JCPOA and the future of the international system

JCPOA is an international deal that endorsed by the UN Security Council, there are some speculations about the possibility of US withdrawal from this accord. Now, the question is: what kind of potential withdrawal will the United States bring forward with regard to the polarization of the international system? The answer to this question can be different from the continuation of the monopolar system to the stabilization of the multipolar system.
Almost all international experts acknowledge the duplicity nature of the international system during the Cold War era. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the idea was formed that America was the only superpower of the world and the international system has a monopoly nature. This idea was undermined at least economically in the late 1990s, with economic growth in countries such as Japan and Germany. But the United States’ unilateral US invasion of Iraq in 2003, which did not have the UN Security Council approval, also made the views of the stronger unipolar supporters of the international system.
But with some incidents in recent years and the US's inability to influence them, they re-talked about a multi-polar or even multi-polar system. The crisis in Ukraine, which virtually transformed the United States into a spectator, is one of the most important examples that the opposition of the unipolar system emphasizes. Also, the US's failure to advance goals in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the crises of the Arab countries, and in particular Syria, is another case in which some experts point to the end of the unipolar system in the world.
But opponents of this view argue that America's military powers, economic and cultural power with other countries are still a reason for the unipolarity of the international system. With these interpretations, it seems that one of the issues that can largely highlight. This light debate and clarify the truth is the future of the international community's response to the possible withdrawal of the United States from this agreement.

The deal is a multilateral agreement that has ended Iran's nuclear dispute for more than 12 years. Initial talks on the conflict began between Iran and the European Troika in 2003, with the addition of China, Russia and the United States in 2015. The negotiation process in these 12 years was very difficult and difficult, so at a lesser time it seemed that a positive outcome was to be obtained. However, with the arrival of Hassan Rouhani in Iran and Obama's goal to end the conflict, a deal was reached in the form of a win-win deal. The most important reason for the United States to accept this agreement was to ensure complete non-fulfillment of Iran's nuclear weapons, since, given the political and technical implications of the agreement, it was prevented from any Iranian access to nuclear weapons. That is the very reason that shaped such a conflict. But now, Donald Trump, in spite of this matter and the IAEA's reports of Iran's compliance with its commitments, intends to withdraw from this agreement. This event can further illustrate the structure of the international system.
Accordingly, if the United States withdraws from this agreement, the international community, and in particular the European Union, has sought or unwillingly to follow this country and revise the relations with Iran in different areas, then it should be said that the international system is a monopolar nature. Defenders of this view can claim that, even now that it is running, many large European banks and financial and economic companies are not willing to bargain with Iran because of fears of punishment, which reflects the power of the United States and its superpower position in International system.
But, the withdrawal of the United States, the international community, and especially the European Union, remains committed to expanding the relations with Iran, and then the unipolar system has joined the current cemetery in the current period. To accept this view, certainly, the US action should not be a barrier to Iran's prosperity. That is, all non-US corporate and private banks and non-US banks should be able to negotiate freely and without fear of US sanctions. In this case, it can be verified that the international system has a multipolar nature, and the unilateral action of a country, if not the most powerful, cannot be decisive.
From this point of view, it should be said that the probable departure of the United States will create a historic opportunity for the European Union to determine the position in the international system. The EU now wants to continue, because they believe that the main goal was Iran's lack of access to nuclear weapons with this agreement. On the other hand, it has helped Iran play a more positive and active role in the security talks in the region. Also, the normalization of relations with Iran is economically a great opportunity for the European Union, and now the expansion of relations with Iran in various dimensions has been achieved in the wake of the achievement. So it is not logical for the European Union to break such an agreement. Hence, it should be said that probably until October, when the re-approval by the President of the United States comes to an end, Europe's position in the international system will be somewhat determined.
On the other hand, the structure of the international system will definitely affect the interests of Iran. In the multipolar system, Iran has the potential to maneuver more in the field of actors and in different areas. But in a monopolar system whose superpower is also opposed to Iran, the possibility of acting for our country is limited. From this perspective, the decision-making and selection of strategies and policies for acting like Iran will largely relate to the structure of the international system.

Jalil Bayat

Source:This article first published at  Persian Website - www.cmess.ir/Page/View/2017-09-16/2227/