Unofficial translation from Russian.  

(Kommersant) - The unilateral withdrawal of the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, approved by the UN Security Council to resolve the Iranian nuclear crisis, led to the undermining of international law, dealing a serious blow to the positions of the United Nations, whose origins were the United States. The head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mohammad Javad Zarif, reflects on why this happened and what a way out of this situation could be, in an article written specifically for Kommersant.

What we have seen in Iran, which has been the target of the most vicious and blind US sanctions, shows that the U.S. government has no clear vision of the future of the international community. Washington has no other plans than to ineffectively manage COVID-19 at home or undermine peace and stability abroad by attacking all those who support the rule of law.

The response of the United States to United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231, which endorses the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), is a clear example of this.

In July 2015, Iran, the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, France and Germany reached an important agreement to address any concerns about the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program while at the same time freeing the Iranian people from inhuman and unfair sanctions. As part of their commitments under the JCPOA, the United States and other signatory countries have jointly created United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231, of which the JCPOA is an integral part. However, in May 2018, the United States government announced that it had taken a unilateral decision to “suspend participation” in the JCPOA.

Since then, Iran and the rest of the international community have been in a state of surprise. They witnessed the United States as the first state in the history of the United Nations to not only violate a binding UN resolution, but also punish governments and companies that uphold international law by complying with the resolution.

As we warned the UN Security Council last month, this situation is unacceptable.

The campaign to spread lies by the United States regime is a ploy to cover up their true and malicious motives. The United States, despite two years of applying the most ruthfewer "maximum pressure" mechanism ever imposed on the people, including denying ordinary Iranians access to medicines and medical equipment during the world's deadliest pandemic (COVID-19), has failed to breach Resolution 2231.

The United States now hopes that by misinterpreting the provisions of the same resolution it abandoned in 2018, it will end up destroying that same resolution.

This deeply destructive behavior of the United States is directed against the entire UN structure.

The methods used by the United States are to destroy this global institution with the help of the UN mechanism.

In this regard, there are important questions and implications that need to be taken into account.

One might wonder how the collapse of one UN Security Council resolution leads to broader and broader results. If the Security Council is forced to annul its own resolution as a result of intimidation by one of its members, it will in fact witness several generations of lagging behind in achieving multilateralism in the international community. Without respect by all states to the principles established by the Security Council, it will not be able to fulfill its responsibilities.

We must not forget that the same United States regime withdrew from the World Health Organization (WHO) during its worst global epidemic, but is now trying to take over the organization's reform process even at the cost of harming its closest Western allies.

If the United States is allowed to continue on this path, the world will retreat to a situation where only power creates law.

While this may be attractive to Cold War advocates looking for new targets, they should be aware that even the logic of power has its limits and boundaries.

In recent years, we have also seen how the US government, in parallel with attacks on international institutions and agreements, tried to replace international law with its domestic law. In practice, this means that now the US Treasury Department, and not the governments of European countries, must decide with whom European companies will do business, whether in connection with the implementation of Resolution 2231 or the implementation of the Nord Stream gas pipeline.

Although the United States has so far primarily tried to expand the jurisdiction of its domestic law, there is no reason for this process to remain unique to the United States alone. With the opening of this Pandora's Box and obedience by some governments, it will not be a distant prospect of a future where ordinary citizens and private businesses face extraterritorial charges stemming from other countries' domestic laws, such as domestic laws restricting travel, trade, and international investment.

Thus, the international community in general and the UN Security Council in particular face an important decision: Are we strengthening respect for the rule of law, or are we returning to the rule of law of the jungle?

While Iran has demonstrated its resilience and ability to respond to intimidation, I am confident that in the weeks and months ahead, the members of the Security Council will thwart the desperate efforts of the United States to undo the diplomatic success of the 21st century, to destroy what remains of multilateralism and international law.