Following the Brjam pattern is the best solution for Iran’s case – Mehr News Agency | Iranian and world news

Mehr News Agency, International GroupA: Recently, the UN Security Council rejected Russia and China’s proposal to extend resolution 2 and maintain diplomacy in Iran’s nuclear case. The resolution, which aimed at maintaining diplomatic channels and preventing tension, was supported by Russia, China, Pakistan and Algeria, while European and US countries rejected it.

Iran has consistently pursued all logical and constructive diplomatic paths, including Cairo’s agreement and direct negotiations with European countries, even under regional tensions. However, European countries, along with Washington, have continued to demand beyond Iran’s commitments.

One of the most controversial measures is the mechanism called the Snapbec, which aims to restore UN sanctions against Iran. Tehran has repeatedly emphasized that the activation of SnapBack is illegal and lacks legitimacy, as it revives restrictions that were previously canceled on the basis of Resolution 2.

Iranian officials have repeatedly rejected Western demands to stop uranium enrichment, stressing that Iran’s nuclear program remains peaceful. With the call of his ambassadors from Germany, France and Britain to consult, Tehran showed the beginning of a new stage in its diplomacy; A stage in which it maintains diplomatic principles and at the same time proves its right to respond to illegitimate pressures.

This event highlights the complexity of the nature of international diplomacy, the conditions where irrational demands and unilateral actions create new challenges, but Tehran still has the ability to manage these pressures cautiously and maintain the possibility of negotiations.

To provide a more detailed view, Mehr News Agency with “Mark Fino“The senior adviser to the Geneva Security Policy Center and a former French Foreign Ministry spokesman had a conversation.

Fino emphasized the legal and political complexity of the SnapBook mechanism. He noted that the mechanism, initially proposed during the Brajam negotiations, was aimed at providing a valid device for all parties to ensure adherence. “The mechanism, proposed by Russia in the Brajam negotiations, was designed to ensure that the skeptics, especially in the US Congress, to show that the parties to the agreement have a strong pressure tool to ensure Iran’s adherence,” he said. This process could have been initiated by any member of the agreement, and no veto would not include any permanent members of the Security Council. So legally, this is what happened at the initiative of the three European countries that had begun all negotiations leading to the Brotherhood in year 6.

Mark Fino said the current crisis was due to the Trump administration’s decision to leave the agreement, and when the United States tried to activate the Snapbec mechanism, other members of the Security Council opposed the US Security Council members.

“There is no doubt that the current crisis began with the US withdrawal under Trump’s first government,” he said. For this reason, when the United States tried to activate the Snapbec mechanism, other members of the Security Council opposed it because the United States was no longer a member of the brokerage. “The Trump administration has now supported the E1 initiative and has voted for the Security Council against extension of sanctions.”

Fino went on to refer to Tehran’s announced measures to gradually reduce its obligations after Washington’s departure from the brigade and the failure of European parties to compensate Iran.

Responding to a question about the negative message of this situation for the international community about the validity of multilateral agreements, he said: “In fact, the US withdrawal sent a very negative message and once again showed tensions between the policy of large powers and multilateralism as a solution to global challenges. The problem is that Iran also ignored some of its obligations (the comprehensive agreement of the IAEA and Brigham) in response to the US withdrawal and sanctions, and has raised doubts that its nuclear program is not only peaceful. “

Voting smaller countries at the Security Council meeting shows both political convergence and independent judgment. “It seems that European countries (Denmark, Greece, Slovenia) appear to be somewhat aligned with Western powers, but in the case of the world’s southern countries (Panama, Sierra Leone, Somalia), their decision does not appear to have been under pressure,” Fino said.

Regarding the balance of power in the Security Council, he emphasized that the long -standing disputes between the permanent members of Western and Russia and China had forced the Security Council for years and prevented its duties and clashes. “As long as all members of the permanent prefers of world peace and security for their national interests, the council will still be ineffective,” he said.

In the end, the former French diplomat spoke about alternatives to sanctions and pressure to resolve Iran’s nuclear case.

He argued that relying on military options or maximum sanctions, as supported by the US or the Zionist regime, weakens peaceful solutions.

He noted that history has shown that sanctions rarely reach political goals and often harm ordinary citizens. On the contrary, Brajam has shown that the prospect of lifting sanctions provides a stronger motivation for negotiation. Following this model can help resolve the current crisis without further weakening the global regime. “On the contrary, the prospect of lifting sanctions is a stronger motivation to reach a negotiation agreement,” he said. “This is the model to be pursued to resolve the current crisis.”