sellers. Now does the international community tolerate this situation?”
Finally, in answering the question of whether the mullahs’ regime will be able to take any action against the inspection of its ships and other consequences of the activation of the snapback mechanism, Arman wrote: “By what means does the Islamic Republic want to deal with the possible inspection of ships? With the help of other world powers? Or referring to international institutions? None of them work. So, there are two other ways. The first is that the Iranian government should use the method of circumventing inspections in a limited way and consider it a victory for itself! The second is to retaliate and start the final game by engaging in harassment or seizing U.S. allied ships in the region. Such an event, however, could easily lead to a military confrontation, and this is what has been declared a red line in the official policy of the Islamic Republic. So, should we wait for a period of ship inspections to become as normal for the country as economic sanctions, or will something unexpected happen in the middle?”
Arman’s article once again shows the mullahs are in an international deadlock and now the international community should choose firmness in the face of this regime.
During her speech in “Trans-Atlantic Summit on Iran Policy” on the eve of the UN General Assembly in 2020, Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, the Iranian opposition president, said: “It is a mistake to think that a reduction of international sanctions will result in the regime abandoning its belligerence. Ironically, it was under the auspices of the JCPOA that the Iranian regime’s terrorism ravaged Europe.”
“As for sanctions, I must reiterate that the people of Iran were attacked and slaughtered last November for protesting against gasoline price hikes. They want the pipelines that fuel the mullahs’ killing machine and terrorism to be destroyed. What we say is this: Boycott the clerical regime. Boycotting the regime helps the fight against terrorism, against suppression and against corruption. But every single dollar given to the regime will turn into a bullet that is fired into the hearts of youths in Iran, Iraq, Syria and Yemen. Our people do not want uranium enrichment plants. Neither do they want a ballistic missiles program, or the regime’s criminal wars in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Lebanon,” Mrs. Rajavi added.