Iran contravenes the Vienna agreement

The unilateral withdrawal from the agreement on the Iranian nuclear issue by the US has caused the economic sanctions to which Tehran is subjected and which have caused the aggravation of an economic crisis already underway in the Iranian country. The reasons for the agreement, opposed by the American right, the strength of Obama's foreign policy, lay in controlling Iran's nuclear progress and in the desire to establish a more relaxed climate between the two countries, through the economic improvement of the Shiite country . The advent of Trump in the maximum US position has subverted this scheme: the new White House policy has opposed the agreement until the withdrawal, claiming to bring within the terms of the agreement the limitation of ballistic projects concerning Iranian rockets. This is partly due to Washington's rapprochement with Ryad and Tel Aviv, which continue to see Iran as the main enemy. For Saudi Arabia it is a question of countering Iran's regional ambitions, while for Israel the problem is the threat that Tehran brings to the Israeli borders, through the Shiite militias present in Lebanon. In this framework of alliances the USA, with the current president, have chosen not to keep their word given by undermining their international credibility, even in front of the other signatories of the agreement: European Union, Russia, China, France, United Kingdom United and Germany. The Iranian attitude, if we limit ourselves to an analysis that concerns only the matter of the agreement, has been, until now, a tough diplomatic challenge to the United States and, in part, also to the other signatories of the agreement, which , according to Tehran, they have not done enough to keep Washington underwritten. However, despite the Iranian economy has suffered serious damage from the oil embargo to which it was subjected, Iran has so far not contravened what was signed in the 2015 agreement. On the contrary, the decision of these days marks a change in attitude Iranian about the treatment of uranium, which can also prefigure uses beyond the civil ones. Tehran speaks of a reversible decision at any time, if the US will ease the pressure on the ban on the sale of oil to which Iran is subjected. The first intention of the Iranian government is to put pressure on the signatory countries of the agreement, so that they can get out of the passivity with which they accepted the American decision. It must be remembered that Washington also exerted pressure on companies in the signatory countries, especially European ones, with the explicit prohibition of trading with Iran, forcing companies in these countries to renounce already signed commercial agreements, on pain of disqualification from the market US. If we look at the issue from a broader point of view, the Iranian decision risks triggering nuclear proliferation in the region, creating the conditions that the treaty had to avert. The most immediate risk is that Saudi Arabia tries to become a nuclear power as opposed to Iran, in a situation of strong contrast between the two countries, with Ryad that has proved to be totally unreliable towards the same American allies, especially for the management of the question of the Islamic State. Of the European countries, for now, only France has spoken, accusing Iran of not respecting the Vienna agreement, however, even if dangerous, the Iranian decision can be understandable in the face of the unilateral American withdrawal and the immobility of the others signatory countries, which tacitly did not oppose the White House. Moscow's position is different, as it has taken a sympathetic attitude towards Tehran, considered a victim of American behavior. Moscow can take advantage of the irresponsible American position in the regional framework to its advantage, even if for the moment in a not too accentuated way, because it could favor nuclear proliferation. The Iranian move forces Washington to respond: if the White House accentuates the sanctions Tehran will feel authorized to proceed with the enrichment of uranium, opening up to a series of negative developments in the diplomatic scenario, vice versa a more inclined attitude to negotiation could open more positive developments also beyond the perimeter of the regional area. For Trump a new challenge on the eve of the presidential renewal campaign.