By H.E. Mohammad Javad Zarif, Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Following the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Paris Climate Accord, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is the third multilateral agreement that the current United States administration has withdrawn from. The administration has also put in jeopardy other multilateral arrangements such as NAFTA, the global trade system, and parts of the United Nations system, thus inflicting considerable damage to multilateralism, and the prospects for resolving disputes through diplomacy. The announcement on 8 May 2018 of United States’ withdrawal from the JCPOA andthe unilateral and unlawful re-imposition of nuclear sanctions[1] — a decision opposed by majority of the American people[2] — wasthe culmination of a series of violations of the terms of the accord by this administration, in spite of the fact that the International Atomic Energy Agency, as the sole competent international authority had repeatedly verified Iran’s compliance with its commitments under the accord.[3] The U.S. decision was rejected by the international community and even its closest allies, including the European Union[4], Britain[5], France[6] and Germany. On 21 May 2018, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo,in a baseless and insulting statement,issued a number of demands of and threats against Iran[7] in brazen contravention of international law, well-established international norms, and civilized behavior. His statement reflected adesperate reaction by the US administration to the overwhelming opposition of the international community to the persistent efforts by the White House to kill the JCPOA, and the ensuing Washington’s isolation. Mr. Pompeo, in his statement, attempted to justify the US’ withdrawal from the JCPOA and divert international public opinion from the unlawful behavior of the United States and its outright violation of UN Security Council resolution 2231[8]; a resolution drafted and proposed by the US itself and adopted unanimously by the Council. Mr. Pompeo’s 12 preconditions for Iran to follow are especially preposterous as the US administration itself is increasingly isolated internationally due to its effort to undermine diplomacy and multilateralism. It comes as no surprise that the statement and the one made by the US president on Iranwereeither ignored or received negatively by the international community, including by friends and allies of the United States. Only a small handful of US client states in our region welcomed it.[9] I seriously doubt that had the US Secretary of State even had a slight knowledge of Iran’s history and culture and the Iranian people’s struggle for independence and freedom, and had he known that Iran’s political system—in contrast to those of the American allies in the region—is based on a popular revolution and the people’s will, would he have delivered such an outlandish statement. He should, however, know that ending foreign intervention in Iran’s domestic affairs, which culminated in the 25-year period following the US-orchestrated coup in 1953, had always been one of the Iranian people’s main demands since well before the Islamic Revolution. He should also be aware that in the past 40 years the Iranian people have heroicallyresisted and foiled aggressions and pressures by the US, including its coup attempts, military interventions, support of the aggressor in an 8-year war, imposition of unilateral, extraterritorial and even multilateral sanctions, and even going as far as shooting down an Iranianpassenger plane in the Persian Gulf in 1987. “Never forget” is our mantra, too. The Islamic Republic of Iran derives its strength and stability from the brave and peace-loving Iranian people; a people who, while seeking constructive interaction with the world on the basis of mutual respect, are ready to resist bullying and extortions and defend in unison their country’s independence and honor. History bears testimony to the fact that those who staged aggression against this age-old land, such as Saddam and his regime’s supporters, all met an ignominious fate, while Iran has proudly and vibrantly continued its path towards a better and brighter future. It is regrettable that in the past one-and-a-half years, US foreign policy—if we can call it that[10]—including its policy towards Iran has been predicated on flawed assumptions and illusions—if not actual delusions. The US President and his Secretary of State have persistently made baseless and provocative allegations against Iran that constituteblatant intervention in Iran’s domestic affairs, unlawful threats against a UN Member State, and violations of the United States’ international obligationsunder the UN Charter, the 1955 Treaty[11], and the 1981 Algiers Accord[12].While rejecting these fictitious allegations, I would like to draw the attention of U.S. policymakers to some aspects of their nation’s current foreign policy that are detrimental to the entire international community:

1. Impulsive and illogical decisions and behaviorof the US President—and efforts by his subordinates to find some justification to persuade areluctant domestic and foreign audience—have already surfaced as the main feature of the decision-making process in Washington over the past 17 months. This process, coupled with ill-conceived and hasty explanations to justify outcomes, usually lead to contradictory statements and actions. As an example, in his role as CIA Director, Mike Pompeo once in a Congressional hearing emphatically stated: “Iran has not violated its commitments[13].” Later, and following the US President’s decision to withdraw from the accord, now Secretary of State Pompeo in his statement on May 21 emphatically stated that “Iran has violated its commitments[14].”
2. It wouldn’t be an exaggeration to say that some aspects of US foreign policy have been put up for auction—far beyond the routine lobbying practices.It is, for instance, unprecedented that a US president should choose the very country he had called “fanatic and a supporter of terrorism[15]” during his election campaign as the destination for his first foreign visit as president[16], or to publicly make aspects of his foreign policy positions contingent on the purchase by one or another country of arms and other items from the United States.[17] It has also been reported that in some other cases,mostly illegitimate financial interests have been the main basis for the formulation ofmind-bogglingly ill-conceived US policy positions.[18]
3. Contempt for international lawand attempts to undermine the rule of law in international relations have been among the main features of the current administration’sforeign policy. To the extent, according to media reports, that the US negotiators in the G7 Summit were even insisting on deleting the phrase “our commitment to promote the rules-based international order.”[19] This destructive approach began by showing contempt for the fundamental principle of pacta sunt servanda, which is arguably the oldest principle of international law. The US withdrawal from some international agreements and undermining others, coupled with efforts to weaken international organizations, are examples of destructive moves so far by the US government, which have unfortunately darkened the outlook for the international order. Obviously, the continuation of such policies can endanger the stability of the international community,turning the U.S. into a rogue state and an international outlaw.[20]
4. Predicating decisions on illusions is another aspect of thisadministration’s foreign policy. This has been especially evident with respect to West Asia. The illegal and provocativedecisionregarding al-Quds al-Sharif, blind support for the cruel atrocities committed by the Zionist regime against Gazans, and aerial and missile attacks against Syria are some of the more brazen aspects of such an unprincipled foreign policy.

