Pair Performance

Middle Eastern scholar and former diplomat Vyacheslav Matuzov talks about the anti-Iranian approach of the U.S. and Israel.

Recently, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the public openly, and with much fanfare, about the Iranian “nuclear archive,” access to which had been obtained by Israeli intelligence services. According to him, Tehran has been secretly working on nuclear weapons even after concluding the nuclear deal, skillfully hiding it from the international community. “Iran lies,” Netanyahu stated dogmatically.

The U.S. was the first to support this version of the events. Recently appointed Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told reporters that he had personally studied files from the “Iranian archive” and that there is evidence Tehran was developing nuclear weapons. The White House representative stated that the United States had long known about Iran’s secret nuclear program. Moreover, this all happened against the background of the president’s threat to withdraw from the nuclear deal with Iran. Donald Trump has already stated that he will announce his decision today.*

The position of the United States on withdrawing from the agreement with Tehran quite clearly reflects the nuances of the overall U.S. foreign policy picture, which is being demonstrated in the era of Donald Trump: rapprochement with Israel and, as a result, a more precise and delicate coordination of Washington’s foreign policy with the Israeli position.

Thus, we should view the U.S. threat to withdraw from the Iranian nuclear deal in the overall context of the anti-Iranian rhetoric, which is strengthening both in Israel and recently in the United States, while recalling the Syrian situation, where the American-backed opposition forces are increasingly losing ground, and the influence of pro-Iranian forces, on the contrary, is growing. The less space there remains for the opposition in Syria, the stronger the anti-Iranian fever in Israel and the U.S.

The Iranian nuclear deal is just an excuse to further aggravate the situation. There are no grounds for a withdrawal from compliance with the “roadmap” for the implementation of this agreement, or for a refusal to gradually relieve the economic sanctions against Iran imposed by the United States. UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres’ appeals to Trump not to leave the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the so-called nuclear deal with Iran, just prove that far too many are perfectly aware of the politicized nature of the U.S. decision.

Guterres has basically urged Trump to make quite reasonable conclusions based on the current situation: If there are any complaints that the agreement needs to be improved then they can continue the negotiation process, but in no case does the agreement that has been reached need to be liquidated, “unless we have a good alternative.” Considerable progress was made and a clear agreement was reached, specifically about what should be done to make Tehran limit its nuclear activities, placing them under international control. The current U.S. withdrawal technically means the destruction of this agreement.

I believe that the U.S. is making a mistake by taking the course of confrontation with all the forces that are struggling for the peaceful resolution of the problems in this region, leading to increased tensions in the Middle East. Moreover, with the U.S. withdrawal from the nuclear deal, Iran will have more opportunities to further develop its nuclear program outside the framework of its peaceful content. In this situation, we will find it difficult to accuse the Iranian leadership of anything.

*Editor’s note: On May 8, 2018 President Trump declared he was withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal, and will now re-impose sanctions.