Larijani

Gradual action is of no use: Sanctions must be removed altogether

In his speech on the 19th of Dey (January 8, 2021), the Leader of the Islamic Revolution spoke with regard to current speculations and discussions about the political situation of the country in relation to the attitude of the Islamic Republic toward the JCPOA and America’s duties in this respect. He said, “We are in no rush and we are not insisting on the US's return to the JCPOA. Whether America returns to the JCPOA or not is not the issue concerning us. Our logical demand is the removal of sanctions. This is the right of the Iranian nation, which has been usurped.” These statements indicate the position taken by the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, termed by him as being the “final, definitive word” of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Concerning the “definitive word” of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the official website of KHAMENEI.IR examines the position of the Islamic Republic of Iran in relation to sanctions and the JCPOA in an interview with Dr. Ali Larijani, advisor to the Leader of the Revolution and a member of the Expediency Discernment Council

 

Question: The Leader of the Islamic Revolution recently stated that the main concern is the removal of sanctions and not US’s return to the JCPOA. He stated that America’s return to the JCPOA makes sense once sanctions have been removed and that otherwise it can be harmful. What is your analysis and evaluation of this issue?

 

Dr. A. Larijani: The point repeatedly made by the Leader of the Islamic Revolution that the Americans did not take appropriate actions from the very beginning of the JCPOA is absolutely true. That is to say that during Obama’s time, they did not act appropriately in executing the agreement and did not fulfill all their commitments. At that time, their Department of the Treasury, which should have been preparing the ground for the execution of the JCPOA, sent messages behind the scenes telling others not to sign contracts with Iran. But it was during Trump’s presidency that this became more evident. However, the position taken by Iran was that the sanctions were against the commitments they had made. They were truly contrary to their commitments and they should have been acting in exactly the opposite way. Now they are saying that our conditions have changed. But the point is this, if your conditions have really changed, then remove sanctions and reverse the actions that you carried out against Iran so that Iran will also fulfill its commitments, as you have requested.

If they do not remove the sanctions, they cannot return to the JCPOA. Because it was they who said, as also mentioned in the JCPOA, that they would be obliged to remove sanctions. The Europeans have remained a member of the JCPOA because they are opposed to America’s actions. The fact that they have not done anything in practice is a different issue, but they say they are against the sanctions. The US sanctions are completely against their commitment and they cannot return. Their saying that we should return (to the JCPOA) and then we will negotiate is not acceptable at all. A return is conditional on them fulfilling their commitments since we have already fulfilled our obligations.

 

Question: Technically, removal of the sanctions and the fulfillment of commitments involves taking certain practical steps. What measures do the Americans need to take to prove that their policy has changed?

 

Dr. A. Larijani: The main step is to remove sanctions. There is no doubt about this. If they don’t, they will not be able to be a member because they have not fulfilled their obligations. How this should be done needs a road map. If they think they can fool Iran with a piece of candy, this shows their ignorance. Iran is standing on this point that in addition to compensating for the losses that have been inflicted upon us economically, they also need to remove the sanctions at least. Then they can join the P5+1 and remaining issues will be discussed.

However, they have truly inflicted losses upon Iran during this time. That is to say, it’s not like there have been no losses. These need to be discussed. If someone does not accept this, it means they want to do something superficial and remove a few of the sanctions against some of our officials and then say that the rest has to do with negotiations. This would be to our detriment, and we can never enter negotiations in this way.

 

Question: In the statements made by the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, “the JCPOA experience” is an important keyword. In his speech on TV on the anniversary of Qom's 19th of Dey uprising, he mentioned the issue of “commitment in return for commitment.” If we want to look at this issue based on experience, and use this experience mainly to satisfy our national interests in our new approach, how do you believe “commitment in return for commitment” can be fully realized?

 

Dr. A. Larijani: With the 20 years of experience that I have in such issues due to participating in different meetings, the only person who is carefully and wisely protecting the rights of the nation and preparing an appropriate situation for these meetings, is the Leader of the Islamic Revolution. He protected people’s rights even under adverse conditions and did not lead the situation to a dead end. One of the issues that the Leader of the Islamic Revolution has always emphasized is that the flag of negotiations should be in our hands. What this means is that under conditions where we wanted to build a centrifuge, we did not put the flag of negotiations down. We were even faced with internal challenges at times that could not be easily solved. Even under such conditions, he maintained the same view.

He brought everything into order with a keen understanding of the issues. With respect to the JCPOA, different meetings were held in the presence of the Leader of the Islamic Revolution. He laid down some principles that were well thought-out and which helped negotiators to have a carefully developed framework for their discussions. Therefore, he truly protects the nation’s rights.

Now, how can we protect this? What should we do so they won’t do this again? In these meetings, my belief has always been that instead of going into details, we should tell them to remove sanctions altogether and make a clear and well-documented announcement. Then we will take our required measures. A different path was taken however. My understanding is that taking gradual steps is not to our benefit. That is to say, if they take a small step and we also take a step (this is of no benefit to us). When we face the challenge of negotiating over details and experts from both sides sit together, sometimes certain mischief-making can be difficult to resolve. I think taking overall action is better. They must remove sanctions altogether.

 

Question: Some make a distinction between Trump and the political system of America. They say Trump was a phenomenon that American democracy was able to control and eliminate. He was a tumor that they removed. This is said both inside the country and in the international arena. What is your opinion in this regard?

 

Dr. A. Larijani: Trump stabbed this body. There is something wrong with this body now. I mean this problem could not have come about without a cause. Aristotle said something important with regard to the problems that afflict a system. External factors alone cannot cause problems as long as there is no problem within the system. There is always some internal problem. However, he won 70 million votes. Even if we say he is crazy, the 70 million people who voted for him were not. So he was seeking something. The people had complaints about the governing system, the injustices, and the problems, so they created a base.

If someone takes a good look at the root of the issues in America and the theory dominating policies there, Americans are mainly profit-oriented. This is the result of a profit orientation. It means everything is oriented toward cashing in on opportunities. This creates problems as has also been pointed out by western thinkers. Therefore, the main part of this problem has to do with the framework that exists there. Although, this person (Trump) has had his own effect.

 

Question: During the time when you had a role in nuclear issues, you must have certainly had many visits with the Leader of the Islamic Revolution. If you have a particular memory, statement or point in mind, which was made by him to the negotiators or the authorities with respect to the negotiations and diplomacy, anything you found interesting, please tell us about it.

 

Dr. A. Larijani: One very interesting point for me is that he cares very much about consultation. I mean he didn’t just used to present his views. He also opened them up for discussion. He would wait for all views to be heard, and then they would reach a conclusion. This is very important. This is also said with regard to the Prophet’s conduct that he also cared about consultation with his companions even though he was the absolute source of wisdom to the world.  The Leader of the Islamic Revolution was also committed to this.

Another point that was important to me was his realism. I mean both idealism and realism are reflected in his decisions. He doesn’t just take goals into account. He also pays attention to foundations.

Another thing he paid great attention to and was important during the whole way, was problem-solving. I mean he did not want this issue to come to a state where there would be no way out. Furthermore, he wanted all facilities to be used, examined and evaluated by experts. But he planned the route in such a way that would be continuous and not cut off. There were some who simply said that there should be negotiations, but he looked at all aspects.

 

Tags

  • 20% enrichment
  • Experiences from JCPOA
  • JCPOA

Comments

  • 2021-01-17 14:37
    I hope again i willbe enlightened by articals pertaining Islamic revolutionary

Comment