• 

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken recently justified so-called “economic pressure” on Tehran as a legitimate nuclear diplomacy imperative for Washington. The senior diplomat also sought to scapegoat Iran for Washington’s blatant opposition to the nuclear deal talks. 

By peddling such preposterous allegations, Washington aims to deflect attention away from two key developments of value. First, tangible nuclear cooperation momentum between the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Iran, which continues to disprove key U.S. allegations against Iran’s nuclear activity and safeguards. Second, hollow threats against Iran’s peaceful nuclear program fail to hide America’s reluctance to endorse the nuclear deal text. "If the Americans have the will, it [the text] could be signed quickly. But again, Iran is not going to sit and wait, the world is changing, and Iran is using those opportunities to the utmost,” affirmed Seyyed Mohammad Marandi, Iran’s international media advisor during the Vienna talks recently.

There is a marked split between the Biden administration’s pledge to revive the JCPOA, and the same administration’s confession that the accord is not even “on the agenda.” Meanwhile, Iran’s demonstrated track-record of cooperation has successfully reduced the number of files in the IAEA regarding its peaceful nuclear project. 

This is important because despite lingering questions about the agency’s independence from Western pressure, Tehran continues to deliver in the interests of data transparency and meaningful nuclear cooperation. The same cannot be said about Washington, which has struggled to uphold the interests of IAEA’s autonomy and independent monitoring capacities. At the same time, America chooses to diverge from Iran and the EU on a nuclear deal text that is seen as reasonable.

Interestingly, the platform chosen by Blinken to attack Iran’s nuclear deal intent says everything about America’s penchant for political prejudices. Consider the fact that Blinken spoke at the American "Israel" Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) – the notorious pro-occupation lobby –  in a bid to parrot “Israel’s” insecurities towards a self-sufficient Iran. 

The Israeli occupation represents dwindling clout in Capitol Hill, considering its growing inability to rally Congressional opposition against any agreement with Iran. Similarly, news of the first direct communication between US and Iranian officials in years has unnerved the occupation further, reinforcing its status as an outlier in the nuclear talks process. “The agency's capitulation to Iranian pressure is a black stain on its record,” alleged Israeli occupation Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a fit of frustration ahead of Blinken’s remarks.

Rather than debunking such falsehoods and generating momentum for nuclear deal traction in a divided Congress, the Biden administration spares no effort in contradicting its own commitment to result-yielding nuclear “diplomacy.” Such contradiction has also reinforced Iran’s studied assessment that Washington poses a major threat to the IAEA’s independence, and serves as the principle obstacle to ending motivated cases against Iran for a nuclear deal breakthrough.

As Western powers look for ways to engage meaningfully on the subject, the onus is on Washington to credibly comply with a nuclear deal prospect that is acceptable to all. At present, the Biden administration is even unwilling to adhere to a nuclear deal text that its own European allies construe as reasonable. To its own disadvantage, Washington is also preoccupied with the defense of illegal U.S. sanctions on Iran, pointing to a deliberate delay in the nuclear deal process. Officials within the same administration have made no secret of America’s preference of sanctions as negative leverage, billing it as Washington’s right to extend “sanctions relief” in exchange for what are seen as acceptable Iranian concessions. 

Cutting through that fantasy is Tehran’s track-record of international transparency, demonstrated commitment to the 2015 JCPOA, and active engagement with “E3” countries. Collectively, these consistencies shatter the myth of U.S. leverage over a deal it blatantly violated. “We continue to believe that with regard to the nuclear program, the most effective, sustainable way to deal with the challenge is through diplomacy,” said Blinken before threatening the use of “all options” against Iran.  

Make no mistake: sanctions are instruments of escalation that have been openly condemned by Washington’s European allies, drawn sharp criticism from Russia and China, and widened trust deficit in nuclear talks. The latter is a direct consequence of unconstructive U.S. engagement on the subject, and keeps a just settlement from coming to the fore. 

All this underscores the need for a credible U.S. departure from deliberate delay tactics and sanctions defense, to support broad-based traction for the nuclear deal text. “Iran's nuclear activities, including [uranium] enrichment at various levels, are completely peaceful and in accordance with the Iranian people’s rights based on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and are under the supervision and verification of IAEA’s safeguards,” said Mohsen Naziri Asl, Iran’s permanent representative at the UN office in Vienna.

Thus understood, overt attempts to scapegoat Tehran for Washington’s own nuclear deal shortcomings won’t hold up.