The statement made by Mr. Pompeo on May 21 was the culmination of a delusional US approach to our region. Ironically, the U.S. Secretary of State tried to set preconditions for negotiations and agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran at a time when the international community is doubtful about the possibility orutilityof negotiationoragreement with the US on any issue. How can the US government expect to be viewed or treated as a reliable party to another round of serious negotiations following its unilateral and unwarranted withdrawal from an agreement which was the result of hundreds of hours of arduous bilateral and multilateral negotiations, in which the highest ranking US foreign affairs official participated, and which was submitted to the Security Council by the US and adopted unanimously as an international commitment under Article 25 of the Charter? Recent statements and actions by the U.S. president, including reneging on his agreement with the G7[21] while in the air flying back from the summit, are other examples of his erratic behavior.His remarks immediately following his meeting with the leader of the DPRK regarding his possible change of mind in 6 months are indicative of what the world is facing—an irrational and dangerous US administration. Does the US Secretary of State really expect Iran to negotiate with a government whose president says:“I may stand before you in six months and say, ‘Hey, I was wrong. I don’t know if I’ll ever admit that, but I’ll find some kind of an excuse”[22]? Can such a government really set preconditions for Iran? Isn’t it actually confusing the plaintiff for the defendant? Mr. Pompeo has forgotten that it is the US government that needs to prove the credibility of its words and legitimacy of its signature, and not the party that has complied with its international obligations and sticks to its word. In fact, the truth is that all US administrations in the past 70 years should be held accountable for their disregard for international law, and their violations of bilateral and multilateral agreements with Iran.A short list of the rightful demandsof the Iranian people from the US government could include the following:

1. The US government must respect Iran’s independence and national sovereignty and assure Iran that it will end its intervention in Iran’s domestic affairs in accordance withinternational law in general, and the 1981 Algiers Accord[23] in particular.
2. The United States must abandon its policy of resorting to the threat or use of force – which constitute a breach of the preemptory norms of international law and principles of the Charter of the United Nations – as an option in the conduct of its foreign affairs with or against the Islamic Republic of Iran and other States.
3. The US government should respect the State immunity of the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran,[24] which is a fundamental principle of international law, and, while rescinding previous arbitrary and unlawful financial judgments, it should refrain from executing them in the US and extra-territorially.
4. The US government should openly acknowledge its unwarranted and unlawful actions against the people of Iran over the past decades, including inter alia the following, take remedial measures to compensate the people of Iran for the damages incurred, and provide verifiable assurances that it will cease and desist from such illegal measures and refrain from ever repeating them:
   1. its role in the 1953 coup[25] that led to the overthrow of Iran’s lawful and democratically-elected government and the subsequent 25years of dictatorship in Iran;[26]
   2. unlawful blocking, seizure and confiscation of tens of billions of dollars of assets of the Iranian people after the Islamic revolution[27], or under various baseless pretexts[28] in recent years;[29]
   3. direct military aggression against Iran in April 1980[30], which was a blatant violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iran;
   4. provision of massive military and intelligence assistance to the Iraqi dictator[31] during the 8-year war he imposed on the Iranian people[32]inflicting hundreds of billions of dollars of damages on Iran and its people;
   5. responsibility in the enormous suffering that Iranians have incurredover the past 3 decades as a result of the use by Saddam of chemical weapons, whose ingredients were provided[33] by the US[34] and some other western countries;[35]
   6. the shooting down of an Iran Air passenger plane by the USS Vincennes in July 1988—a flagrant crime that led to the murder of 290 innocent passengers and crew[36],and the subsequent awarding of a medal to the captain of the ship[37] rather than punishing him for his war crime;
   7. repeated attacks against Iran’s oil platforms in the Persian Gulf[38] in the spring of 1988;
   8. repeated and unwarranted insults against the Iranian people by calling the entire nation “an outlaw and rogue nation”[39] or “a terrorist nation”[40] and by including Iran in the so-called “axis of evil;”[41]
   9. unlawful and unreasonable establishment of a bigoted list of the nationals of some Islamic countries, including Iranians, prohibiting their entry into the US.[42] The Iranians are among the most successful, educated and law-abiding immigrants in the US and have donegreat service to American society. They are now prohibited from seeing their loved ones, including even their aging grandparents;
   10. harboring andprovidingsafe haven to anti-Iranian saboteurs in the USA, who openly incite blind violence against Iranian civilians,[43]and supportingcriminal gangsand militias and terrorist organizations,[44] some of which werelisted for years as terrorist groups by the US and later removed from the list following intense lobbying by those who have received money from them.[45] Some of those lobbyists[46] now occupy high-ranking positions in the Trump administration;
   11. support provided to Mossad[47] for the multiple terrorist assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists;[48]
   12. sabotage of Iran’s nuclear peaceful program through cyber-attacks;[49]
   13. fabrication of fake documents[50] to deceive the international community over Iran’s peaceful nuclear program and to create an unnecessary crisis[51].
5. The United States government must cease its persistent economic aggressionagainst the Iranian peoplewhich has continued over the past four decades;nullify the cruel and extensive primary and extraterritorial sanctions,rescind hundreds of legislations and executive orders[52] aimed at disrupting Iran’s normal development which are in flagrant contravention of international law[53] and have beenuniversally condemned,[54] and compensate the Iranian people for the enormous damages to the Iranian economy and its people.
6. The US government should immediately cease its violations and breaches of the JCPOA[55],which have caused hundreds of billions of dollars indirect and indirect damages for disrupting trade with and foreign investment in Iran, compensate Iranian people for these damages and commit to implement unconditionally and verifiably all of its obligations under the accord, and refrain (in accordance with the JCPOA) from any policy or action to adversely affect the normalization of trade and economic relations with Iran.
