Quitting Iran deal would ruin 12yrs’ work, threaten nuclear war – rep for Nobel Peace Prize-winner
Washington’s threats to walk out of the Iran nuclear deal is a critical moment for global nuclear non-proliferation, as it risks uprooting over a decade of diplomatic work and bring the world on the verge of a nuclear war, Jean-Marie Collin of ICAN France told RT.
Collin, coordinator of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) for France, which was recently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, told RT he believes the US is putting the world’s safety in jeopardy by threatening to quit the nuclear deal.
Defending the agreement, Collin argued that no deal could possibly please all sides, as the ability to compromise lies in the nature of every agreement.
“Maybe it’s not the best agreement that we obtained, but you know, an agreement is never the best,” he said, adding that the deal should be considered a success as it reduces the chances of a major nuclear conflict breaking out.
“The important fact is that we arrived [there] after 12 years of diplomatic work, we did not have any war, we did not have any conflict with Iran and the rest of the world,” Collin said.
The deal stuck between Iran and the US, Russia, China, the UK, France and Germany in 2015 should not be a subject to revision, as it would undermine the result of a decades-long negotiation process, Collin said, saying “the deal is the deal.”
READ MORE: Intl Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons wins Nobel Peace Prize
“You cannot ask to revise the deal,” he stressed, pointing out that it will be possible to renegotiate some of the provisions only after they expire in 2025, but not before.
“Maybe some state will want to add some new paragraphs, some new rules, it’s a possibility we cannot deny just now 10 years before,” he said.
Meanwhile, the statements by US President Donald Trump leave the deal’s fate hanging in the balance, Collin argued, as after Washington withdraws, Tehran will follow suit.
“It’s a really important moment of these times, because we have two presidents, one from a democratic country, one from an authoritarian country, who are apparently ready to use nuclear weapons and it points to the fact that nuclear weapons are not safe either in good hands or in bad hands,” the activist said.
The ongoing war of words between the Iranian and the US governments and mutual threats to quit the deal, might indeed pose a risk to the entire world's security if hostilities reach a boiling point.
“The problem is we are on a limit to have escalations,” Collin said, adding that “If there’s an accident that gets to war, we are going to have international problems across the world. All countries would be touched by this possible nuclear war.”
The only way to avert the catastrophic scenario of all-out nuclear warfare is to engage in negotiations, Collin said, noting that Russia and China should assume a leading role in this process taking into account the US’s bellicose rhetoric on the issue of late.
“We should engage in diplomatic action with Russia and China, who are key major players in these problems… For sure, it’s important that these countries make some proposals because for the moment we have no real proposal on the table from the United States.”
On Monday, Trump doubled down on his threat to withdraw from the landmark deal, saying that its “total termination” is “a very real possibility.”
It comes just several days after Trump did not recertify the nuclear deal before Congress, sparking an international outcry. The move means that now the Congress must decide within 60 days whether to impose sanctions on Iran, which were lifted as part of the agreement in exchange for Iran significantly curbing its nuclear program.
Iran insists that it does not possess nuclear weapons and doesn’t pursue the goal of developing them.
The IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] has repeatedly attested to Iran’s full compliance with the deal, while Washington keeps accusing Tehran of violating the spirit of the deal by conducting missile tests.
However, the Iranian government argued that the missiles are not designed to carry nuclear warheads and that its military program is exclusively defensive in nature.
