Trump Demands Iran Observe JCPOA Provisions He Breached
by Stephen Lendman (stephenlendman.org – Home – Stephen Lendman)
Double-standard US policies are longstanding – demanding other countries do what it says, not what it does, how hegemons operate. Armed with super-weapons, Washington is the most dangerous one in world history.
Trump administration officials want intrusive IAEA inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities continued. They demand Tehran observance of JCPOA provisions even though Trump breached them by pulling out of the deal.
On Thursday, he said “(w)e must be able to go to a site and check that site. We have to be able to go into their military bases to see whether or not they’re cheating.”
“We expect Iran will continue to implement the Additional Protocol and cooperate with the IAEA whether or not the JCPOA remains in place,” according to an unnamed administration official.
The JCPOA includes nothing about inspecting Iranian military bases. No nations valuing their security permit it – clearly not America, Israel and their rogue partners in high crimes.
Nor will Iran agree to any demands not required under JCPOA provisions – nor should it.
If the deal collapses as expected, given the unlikely possibility of Britain, France and Germany refusal to observe US-imposed sanctions, Iran is under no obligation to comply with what’s no longer in force.
In the spirit of cooperation with P5+1 countries, Tehran agreed to permit unprecedented monitoring of its nuclear-related facilities.
Ten IAEA reports said it’s in full compliance with JCPOA provisions. Trump’s pullout had nothing to do with its nuclear program – everything to do with escalating political and economic war on the country, solely for its sovereign independence, its refusal to bend to Washington’s will, or Israel’s.
Longstanding US plans call for regime change in Iran. According to the right-wing Washington Free Beacon (WFB), a “white paper” circulated among Trump’s National Security Council officials discusses a strategy for toppling Islamic Republic governance – aiming for “a deeper wedge between the Iranian people and the ruling” authorities.
It’s been tried at least twice before and failed, unlikely to succeed a third time. A hardline US Security Studies Group (SSG) think tank focuses on defending the value of American power…”
Its staff produced the Iranophobic white paper aiming for regime change. It’s closely tied to neocons infesting Washington.
National Security Advisor John Bolton supports their plan among others. According to the WFB, SSG president Jim Hanson believes the Trump administration aims to topple Islamic Republic governance by color revolution, not war.
It remains to be seen if he’s right. If one scheme fails repeatedly, another is likely to be tried, US naked aggression a strategy used repeatedly in the region and elsewhere.
According to an unnamed source close to the Trump administration, “(t)he JCPOA purposefully destroyed the carefully created global consensus against the Islamic Republic,” adding:
“Prior to that, everyone understood the dangers of playing footsie with the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism. It’s now Trump, Bolton, and Pompeo’s job to put this consensus back in place.”
Fact: No anti-Iran global consensus existed earlier or now.
Fact: “Everyone” means the US, Israel, the Saudis and their rogue partners, no one else.
Fact: Washington and Israel are the undisputed world’s leading sponsors of state terrorism – not Iran, opposing the scourge wherever it surfaces.
With Pompeo at State and Bolton as NSA, escalated US hostility toward Iran is certain – the JCPOA pullout step one ahead of more aggressive actions certain to follow, including possible naked aggression if other schemes tried fail.
The Trump administration is hell-bent for regime change, likely intending to go all out to achieve what was never before accomplished.
VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].
My newest book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."