7. The US government should release all Iranians and non-Iranians who are detained under cruel conditions in the US under fabricated charges[56] related to the alleged violation of sanctions[57], or apprehended in other countries following unlawful pressure by the US government for extradition, and compensate for the damage inflicted on them. These include pregnant women,[58]the elderly and people suffering from serious health problems; some of whom have even lost their lives in prison.[59]
8. The US government should acknowledge the consequences of its invasions and interventions in the region, including in Iraq,[60] Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf region[61], and withdraw its forces from and stop interfering in the region.
9. The US government should cease policies and behavior that have led to the creation of the vicious DAESH terrorist group and other extremist organizations, and compel its regional allies to verifiably stop providing financial and political support and armamentsto extremist groups in West Asia and the world[62].
10. The US government should stop providing arms and military equipment to the aggressors—who aremurdering thousands of innocent Yemeni civilians and destroying the country[63]— and cease its participation in these attacks.[64] It should compel its allies to end their aggression against Yemen and compensate for the enormous damage done to that country.
11. The US government should stop its unlimited and unconditional support for the Zionist regime[65]in line with its obligations under international law; condemn its policy of apartheid and gross violations of human rights, and support the rights of the Palestinian people, including their right to self-determination and the establishment of an independent Palestinian State with al-Quds al-Sharif as its capital.
12. The US government should stop selling hundreds of billions of lethal—not beautiful—military equipment every year to regions in crisis[66],especially West Asia,[67] and instead of turning these regions into powder kegs[68] it should allow the enormous amount of money spent on arms to serve as funding for development and combating poverty. Only a fraction of the money paid by US arms customers could alleviate hunger and abject poverty, provide for potable, clean water, and combat diseases throughout the globe.[69]
13. The US government should stop opposing the efforts by the international community for the past 5 decades to establish a zone free from weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East.[70]It should compel the Zionist regime—with its history of aggression and occupation—to de-nuclearize, thus neutralizing the gravestreal threat to regional and international peace and security, which emanates from the most destructive arms in the hands of the most warmongering regime in our time.
14. The US government should stop increasingly relying on nuclear weapons and the doctrines of using nuclear weapons to counter conventional threats[71]—a policy that is in flagrant contravention of its commitment under Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice,[72] the 1995 NPT Review Conference Declaration, and UN Security Council resolution 984. The U.S. should comply with its moral, legal and security obligations in the field of nuclear disarmament, which is a near unanimous demand of all United Nations Member States, and virtually all people across the globe, including even former US Secretaries of State.[73] As the only State that is stamped with the shame of ever using nuclear weapons itself, it is incumbent on the US to relieve humanity from the nightmare of a global nuclear holocaust, and give up on the illusion of security based on “mutually assured destruction” (MAD).

 

1. The US government should once and for all commit itself to respect the principle of pacta sunt servanda(agreements must be kept), which is the most fundamental principle of international law and a foundation for civilized relations among peoples, and discard in practice the dangerous doctrine which views international law and international organizations as merely “a tool in the US toolbox”[74].

  Theaforementioned US policies are examples of what has resulted in Iranians distrusting the American government. They are also among underlying causes of injustice, violence, terrorism, war and insecurity in West Asia. These policies will bring about nothing buta heavy toll in human lives and material assets[75] for different regions of the world, and isolation for the US in world public opinion[76].The only ones benefitting are and will be lethal arms manufacturers. If the US government summons the courage to renounce these policies in words and deeds, its global isolation will end and a new image of the US will emerge in the world, including in Iran, paving the path to joint efforts for security, stability, and inclusive sustainable development. Iadmitthat regrettably, it is not realistic to harbor a hope for such a change in US behavior. Thus, at the global level the Islamic Republic of Iran has for years promoted inclusion, multilateralism, dialogue, respect for the rule of law and nuclear disarmament through initiatives such as Dialogue among Civilizations[77] and WAVE (World Against Violence and Extremism)[78], and participated actively in international efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament[79] and a rule-based international system[80]. We have also presented practical proposals and engaged in serious diplomatic efforts to end regional conflicts in Syria[81] and Yemen[82] through diplomacy from the earliest stages of these unfortunate conflicts, sadly, to the deaf ears of the United States that continues to support aggressors and terrorists in every conflict in our region. And following the United States’ withdrawal from the JCPOA, Iran has earnestly engaged with the remaining JCPOA Participants (EU/E3+2) in a good faith effort to salvage this unique global diplomatic achievement[83]. We continue to do so as of this writing. Nationally, Iran has ensured its security and stability in the past 4 decades on the basis of its inherent domestic capabilities and its reliance on the great Iranian people, not on any foreign power’s benevolence or patronage. Despite foreign pressure and while expending comparatively the least amountin the region on armaments[84], it has become stronger, more stable and more advancedby the day. And regionally, in contrast to the US and its foreign policy, Iran—in accordance with its constitution[85]—neither seeks to dominate nor will it ever submit to domination. It believes that the era of regional and global hegemony has long passed, and any effort by any power to achieve it is futile.[86] Instead of yielding to foreign domination or trying to dominate others, countries in our region should seek to create a stronger, more prosperous and more stable region.