Iran has read the US hands correctly: Prof.Entessar

After the logical insistence of the Iranian diplomatic delegation to put the issue of the removal of the sanctions atop the agenda of the Vienna talks, the working group was formed exclusively to deal with the removal of US sanctions against Iran held a meeting at the expert level on Tuesday.

In the meeting, the Iranian delegation insisted on the determination of the Islamic Republic of Iran to achieve results. 

At the working group's meeting, Iran presented its demands in a listed and clear manner and advised other delegations to actively and constructively present solutions and proposals.

It is also reported that the other delegations, especially those of Russia and China, hailed Tehran's pragmatic approach and the clear way of presenting its demands. 

The representatives of the Islamic Republic of Iran reiterated to the other delegations that the previous rounds of talks were just drafts that needed to be negotiated over again.

One of the important points that was brought up by Iran at the meeting was that anything that violated the JCPOA goal that is "Normalizing Iran's economic and trade relations with the world" must be removed.

Iran stressed that the two issues of sanctions and nuclear commitments must not be insisted on in parallel to each other, meaning that it is necessary to first logically resolve the issue of sanctions, which was the result of US action as a party to the deal. 

Tuesday's meeting was also held in a professional atmosphere, and finally, despite differences in opinion, everyone expressed their readiness and seriousness towards the removal of the sanctions and vow to interact with each other on the matter.

To know more about the issue, we reached out to Nader Entessar, professor emeritus of political science from the University of South Alabama.

Here is the interview with him: 

Before the beginning of the Vienna talks, the Europeans and the US tried to affect the process of the negotiations and show Iran as the side responsible for any possible failure of the talks by presenting an unreal false image of Iran's requests and its team combination dispatched to the Vienna. How do you assess the Iranian team's act since the beginning of the talks?

From what we know from publicly available reports and statements, the Iranian team has so far reacted properly and has not fallen to the other side's pre-talk shenanigans, threats, and negotiation machinations.  The West will try to throw everything, including the proverbial kitchen sink, at Iran to impose its will on Iran.  Iran must remain vigilant as long as the Vienna negotiations last.

Concurrent with the beginning of the talks, the Israeli PM in a video message asked other countries to avoid reaching an agreement with Iran. How serious his request may be taken by other states and why he did make such a request?

This has been Israel's modus operandi for several years.  Israel has always been a behind-the-scenes player in the West's dealings with Iran and will continue to play a major role in any possible new agreement between the West and Iran.  

Iran has repeatedly announced that it is after a good agreement removing sanctions and normalizing Iran's trade and economic ties with the world. How legal and logical do you see Iran's request? 

Of course, Iran's goal is logical and understandable given the nonperformance of the West's JCPOA obligations.  However, legally speaking, the U.S. will not be able to guarantee the removal of sanctions.  Given the structure of the U.S. government and the toxic politics of the country, Biden's words or commitments, and for that matter, those of future U.S. presidents, should not be considered legally binding.  Iran clearly experienced this fact when Trump withdrew from the JCPOA and compelled Europe to follow Washington's diktat.  In general,  U.S.-Iran problems are political and cannot be solved through a legal prism.

Suddenly, the US has raised the issue of an interim agreement, while Iran has announced that it is not going to waste time and will not accept talk for talk. How negatively can such a plan complicate the talks?

Iran has read the U.S. hands correctly.  In its previous rounds of negotiations with Iran, the U.S. followed the path of protracted talks in order to compel Iran to accept minimal economic concessions to prolong the talks and force Iran to accept major (mostly nonnuclear) demands.  I think Iran has belatedly recognized this diversionary tactic.  That is why the whole issue of an "interim agreement" looks and sounds like the old and now discredited  strategy of "talk for talk."

Today, reportedly the Europeans have insisted on ending the talks quickly. basically, why has the EU raised such a request? How can it affect the talks?

This is the "good cop, bad cop" tactic that the Europeans have played for several years now.  Iran must be careful not to fall for European shenanigans.  As I have stated on several occasions, Europe is a secondary player at best and a dishonest broket at worst.  The only major Western player in the saga of Vienna negotiations is the one who is not at the table, namely the United States.  

Interview by Payman Yazdani