US foolish to back off from Iran nuclear conclusion: Analyst
It will be “foolish” for the United States to turn away from Iran’s nuclear conclusion just in the backdrop of a row between the US dominant parties in the Republican-weighted Congress, an analyst says.
“On the economic, security, and strategic fronts there are benefits to the United States and it would be foolish for the US government to turn away from it because of some opposition by the legislative branch,” said the co-author of Iran Nuclear Negotiations: Accord and Détente since the Geneva Agreement of 2013, Kaveh Afrasiabi, on Press TV’s Debate aired on Sunday.
The US State Department announced earlier in the day that the text of the agreement struck between Iran and the P5+1 group has been sent to the US Congress for a 60-day-long review by American lawmakers.
Afrasiabi noted that after the agreement Washington would also benefit from a better environment that could be “conducive to future normalization of relations.”
Afrasiabi said, however, that there were “a lot of issues between the two countries that have so far prevented normalization and détente and these need to be worked on.”
Further dialogue may required topics such as the threat of terrorism and regional security, he added
The UN Security Council plans to vote on a draft resolution on Monday that will in 90 days remove all of its nuclear-related sanctions against Iran.
The new resolution has been prepared based on a conclusion on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) reached between Iran and the P5+1 — the United States, Britain, France, China, Russia, and Germany — on July 14 in Vienna after days of intensive talks over Tehran’s nuclear program.
According to Jim Walsh from MIT’s Security Studies Program, who was also present in the Debate, the conclusion was a “win-win” for all parties.
“Iran gets sanctions relief, gets its rights recognized and in return other countries, the international community, get assurance that Iran’s peaceful nuclearprogram will not be used for the acquisition of nuclear weapons,” he said.
He added that if it were a “bad agreement” none of the parties engaged would have signed it, noting the nuclear conclusion “opens a new chapter” for the countries to hold further talks.