[87] We in Iran view our security and stability as inseparable from those of our neighbors.[88] We havea common history and culture as well as indivisible opportunities and challenges, and can only enjoy security and stability at home, if and only if our neighbors enjoy internal and international stability and security. We expect other regional countries to adopt a similar approach, and instead of insisting on the failed experiment of “trying to purchase or outsource security,”[89]concentrate on dialogue, mutual understanding, confidence building, and cooperation with neighbors. The Islamic Republic of Iran views the establishment of a “Regional Dialogue Forum” in the Persian Gulf as the best means to resolve regional crises and create a stronger region.[90]We can begin adopting confidence-building measures to bring regional countries closer to each other on the basis of such principles as the sovereign equality of states, non-resort to the threat or use of force, peaceful settlement of disputes, respect for territorial integrity of other States, inviolability of international boundaries, non-intervention in domestic affairs of others, and respect for the right of peoples to self-determination. Byfostering common understanding about threats and opportunities at the regional and global levels,we can move towards achieving a non-aggression pact and creating common mechanisms for regional cooperation. We firmly believe that we, regionally—as the inheritors of the richest civilizations the world has ever known—should stand tall and can solve our own problems amongst ourselves and secure a better future for all of our children without outside interference and patronage, both of which come at a heavy cost to our collective dignity as well as our future development. [1]https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/ceasing-u-s-participation-jcpoa-taking-additional-action-counter-irans-malign-influence-deny-iran-paths-nuclear-weapon/ [2]https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/08/politics/poll-iran-agreement/index.html [3]IAEA in its report of 24 May, IAEA has concluded that “continues to verify the non-diversion of declared material at the nuclear facilities and locations outside facilities where nuclear material is customarily used(LOFs) declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement” and “since Implementation Day, the Agency has been verifying and monitoring the implementation by Iran of its nuclear-related commitments under the JCPOA.” https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iran/iaea-and-iran-iaea-reports [4]https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/44238/remarks-hrvp-mogherini-statement-us-president-trump-regarding-iran-nuclear-deal-jcpoa_en [5]https://www.gov.uk/government/news/joint-statement-from-prime-minister-may-chancellor-merkel-and-president-macron-following-president-trumps-statement-on-iran [6]https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/french-foreign-policy/disarmament-and-non-proliferation/events/article/jcpoa-joint-statement-by-france-the-united-kingdom-and-germany-08-05-18 [7]https://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2018/05/282301.htm [8] The Security Council in the resolution 2231 (2015) has urged the full implementation of the JCPOA and has called upon all UN Member States, including the United States to “refrain from actions that undermine implementation of commitments under the JCPOA”. [9]http://www.newsweek.com/trumps-iran-deal-announcement-could-leave-us-isolated-and-allies-trouble-916023 [10]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2018/05/21/pompeos-iran-strategy-speech-lacked-a-real-strategy/?utm_term=.9789576593c4 [11] According to Treaty of Amity of 1955, the United States is obliged not to impose sanctions against Iran and Iranians peoples. For instance, Article IV of this Treaty is obliging the United States “at all times accord fair and equitable treatment to the Iranian nationals and companies” and “refrain from applying unreasonable or discriminatory measures that would impair Iranians legally acquired rights and interests”. Furthermore, Article X is prescribing that “Between the territories of the United States and Iran “shall be freedom of commerce and navigation.” [12] In the Algeria Declaration of 1981, “The United States pledged that it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran’s internal affairs.” [13]https://www.foreign.senate.gov/hearings/nomination-041218 [14]https://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2018/05/282301.htm [15]https://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/full-transcript-third-2016-presidential-debate-230063 [16]https://lobelog.com/how-the-saudis-took-donald-trump-for-a-ride/ [17]https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-crown-prince-mohammed-bin-salman-kingdom-saudi-arabia-bilateral-meeting/ ,https://www.rt.com/news/421890-peanuts-mbs-trump-video/ and https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/trump-humiliated-saudi-crown-prince-while-boasting-about-arms-sales-1.5938561 [18]https://theintercept.com/2018/03/02/jared-kushner-real-estate-qatar-blockade/   and https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/03/did-jared-kushner-punish-qatar-because-it-wouldnt-lend-his-family-money [19] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-g7-summit-communique-text/the-charlevoix-g7-summit-communique-idUSKCN1J5107 [20]https://www.smh.com.au/world/middle-east/donald-trump-s-america-has-just-become-a-rogue-nation-20180509-p4zebu.html [21]https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44427660 and https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/06/10/donald-trump-throws-g-7-disarray-tweets-leaves/ [22]http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/391774-trump-if-i-was-wrong-about-kim-ill-find-some-kind-of-an-excuse and https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/trump-interview-north-korea-w521433 [23]http://www.iusct.net/General%20Documents/1-General%20Declaration%E2%80%8E.pdf [24]http://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/143/judgments [25]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-role-1953-iranian-coup https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB435/#_ftn1 [26]https://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/16/world/secrets-history-cia-iran-special-report-plot-convulsed-iran-53-79.html [27]According to Points II and III of Algeria Declaration of 1981, the United States is committed to return all Iranians Assets. [28]https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-770_9o6b.pdf [29]https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2243&context=californialawreview [30]https://www.britannica.com/event/Operation-Eagle-Claw [31]https://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/26/world/us-secretly-gave-aid-to-iraq-early-in-its-war-against-iran.html, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2002/12/30/us-had-key-role-in-iraq-buildup/133cec74-3816-4652-9bd8-7d118699d6f8/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6be00053e094 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War. Also according to PBS Frontline, Saddam was recruited by the CIA while in Cairo in the 1950s. According to United Press International, he was used by the United States to plan a coup against General Abdulkarim Qassim. His collaboration with the United States after assuming power in 1979 has been widely documented. See Richard Sale “Exclusive: Saddam key in early CIA plot,” United Press International, 4 October 2003, http://www.upi.com/archive/view.php?archive=1&StoryID=20030410-070214-6557r [32]https://1997-2001.state.gov/statements/2000/000317.html [33]https://glasgow.rl.talis.com/items/684B064F-2507-AE89-0568-56D8F164C550.html [34]http://www.bbc.com/persian/iran-features-40431691 [35]http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/ [36]https://www.britannica.com/event/Iran-Air-flight-655 [37]https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1990/04/23/2-vincennes-officers-get-medals/cf383f02-05ce-435b-9086-5d61de569ed8/?utm_term=.e6c9789813e6 [38]The International Court of Justice, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, in its Judgment of 2003 found that “the actions of the United States of America against Iranian oil platforms on 19 October 1987 and 18 April 1988 cannot be justified as measures necessary to protect the essential security interests of the United States of America under Article XX, paragraph 1 (d), of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights between the United States of America and Iran, as interpreted in the light of international law on the use of force.” [39]http://articles.latimes.com/1987-09-28/news/mn-6980_1_weinberger [40]https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/trump-calls-iran-a-terrorist-nation-like-few-others/2017/10/13/810b8214-b025-11e7-9b93-b97043e57a22_video.html?utm_term=.33c4c2ad3feb [41]https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html [42]https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/tourism-visit/visa-waiver-program.html [43]http://www.socialist.ca/node/3550 [44]https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG871.pdf [45]http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/04/30/bolton-iran-mek-terrorism-trump/ [46]https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/giuliani-mek-terrorist-group-money-bolton-iran-214479, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OWYnNh9w4s ; Also in, http://nototerrorism-cults.com/en/?p=1436 [47]https://www.politico.eu/article/netanyahu-israel-assassinate-iranian-scientists-hatched-a-secret-plan/ [48]https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Iran/Israel-behind-assassinations-of-Iran-nuclear-scientists-Yaalon-hints-411473 https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/03/05/israel-assassination-iranian-scientists-217223 [49]https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-israel-developed-computer-virus-to-slow-iranian-nuclear-efforts-officials-say/2012/06/19/gJQA6xBPoV_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.54301c957813; Also in: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/world/middleeast/obama-ordered-wave-of-cyberattacks-against-iran.html [50]https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/us/politics/cia-officer-in-leak-case-jeffrey-sterling-is-convicted-of-espionage.html [51]http://justworldbooks.com/books-by-title/manufactured-crisis/ [52]https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/pages/iran.aspx [53]https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280142196 [54]https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31996R2271:EN:HTML [55] See UN. Documents A/72/869 and S/2018/453 [56]https://www.theblaze.com/news/2014/01/13/former-u-s-defense-contractor-arrested-for-attempting-to-ship-sensitive-information-to-iran; Also in: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/dual-iranian-american-citizen-sentenced-25-years-prison-conspiring-and-attempting [57]https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/09/world/middleeast/ahmad-sheikhzadeh-iranian-prosecution.html [58]http://ifpnews.com/exclusive/iran-perusing-situation-iranian-woman-detained-australia-official/ [59]http://globalnation.inquirer.net/109665/wanted-iranian-dies-in-nbi-custody [60]https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/opinion/08zarif.html [61]https://www.globalpolicy.org/humanitarian-issues-in-iraq/consequences-of-the-war-and-occupation-of-iraq.html; Also in:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/ivan-eland/worst-effect-of-us-afghan_b_5474805.html?guccounter=1; And [62]https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-us-saudi-arabia-arms-fighters-jihadis-military-capability-enhanced-weapons-syria-terrorism-a8112076.html and https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-iraq-arms/arms-supplied-by-u-s-saudi-ended-up-with-islamic-state-researchers-say-idUSKBN1E82EQ [63]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/11/09/saudi-arabias-arms-deals-are-buying-the-wests-silence-over-yemen-allege-activists/?utm_term=.7bf6b323a98b [64]https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/lets-admit-it-the-u-s-is-at-war-in-yemen-too/ [65]http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/42-times-us-has-used-its-veto-power-against-un-resolutions-israel-942194703 [66]https://www.sipri.org/news/press-release/2018/asia-and-middle-east-lead-rising-trend-arms-imports-us-exports-grow-significantly-says-sipri [67]https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2017/06/08/revealed-trump-s-110-billion-weapons-list-for-the-saudis/ [68]https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/26/opinion/us-saudi-arabia-arms-deal-iran.html [69]http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/news/2014/facebook-meme-iraq-war-dollars-could-have-ended-world-hunger-30-years [70]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/23/netanyahu-thanks-us-blocking-middle-east-nuclear-arms-ban [71]https://media.defense.gov/2018/Feb/02/2001872886/-1/-1/1/2018-NUCLEAR-POSTURE-REVIEW-FINAL-REPORT.PDF [72] The International Court of Justice in its Advisory Opinion of 1996 expressly stated that “The legal import of that [disarmament] obligation goes beyond that of a mere obligation of conduct; the obligation involved here is an obligation to achieve a precise result – nuclear disarmament in all its aspects – by adopting a particular course of conduct, namely, the pursuit of negotiations on the matter in good faith.” http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/95/095-19960708-ADV-01-00-EN.pdf [73]https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB116787515251566636 [74]US Department of State: http://usinfo.state.gov/mena/Archive/2006/Mar/06-846555.html [75]http://www.utrikesmagasinet.se/kronikor/2017/november/hans-blix-from-an-isolated-iran-to-an-isolated-us/andhttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/05/russia-us-iran-un-emergency-session [76]https://news.gallup.com/poll/225761/world-approval-leadership-drops-new-low.aspx [77] A/Res/56/6 [78] A/Res/70/109 [79]See for instance “Impermissibility of the Use or Threat of Use of Nuclear Weapons,” Iranian Journal of International Affairs, Volume VIII, No. 1, 1996 and https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/31/iran-nuclear-deal-israel-vienna-treaty-middle-east-wmd. [80]See for instance International Law as a Language for International Relations, (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1996.) [81]https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/18/syria-islam-syrians-peace [82]https://www.reuters.com/article/us-yemen-security-iran/iran-submits-four-point-yemen-peace-plan-to-united-nations-idUSKBN0N823820150417 [83]https://tvnewsroom.consilium.europa.eu/video/eu-hr-mogherini-meets-mfas-of-the-e3-and-iran-1abbf [84]https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/Milex-share-of-GDP.pdf and https://www.sipri.org/databases/milex [85] Article 152: The foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran is based on the rejection of any kind of domination, both its exercise and submission to it;… http://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/ir/ir001en.pdf [86]https://aawsat.com/home/article/10372 [87]https://www.ft.com/content/c0b6bc36-fead-11e7-9650-9c0ad2d7c5b5 [88]http://assafir.com/Article/1/434785 [89]https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/10/iran-persian-gulf-jcpoa/542421/ [90]https://www.ft.com/content/c0b6bc36-fead-11e7-9650-9c0ad2d7c5b5

By Barend ter Haar. How should nations relate to each other? By ratifying the Charter of the United Nations all nations have pledged to “live together in peace with one another as good neighbours” and not to use force “save in the common interest”, but in practice they are tempted to disregard common interests and the interests of their neighbours and to put their narrow national interest not only on the first, but also on the second and third place. In the light of that narrowmindedness, it is refreshing to look at the international football tournament that currently takes place in Russia. Take for example Saudi Arabia and Iran. Both are deeply involved, at opposite ends, in the wars in Syria and Yemen, and they seem not to be in a hurry to build peaceful relations as good neighbours. However, at the same time they both participate in a sportive event that is based on mutual respect and fair play, and, at least in that context, they both accept rules and an independent arbiter. Should we therefore consider the World Cup tournament as an example to be followed by governments? The answered is a qualified yes. Like a football match, an international order cannot exist without the acceptance of a number of rules and an independent arbiter. This is for example how the World Trade Organisation works. If during a football match, one of the parties would decide to change the rules in its favour, the result would be a mess. The unilateral decisions of the American president with regard to international trade might have the same result. So, maybe president Trump should watch the World Cup and think again. However, there are at least two crucial differences between a football tournament and the real world. Football has not fundamentally changed over the years, so the rules can remain basically the same. The world, however, is changing fast. New challenges, such as the growing resistance of bacteria against antibiotics, shortages of fresh water and rising sea levels, require new global rules. Countries can therefore not limit themselves to complying with existing rules, but have to agree on new rules. And that is a totally different ball game. Luckily there is a second crucial difference between the World Cup tournament and the real world: whereas in Russia only one team can win the Cup and all the other teams will end up as losers, the current global match to deal with global challenges is completely different: if nations limit themselves to defending their narrow national interests, they will all end up as losers, however, if they are willing to take common interests and the interests of other nations into consideration they might all become winners.    

H.E. Ms. Sahar Ghanem, Ambassador of Yemen. During the World of Coffee Amsterdam 2018, the Yemen Embassy in The Hague celebrated the first participation of Yemeni specialty coffee in international expos. It was a memorable moment as Yemeni coffee, the world birthplace of coffee cultivation, has been out of reach for years after it had dominated the world coffee trade for hundreds of years from Mokha port in Yemen – the origin of Mocha coffee. For additional pictures, please open the link below: https://www.flickr.com/photos/109407424@N02/albums/72157695628914102 Following the risk-taking voyage of Mokhtar to export Yemeni coffee to the USA during 2015 war in Yemen, Dave Eggers wrote his best-seller story book of the young immigrant who took Yemen coffee to another level. The Monk of Mokha does not only depict Mokhtar’s phenomenal journey but also relates a bit of a background of Yemeni coffee history. The story and other incidents in recent years have brought Yemeni coffee back to spotlight, which triggered many producing and trading businesses to start trading, one of which is Qima Coffee which had an amazing stand at the World of Coffee 2018 representing Yemeni specialty coffee, and Mocha Hunters whose coffee was used by CP Wong from Hong Kong during the World Barista Championship 2018. Other traders also attended the fair to gain better market access after having contributed to the development of the quality and value chain of the Yemeni coffee to position it in global market. The Yemen Embassy in The Hague has promoted for the Dutch market during the last year because the Netherlands was historically the point from which coffee cultivation spread worldwide during the seventeenth century by Dutch sailors. During the World of Coffee fair, Ms. Sahar Ghanem, the Yemeni Ambassador, has also participated in the panel discussion “Make Coffee, Not War”, with other panelists from the coffee industry, ACTED in Yemen and other NGOs, in which they discussed challenges and opportunities for Yemeni coffee during the conflict. Following the fair, and as a form of support and appreciation, Yemeni partners were invited by Her Excellency to celebrate their success before their departure back to Yemen. ————— Photography by the Embassy of Yemen in The Hague.

