{"id":238679,"date":"2021-04-27T03:57:57","date_gmt":"2021-04-27T08:57:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.ncr-iran.org\/en\/?p=238679"},"modified":"2023-01-27T14:02:20","modified_gmt":"2023-01-27T13:02:20","slug":"europe-must-stop-denying-that-iran-has-admitted-it-seeks-nuclear-weapons","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ncr-iran.org\/en\/blog\/op-ed\/europe-must-stop-denying-that-iran-has-admitted-it-seeks-nuclear-weapons\/","title":{"rendered":"Europe Must Stop Denying That Iran Has Admitted It Seeks Nuclear Weapons"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Iran-missile-and-nuclear-program\"<\/p>\n

By: Alejo Vidal Quadras<\/strong><\/p>\n

At the latest talks in Vienna, the European signatories of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action presented Iran with a \u201croadmap\u201d of the sanctions that the US plans to suspend if Iran comes back into compliance with the nuclear deal. The proposal was furnished by the US through its European partners.<\/p>\n

The advent of 60 percent enrichment<\/a> came almost immediately after an explosion at the Natanz facility exposed the regime\u2019s vulnerability. But that same Iranian escalation effectively confirmed that those concerns were well-grounded in the first place, since there is no practical reason for Iran to expend the money and effort involved in enriching to that level, unless the ultimate goal is nuclear weapons capability.<\/p>\n

In that sense, 60 percent enrichment is nothing if not a confession to the lies that underlay Iran\u2019s position in the negotiations that resulted in the JCPOA. Unfortunately, many of the Western participants in those negotiations were all too willing to accept the Iranian regime\u2019s narrative that its nuclear activities were exclusively peaceful, being limited to power generation and scientific or medical research. As a result, negotiators contented themselves with an agreement that more serious critics of the Iranian regime recognized as inadequate and ultimately dangerous.<\/p>\n

The National Council of Resistance of Iran<\/a> has issued statements urging a re-examination of the nuclear issue and emphasizing that the Iranian regime is liable to exploit concessions and to comply with foreign expectations only when subjected to serious, coordinated pressure.<\/p>\n

Whereas it may have been possible in the past to dismiss such statements as coming solely from exile communities that risk nothing by promoting sanctions and diplomatic isolation, that argument became much more difficult in the final days of 2017, when citizens of more than 100 Iranian cities and towns staged a mass uprising to condemn their government and endorse the platform of the NCRI\u2019s leading constituent group, the People\u2019s Mojahedin Organization of Iran<\/a> (PMOI\/MEK).<\/p>\n

This uprising should have had a transformative impact on Western policy and that impact should have only grown over the subsequent two years when an even broader cross-section of Iranian society staged two more mass uprisings and countless smaller demonstrations featuring the same anti-government sentiment. Notably, those latter uprisings took place long after US sanctions had been re-imposed and thus made it clear that the people consider their hardships to be the result of the regime\u2019s self-serving policies and wasteful spending on projects such as the nuclear program.<\/p>\n

US sanctions did not factor into the message of those uprisings because the Iranian people understand that those sanctions are squarely targeted at Iran\u2019s repressive authorities and do not directly affect ordinary citizens. This should go a long way toward undermining the arguments that European policymakers<\/a> have long utilized in urging the US to resume sanctions relief, especially against the backdrop of the coronavirus pandemic.<\/p>\n

<\/div>
Iran nuclear deal crisis: Who is to blame?<\/div><\/div>
<\/div>
<\/div>
<\/div><\/div><\/div>