Although the US has lifted some restrictions under a nuclear deal with Iran, US Secretary of State John Kerry stated that they are there to stay. An advisor to Iran's negotiation team, Kaveh Afrasiabi, told RT that Kerry’s comments do more harm than good.
“Secretary Kerry reiterated the importance of both sides
negotiating in good faith and Iran abiding by its
commitments,” under the initial agreement, an anonymous
State Department official told Reuters on Sunday. “He also
made clear that the United States will continue to enforce
existing sanctions,” the senior official stated, describing
a closed-door meeting between Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister
Mohammad Javad Zarif on the sidelines of the Munich Security
Conference.
RT:Is this statement going to affect
recently revived relations between Iran and the world powers
imposing these sanctions?
Kaveh Afrasiabi: Mr. Kerry’s pressure tactic is
a part of this two-prong course of diplomacy, the other prong
being raising military threats. And this very dangerous verbal
military threat that we saw in President Obama’s State of the
Union address is really counter-productive, and it poisons the
environment for the coming talks. And you know this may well
backfire on the moderate Rouhani administration in Iran as well,
which is under scrutiny by the Iranian hardliners.
RT:Should Tehran just ignore Kerry's words
or react? What would you say as a former adviser to Iranian
diplomats?
KA: Well, the Geneva agreement went into effect
less than two weeks ago and we do not know yet what net effect is
in terms of the newly released unsanctioned areas, such as with
respect to the shipping insurance companies, or the airplane
manufacturers, etc., that cannot export parts to Iran.
And this kind of statements by Secretary Kerry can have crippling
effects in terms of deterring those businesses to do trade with
Iran. And Iran can respond with a variety of ways.
RT:Surely one going into this meeting is
trying to get best out of it, trying to broker some sort of a
deal that will lift all sanctions, isn’t it?
KA: Precisely. And I think that reflects some
ambiguity on the part of the United States which has
traditionally over the past decade or so exploited the ‘Iranian
nuclear crisis’ to sell arms to the Arab states in the Persian
Gulf, to put pressure on Russia on its Southern flank, as well as
to pressure Iran and so on.
And so you know it’s been cries of opportunity for the United
States, and I think they have mixed feelings about ending it. And
if they are sincere and honest about the next round of
negotiations, good faith negotiations, then the US should send
the opposite signal in terms of its willingness to lift all the
associated sanctions which are mentioned in the concluding part
of the Geneva agreement.
RT:But why isn’t Washington doing this?
What is it trying to achieve by hitting Iran with words at this
point or is it just political posturing?
KA: Well, I suppose that their thinking is that
they brought Iran to the table by pressure and they need to
escalate the pressure to gain maximum concessions. And US
Secretary of State Kerry has been referring to dismantling
aspects of the Iranian nuclear program, which is contrary to the
Geneva agreement, and which was flatly rejected by the Iranian
foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif.
So I think that the US’s intention is to go beyond terms of the
Geneva agreement, to table new demands by applying this two-prong
pressure tactics.
RT:Talks between Tehran and the group of
six will resume in just over two weeks? What do you think will
come out of those negotiations?
KA: There is a very difficult and bumpy road
ahead. And the United States find itself increasingly isolated
with the European countries that are part of the negotiations
sending the opposite signal of their willingness to ease the
sanctions and to reach détente with Iran.
And yet we saw the US rebuffing the UN’s overture toward Iran and
Syria and so forth. So much depends of political will in
Washington and their willingness to engage in good faith
negotiations. And right now we don’t quite see that.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.