                            By Geovanny Vicente Romero.   The first Olympic Games originated in ancient Greece in 776 BC uniting male athletes from present-day Iberia (Spain) to the west and the Black Sea region (Turkey) to the east. The games were principally to honor religious beliefs and Zeus, the father of ancient Greek Gods. Today’s Olympic Games unite men and women from all corners of the globe, all faiths, and all walks of life. World sporting events are seen as great equalizers and a showing of national values, pride, and legacies. Specific countries and regions cultivate national pastimes such as soccer, cricket, weightlifting, martial arts, among others, while world powers such as the United States of America, China and Russia seek imperial dominance and hegemony over the sports arena. International sporting events, like the Olympic Games and World Cup, offer global platforms for rival countries to unite under unprecedented conditions that can improve fraught relations, expose historical divisions, or foresee future conflicts. It is worth recalling the Berlin Olympics of 1936, held in Nazi Germany under the auspices of Adolf Hitler, which served as a key turning point for the battered country to rebuild its image following World War I on its rise to global dominance. The games were also a breeding ground for international spies to collect critical intelligence leading up to the next world war. It was at these Olympic Games that the Fuhrer’s theories of Aryan racial supremacy and the lengths the country would go to further this aim, were laid bare. Germany’s newspaper declared in the strongest terms that Blacks and Jews be banned from the games. Although Germany’s athletes won the most medals that year, Black American sprinter Jesse Owens dominated in track and field. Interestingly, the Americans pulled their Jewish athletes from the games so as not to embarrass host Germany. Three years later, in 1939, events in Nazi Germany led to the declaration of World War II. With the balance of global power shifting in 2018, the world has witnessed sports diplomacy take center stage with the historic opening of talks between North Korea and South Korea. North Korea’s increasingly bellicose nuclear launches were endangering the world, creating great uncertainty about the safety and security of the South Korea games. Ultimately, North Korea’s Kim Jong Un’s desire to be part of the games was greater than his threat to destroy them. Through intense diplomatic talks with China and South Korea, the historic détente with its neighbor, led to North Korea sending 22 athletes to compete in five sports, including fielding a joint women’s hockey team as a unified Korea. Since the February Olympic Games, talks between the United States of America and North Korea have intensified, and led to the historic Singapore Summit, which for the first time in history, united a sitting U.S. President with his North Korean counterpart. Just like in ancient times, the Olympic Games were a forum for political discussions and also the cause of political strife. While the International Federation of Association Football (FIFA) has a policy of banning politics at the World Cup, there have been formal complaints of politics interfering with the Serbia-Switzerland game, and intrigue about the curious role that Chechnya has played in this year’s contest. The divisions remaining from former Yugoslavia were evident in the recent World Cup game between Serbia and Switzerland. Two of Switzerland’s leading players of Albanian descent—linked to Kosovo, a former Serbian province that declared independence in 2008—were fined 10,000 Swiss Francs each by FIFA for making hand-gestures of the two-headed Albanian eagle during the game. For its part, the Serbian team was also fined 54,000 Swiss Francs for its fans’ discriminatory banners, messages, and conduct during the game. The impassioned Balkans history played out during the Russian World Cup, and this incident was not the only brush with politics at the 2018 event. Let’s look closer at the linkages between Chechnya and Egypt, which suggest Russia’s bridge-building between Muslim elements of their own and the Islamic world. Egypt’s national soccer team, led by star Liverpool striker, Mohamed Salah, stayed in the Soviet Republic of Chechnya during their run at the World Cup. Chechnya’s leader Ramzan Kadyrov enjoyed several public photos with Salah, and even granted him an honorary citizen of Chechnya. This politicization of sports is taking its toll with the Egyptian Football quickly silencing rumors that Salah was bothered by the spectacle and will retire following this event. Should these claims of Salah’s retirement prove true, and are linked to this crass political stunt, there will be deep resentment on the Arab Street, which could negatively affect any Middle East strategy Russia had been laying the groundwork for vis-à-vis Chechnya. For Ancient Greeks, sporting events offered the opportunity to discuss politics while reveling in athletic competition. While modern day Olympic Games, World Cups, and other international sports officially are independent of politics, the strong historical currents run through each and every one of these venues, offering the opportunity for redemption, revenge, and revision. About the author: Geovanny Vicente Romero is the founder of the Center of Public Policy, Leadership and Development in the Dominican Republic (CPDL-RD). He is a political analyst, international consultant and lecturer based in Washington, D.C. Follow him at @GeovannyVicentR 

Eurojust’s President, Mr. Ladislav Hamran. By Guido Lanfranchi. In the fight again terrorism, Eurojust is at the forefront, trying to enhance European joint counter-terrorism capabilities. On June 20^th, 2018, a press conference was held to report the results of the annual meeting of counter-terrorism experts from the Member States. “Together, we are stronger.” These four words could be an extreme summary of the press conference held on June 20^th at the Eurojust headquarters in The Hague, just after the annual meeting of counter-terrorism experts from the Member States. The panel of speakers was composed by Ladislav Hamran (President of Eurojust and National Member for Slovakia), Frédéric Baab (National Member for France and Chairman of Counter-Terrorism Team), François Molin (District Chief Prosecutor of the Court of Paris, France), Frédéric Van Leeuw (Federal Prosecutor, Belgium), Joëlle Milquet (Special Advisor to the President of the European Commission on the support to victims of terrorist attacks). During the conference, the speakers updated the press on the recent cooperation efforts in the Eurojust framework and on upcoming initiatives. In his introduction, Mr. Hamran praised the work of Eurojust in coordinating the work of 30 different juridical systems, with the common aim of “collecting enough evidence to put criminal behind bars.” Mr. Hamran stressed the cooperation between Eurojust and the prosecutors at the national level, with 4400 prosecutors coming to Eurojust for advice, consultation, and coordination during the last year alone. With an eye towards the future, Eurojust’s President also praised the deal recently reached by the European institutions on the reform to Eurojust’s regulation, which will strengthen cooperation among parties, improve the organization’s governance, and enact a stronger data protection regime. Then, Mr. Baab introduced the main issues discussed during the annual conference of national experts of counter-terrorism. The experts dealt with the new phenomenon of the foreign fighters’ return to Europe, as well as the necessity of providing help to the victims of terrorist attacks. Moreover, Mr. Baab announced the joint declaration of the Ministers of Justice of France, Germany, Belgium, and Spain, in which the countries pledged to enhance information sharing on terrorism in the Eurojust framework, proposing the establishment of a European Judicial Counter-Terrorism Register. Mr. Molin focused then on the first issue