Adlan Margoev, an analyst at the Institute for International Studies, tells the Tehran Times that “the U.S. deserves no trust for its stance on international agreements.”
Now that Trump has lost the race for the White House for a second time, many hope that the incoming Biden administration would change policies and repair Washington’s reputation.
Trump withdrew the United States from a lot of international agreements such as the Paris Accord, JCPOA, and so on.
President-elect Biden has raised the motto of “America is back,” which means he will try to reverse many of President Donald Trump’s unilateral policies, especially against Iran.
In this regard, Margoev, also an analyst at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations from MGIMO University, emphasizes that Democrats, although slam President Trump for pulling out of the nuclear deal, “they do not perceive the deal as a final solution.”
The following is the text of the interview:
Q: How do you assess the U.S. administration’s behavior at the international level, given that Washington has withdrawn from many international deals such as the JCPOA?
A: The U.S. deserves no trust for its stance on international agreements. Despite the fact that Democrats criticized President Trump for the withdrawal from the JCPOA, they do not perceive the deal as a final solution. Instead, while enjoying the leverage that the Trump administration gained over Iran by reintroducing sanctions, they seek a new deal that will cover pretty much the same issues that the Trump administration raised with regard to the expansion and extension of the JCPOA.
Q: Iran is a signatory to the NPT, and its nuclear activities are subject to the most intrusive inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, yet Western countries have focused on Iran and neglecting Israel and other regimes that possess nuclear weapons. Why?
A: The problem is not about the nuclear program. Had Iran enjoyed even half of the volume of relationship that the West has with Israel, there would be no issue with its nuclear program. All their concerns are based on the threat perception: they don’t believe Israeli nuclear weapons pose any threat to the West but don’t have similar confidence in Iran’s foreign policy and military capabilities after the Islamic revolution.
Q: How do you assess the repercussions of the Nov. 27 assassination of Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh? Do you think it would affect Iran’s nuclear program?
A: Iran’s nuclear program is wider and stronger than any individual involved in this network. However, the perpetrators of this assassination have to face the responsibility for this outrageous crime. What I feel worried about is the initial goal of those who are behind the assassination — to derail any diplomatic effort between Iran and the West. By simply rejecting the IAEA access to nuclear facilities and speeding up the enrichment, Iran is not going to address the problem, and I hope 2021 will be the year of reviving diplomacy.
Q: Why did E3 fail to confront American unilateral policies and sanctions on Iran, and now they are talking about constraining Iran’s missile capacities?
A: E3 never stopped talking about Iran’s missile capabilities as they share the threat perception with the United States. Moreover, Europeans have lacked the strategic culture and capabilities to conduct truly independent and self-sufficient policies since the end of World War II. This is why there’s little expectation from the E3 that they would change their current position.
Q: What are the main functions and advantages of nuclear technology when it comes to peaceful goals?
A: Providing the population with clean electricity and advanced healthcare are the key functions of nuclear technology. Whatever technology or capabilities go beyond these goals and accelerate without proper transparency measures may raise questions from the international community.