Thread by @RezaNasri1

#Thread

Negotiating with #EconomicTerrorism

1) Instead of honoring U.S commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (#JCPOA), [US President] Donald Trump decided to destroy the Iranian economy in view of forcing Iran to enter new negotiations on his terms.

https://twitter.com/IrnaEnglish/status/1137234800216088577

2) His administration has termed this strategy the "maximum pressure policy." It basically consists of imperiling the Iranian civilian population's livelihoods, safety, health and even lives with the objective of coercing Iran's government into giving political concessions.

3) Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has laid out this strategy in no uncertain terms: Iranian leaders must listen to the U.S if "they want their people to eat"!

4) For the Iranian leadership, however, the "maximum pressure policy" has all the features and components of the very definition of "terrorism".

5) In most legal systems, terrorism is broadly defined as the unlawful use of violence against a civilian population in order to intimidate or coerce a government in furtherance of political objectives.

6) On this ground, Iranian officials - including Iran's foreign minister, Javad Zarif - often refer to U.S sanctions as "Economic terrorism".

7) This designation is not just a political or a public relations stunt. It has real ramifications.

8) In fact, just as Western politicians have reservations about negotiating with terrorists, Iranian leaders too cannot freely sit across the table from people who deliberately harm their civilians.

9) In other words, the same rationale that makes other countries have a policy of never negotiating with terrorist organizations also applies to the case of Iran and precludes it from talking to the Trump administration.

10) This is a point those who aim at using the "maximum pressure policy" as a leverage to bring Iran back to the negotiating table fail to understand.

11) First, they fail to understand that like most other countries, Iran takes into account the long-term consequences of succumbing to terrorist-like blackmailing.

12) To Iran, negotiating with "economic terrorists" - just like negotiating with an entity like Al Qaeda - would not just incur a heavy political cost for its government on the domestic front...

13)...but it is also perceived as setting a bad precedent and encouraging future U.S administrations, and eventually other countries, to pursue the same policy.

14) So, from a strategic and security standpoint - according to Iran - this sort of negotiation would actually increase rather than decrease its vulnerability.

15) Secondly, they fail to see that from Iran's perspective, the very act of "negotiating" with the Trump administration would legitimize and afford recognition to an unconventional policy that breaches every accepted norms of international law.

16) Iran believes that in agreeing to negotiate with economic terrorists, it would not just grant legitimacy to the Trump administration's unreasonable demands but it would also legitimize its unlawful means.

17) Although Iran never recognized the legality of sanctions imposed on it for its nuclear program, the truth is that pre-JCPOA sanctions were all multilateral sanctions that were endorsed by the United Nations Security Council.

18) Current sanctions, however, unilaterally violate at least an international agreement (JCPOA), a U.N Security Council resolution (Res. 2231) and an interim order issued last October by the International Court of Justice.

19) Third, they fail to see that, from Iran's perspective, negotiating with an administration that deliberately targets its civilian population would hinder Iran's ability to harness the domestic and international support it needs to neutralize the effects of "maximum pressure".

20) Iran's leadership believes that, having opened the door to negotiations, it may not be able to convince its constituency or foreign governments to muster sufficient resolve to resist U.S pressure.

21) And resisting and mobilizing forces to counter US pressure is a point that Iran's Supreme Leader - Ayatollah Ali Khamenei - holds particularly dear.

22) Fourth, they don't recognize the fact that, from an Iranian standpoint, an actor who operates outside the framework of international law is - by nature - considered an unreliable negotiating partner.

23) In fact, just as the U.S would not negotiate with terrorist entities that are bound by no legal or ethical order, Iran cannot negotiate with an administration that doesn't play by the rules and completely disregards its international engagements.

24) In sum, if the "maximum pressure policy" was ever meant to entice Iran to renegotiate, it has blatantly failed.

25) To bring Iran back to the table, Mr. Trump needs to drop the failed "maximum pressure" policy, join the JCPOA in good faith, and purge his foreign policy team of elements that could sabotage any eventual talks.