of the agenda, the return of foreign fighters. He stressed the need to investigate every returnee from sensitive areas, and highlighted how such efforts would be better served by a European cooperative strategy. Moreover, Mr. Molin praised the joint declaration of the four European countries, calling for enhanced cooperation at Eurojust in order to achieve better results. These words were echoed by those of Mr. van Leeuw, who praised the more practical, concrete nature of the four-party declaration, as compared to previous mere declarations of intents. Speaking on the problem of returnees, Mr. van Leeuw then highlighted some of the topic’s complexities, such as the difficulty to cooperate with the Syrian government, the localization of foreign fighters, and the presence of women and minors among the returnees. As of now, 162 minors with ties to Belgium are supposed to be in Syria and Iraq, and would be considered as potential terrorists upon their return. In order to tackle such complex problems, Mr. van Leeuw stressed the need to adopt a case-specific approach, albeit always under the directives provided by international laws, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Finally, Ms. Milquet stressed the need to address not only the root causes of terrorism, but also its consequences, and in particular the ill-fated effects on the unfortunately numerous victims. This category includes not only the families of the killed people, but also the many wounded and traumatized people, who are often in need of help. To fill such gap, she explained that her office has been tasked by President Juncker with three main responsibilities: to better execute existent directives, to strengthen cooperation between the European and national efforts, and to establish a model for action in support of victims. This support can address several problems faced by victims, such as lack of information on the available services and the excessive length of bureaucratic procedures, and it would be arguably better served by a more cooperative approach at the European level. During the Q&A session, the speakers also delved more deeply into a few more issues. Mr. Molin spoke about the learning capacity of the judiciary systems in the wake of investigations on past terrorist attacks, such those in Paris in 2015. Also, the speakers outlined more in detailed the features of the European Judicial Counter-Terrorism Register, which will revolve around increased cooperation in information sharing between the European and the national level to prosecute criminals more effectively. Finally, Mr. van Leeuw explained the efforts of the Belgian judiciary system in proactively tackling the phenomenon of the so-called “homegrown terrorist fighters,” in which Eurojust plans to take new measures too. As terrorism continues to be a concern for many European citizens, it should be relieving to know that there are people who constantly do their best to counter such threats, not only at the national level, but also at the European one.

By Guido Lanfranchi. Is there life beyond Earth? And if there is, how can we discover it? On which planet or moon could it be? While we often consider such questions as the topic of science fiction movies and books, scientists at NASA are actually busy in finding concrete answers. On June 19^th, Dr. James Green, recently appointed Chief Scientist at NASA, shared his insights about NASA’s efforts in searching forms of life in the solar system.   Making reasonable hypotheses on where to find forms of life beyond our planet, sending space probes across the solar system to collect information, gathering and elaborating such information to refine the hypotheses. These are the tasks that several NASA scientists have been doing, day after day, over the past 15 years, thus dramatically advancing human knowledge on the immense universe that surrounds our planet. Dr. Jim Green, Chief Scientist of NASA, shared with the international press the efforts of NASA in searching for life beyond our planet. These efforts – Dr. Green said – started to take a more definite shape when NASA asked to several astrobiologists to come up with a definition of life. The experts formulated a definition that could not really satisfy space scientists, as life’s three key “must have” (metabolism, reproduction, and evolution) were hardly measurable. Nevertheless, NASA did not back down: as metabolism needs water, water became the first criteria to address NASA’s search for life in space. It was in this way that, around 10 years ago, the “follow the water” process started. By 2018, Dr. Green is clearly admitting that NASA has still not found any life yet, but at the same time he proudly informed his public that terrific progress has been made, especially in NASA’s ability to steer and orientate its quest for life. Moreover, while doing so, NASA has also collected an incredible amount of data on all the major bodies in the solar system, by now being able to model planets’ and moons’ evolutions over time. As a result, NASA scientists can now analyze the past evolution of planets such and Mars and Venus. Both planets – Dr. Green explained – were in the past way more similar to the Earth. However, over the past hundreds of millions of years their atmospheric conditions deeply changed, making them inhabitable today. These observations are incredibly interesting for two reasons. On the one hand, the study of such changes can provide useful insights in evaluating where our planet is headed. On the other hand, this is also of utmost relevance for NASA’s quest for life, as life could have well been present on Mars and Venus, for instance, before their recent atmospheric changes. Also, Dr. Green described one of NASA’s most tantalizing findings, that is, distant planets that have been often considered inhabitable due to their icy surfaces might well be hosting forms of life. For bodies such as Enceladus and Titan, superficial ice might indeed just be a crust, under which oceans might be existing and fostering life. In order to follow up on these and many other findings, NASA is now planning a series of missions (e.g. to Venus, Europa, Titan, and the Saturn system), especially thanks to the “tremendous support from the American people.” Questioned by the audience, Dr. Green also answered a series of interesting questions. Questioned about NASA’s budget, Dr. Green expressed its satisfaction with the current sums available, expected to amount to $20 billion for next year only. Moreover, as privates seems to get more and more interested in the business of space, Dr. Green expressed his will to collaborate with the private sector. Such collaboration – he explained – could enable NASA to spare some efforts and money, thus unlocking the organization’s potential to expand its reach into more cutting-edge research domains. Similarly, Dr. Green stressed the profitable cooperation that NASA enjoys with the European Space Agency (ESA) and the US Department of Defense, recently tasked by the US President to establish a military space force. Finally, Dr. Green, asked by the audience about specific projects, discussed some of NASA’s upcoming activities, such as the Europa Clipper mission and the Lunar Orbital Platform Gateway. More specifically on NASA’s Mars program, Green announced the organization’s next step, that is, to be able to bring back to our planet samples from Mars surface. When analyzed with NASA’s technological equipment as it is available on Earth, such samples might well provide interesting insights on possible forms of life living in Mars in the past. While we conduct our daily lives as if nothing was happening, we might want to keep in mind the incredibly important researches that Dr. Green and his colleagues are daily, restlessly working on. The discoveries that NASA is making now – Dr. Green said – “are not going to appear in textbooks for perhaps many years.” Luckily, at least they are going to be in some newspapers and magazine. To all the people interested: food for thought is up for grabs.