Europe and the JCPOA: International Hypocrisy, Will the US Start a Disastrous War in the Middle East?

The special meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency, called by the hypocritical United States due to Iran’s announcement that it had ‘breached’ part of its commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), has come and gone. The U.S. hoped, naively, to gain widespread support for additional sanctions against Iran, but found itself the target of criticism for creating the entire issue by abrogating the agreement in May of 2018.

But hypocrisy isn’t limited to the United States, although that is one of the hallmarks of that violent, racist nation. On July 9, France, Germany, the UK and the High Representative issued a most astonishing statement. This writer was astounded by its blatant hypocrisy, which certainly rivals that of the U.S. That statement follows, in its entirety, with this writer’s comments after each sentence.

From the statement:

“The Foreign Ministers of France, Germany, and the United Kingdom and the High Representative express deep concern that Iran is pursuing activities inconsistent with its commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).”

Comment: Those very countries have pursued ‘activities inconsistent with (their) commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).’ This includes buckling under to U.S. pressure to cease all trade with Iran.

From the statement:

“The IAEA has now confirmed that Iran has started enriching uranium above the maximum allowed limit stipulated in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.”

Comment: There is no reason for Iran not to enrich uranium at any level it chooses. Once the United States withdrew from the agreement, it was null and void. Iran agreed to reduce its uranium-enrichment levels in exchange for certain economic benefits from the other signatories to the agreement. When those signatories ceased to honor the agreement, Iran was in no way obligated to continue.

And why was there no expression of concern that the other nations have abandoned their commitments as ‘stipulated in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of action’?

From the statement:

“We express deep concern that Iran is not meeting several of its commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.”

Comment: Before these countries cry and weep about Iran not meeting its commitments, why don’t they meet their own? How dare they point an accusing finger at Iran for not keeping the commitments it made in the JCPOA, when they haven’t kept those they made? Perhaps they need to be reminded that, in an act of exceeding good faith, Iran kept its commitments for over a full year after the other participants to the agreement had violated theirs.

From the statement:

“Iran has stated that it wants to remain within the JCPOA. It must act accordingly by reversing these activities and returning to full JCPOA compliance without delay.”

Comment: France, Germany, the U.K. and the European Union have all stated that they want to remain within the JCPOA. Why don’t they ‘act accordingly’ by reversing their decisions to end trade with Iran? Doing so would put them in compliance with the agreement. Iran’s government officials have repeatedly said that Iran would return to compliance, once the other nations did so.

From the statement:

“These compliance issues must be addressed within the framework of the JCPOA, and a Joint Commission should be convened urgently.

Comment: There is no reason for a Joint Commission to be ‘convened urgently’. All that is required for Iranian compliance is the compliance of the other signatories. As mentioned above, by complying for a full year after the U.S. and the other participants ceased to comply, the Iranian government demonstrated great good faith. It is the other countries in the agreement that have not done so.

From the statement:

“We call on all parties to act responsibly towards deescalating ongoing tensions regarding Iran’s nuclear activities.”

Comment: France, Germany, the UK and the EU need to ‘act responsibly towards deescalating ongoing tensions’ by complying with the agreement that their government leaders signed in 2015. This is not hard to do. When international commitments are made, they have the weight of law behind them. The leaders of each of these nations should be ashamed at having demonstrated to the world that they can’t be trusted.


It is easy to see the source of this issue as the United States’ dishonest and illegal withdrawal from the JCPOA, but that is only one piece of the larger problem. The U.S. president, the irrational and dangerous Donald Trump, threatened the other signatories, including some of the U.S.’s oldest and strongest allies, with economic sanctions if they continued to trade with Iran. The leaders of those nations had a choice: stand up to the U.S., allow the sanctions to be implemented and watch the impact they had on the U.S. economy, while maintaining their commitment to the JCPOA, or buckle under and bow and scrape to the illegal and immoral demands of the United States. That they chose the latter underscores the lack of strength of character of those nations’ leaders.

And what is Iran’s ‘crime’? It has moved uranium enrichment past the 3.67% level agreed upon, to about 4%. Iran’s government spokesman said that, by the end of the year, that could increase to 20%. The Iranian government has always said that uranium enrichment is for peaceful purposes, not for weaponry. And now, horror of horrors, they are enriching it above 4%! And what level is required for a nuclear bomb? 5%? 10%? The anticipated 20% by the end of the year? No, for uranium enrichment to be at the level at which a nuclear bomb could be created, it must be at 90%!

This writer agrees that the fewer nuclear weapons in the world, the better it is for all of us. However, the United States is in no position to determine what other nations can or cannot have such weapons. It is the only nation on the planet ever to have used them, and against cities with no military or strategic importance. It supports apartheid Israel, which, unlike Iran, has not signed onto the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.  It seems to make sense that if two nuclear-powered nations are threatening Iran, Iran must have all the means necessary to defend itself and its 81,000,000 people. The government has said it will not develop nuclear weapons; doing so would be a violation of Islamic principles. The U.S. wants to deprive it of any means of protecting itself, or of assisting its allies, things the U.S. insists on for itself.

What will be the outcome? Will the United States start a disastrous war in the Middle East, one that would surely spread to Europe, and would jeopardize the ‘sacred’ national security of the U.S? Will Donald Trump, a man of no judgment, who disdains the expert advise of even his most right-wing, erratic advisors, believing that he knows best about everything, bring the world to the very edge of extinction, and possibly into the abyss?

This can only be prevented if the rest of the world acts to stop it. Sadly, there doesn’t seem to be much motivation within the short-sighted world ‘leaders’ currently riding Trump’s train to ultimate disaster.


Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page

Become a Member of Global Research

Articles by: Robert Fantina

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. The Centre of Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post Global Research articles on community internet sites as long the source and copyright are acknowledged together with a hyperlink to the original Global Research article. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: [email protected] contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: [email protected]