Nikki Haley: Biden’s deal with Iran is more dangerous than Obama’s deal

According to Fars News Agency’s International Group, Nikki Haley, the former representative of the United States to the United Nations, has claimed that the agreement that the US President Joe Biden’s administration may sign with Iran regarding the lifting of sanctions is different from the initial JCPOA agreement that was signed in 2016. 2015 was also “more dangerous” for Washington.

Haley was one of the staunchest supporters of withdrawing from the JCPOA during his time in the Trump administration. In May 2017, based on his opinions, the Zionist regime and some other advisers of Trump terminated the participation of the United States in this agreement approved by the Security Council and resumed the sanctions against Iran in the form of a policy known as “maximum pressure”.

This policy has now led to failure, according to most international analysts as well as Biden administration officials. The maximum pressure was supposed to force Iran to come to the negotiating table to discuss a new agreement with more restrictions, but it completely failed in this goal and led to Iran’s nuclear developments and the reduction of the effectiveness of sanctions.

In his account on Twitter, Nikki Haley claimed that Iranians will earn more than 2 trillion dollars under the new agreement.

He further wrote: “No member of Congress should [توافق] to support “All Republicans should promise to tear up this deal.”

Nikki Haley’s statements were raised in a situation where the new round of talks on lifting sanctions on Iran was held in Vienna a few weeks ago. This round of negotiations was held after EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell claimed in an article in the Financial Times newspaper that he had put a new proposal package on the table that contains updated solutions regarding the lifting of sanctions and Iran’s nuclear steps.

The Islamic Republic of Iran announced on August 24 that it has submitted its response and considerations regarding the proposals of the European Union. America has also given its own answer to this text. EU foreign policy official Josep Borrell has described Iran’s and America’s responses as “reasonable”.

Analysts say that some factors such as pressure from the Zionist regime, disagreements with Congress and internal problems in the United States have been the reason for the reluctance of the Biden administration to return to the JCPOA in the past months.

Biden came to office in 2021 when the policy of maximum pressure against Iran had failed to achieve its goals. In addition to failing to form a new nuclear agreement, this policy caused division in the relations between the countries on both sides of the Atlantic, endangering the effectiveness of the sanctions system as one of the main tools of American foreign policy, and most importantly, strengthening the anti-arrogance trend in Iran. .

The Islamic Republic of Iran has made the verification of the lifting of sanctions, obtaining guarantees regarding the durability of the JCPOA and the removal of safeguards claims of the Atomic Agency as its main demands in the negotiations to lift the sanctions and has emphasized that only returning to the bilateral agreement, which in exchange for some restrictions, will bring tangible economic benefits to the Iranian nation. He considers it logical to be accompanied and accepts it.

American legislators, who are mainly from the Republican Party, have tried to express their political opposition to the JCPOA in various ways in the past few months, including writing letters to representatives of the executive branch, introducing plans to oblige the American government to ask for an opinion from Congress, and holding various meetings. Express publicly.

Analysts say that this type of opposition cannot be considered as a reflection of the real concerns of this group of politicians about the JCPOA, rather, they are sometimes a part of a broader strategy that the American ruling body as a whole pursues against Iran.

According to these analysts, such oppositions are sometimes their own goals rather than seeking to achieve other goals. From the point of view of a group of American legislators, the mere presence of opposition to the JCPOA and doubting its future can limit Iran’s opportunities to benefit economically from this agreement. According to this group, the tool of opposition to JCPOA can also be a good bargaining lever for American negotiators in Vienna.

On the other hand, such objections are also applicable to members of the Republican Party in internal political conflicts in America. The representatives of the Republican Party know that they can settle the necessary political accounts with him on the eve of the mid-term elections of the Congress by challenging the Biden administration in the category of entering the JCPOA.

end of message/