Sherman: America started hostility to Iran/ I knew Trump was leaving Brajam

Wendy Sherman, a former US senior negotiator in the nuclear deal with Iran and former US Secretary of State in an interview with an English media, addressed the details of Iran -US negotiations in the years leading up.

In an interview with Economist, he pointed to the history of relations between the two countries: "Britain and the United States overthrew the legitimate Iranian government, Mossadegh's government in the 1980s, and this led to the revolution in Iran. The United States supported the Shah, a tyrant and violent person against the Iranians. "Many in the United States remember the events after the Islamic Revolution in Iran and the hostage -taking of Americans in Iran, but the reason for Iran's actions against the United States is also deeply deep and deep."

He also referred to Washington's talks with Tehran: "Iran always wanted to continue uranium enrichment. They said they needed uranium enrichment not only for a civilian nuclear program, but also for cancer. We did not fully believe in all this, but the United States always had the stance that the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons to countries did not allow such a civilian nuclear program. President Obama made a very important decision to allow them to enrich a small amount of uranium if the International Atomic Energy Officer was so sure they would not use it to build nuclear weapons. "It opened the door that was great."

Sherman acknowledges the importance of uranium enrichment for Iran during the Brajam negotiations, while in the current Iran -US negotiations, the issue of Iran's ability to enrich uranium has become one of the main points of Tehran and Washington, and as Iranian officials have emphasized, Tehran will never be legitimate.

"Iranians knew the uranium enrichment cycle throughout the current US government threats against Iran," he said. We could not destroy their knowledge, but we could limit their activities, the amount of development, the amount of storage and many other technical methods to limit Iran's nuclear program. "We could reach an agreement for widespread monitoring with a variety of new tools."

Obama was informed of all the details of the negotiations

"I think it is important to know that this is not possible in the US system without a final decision by the US president," Sherman added. Obama's president was aware of all the details of the talks and understood them all. "Certainly (John) was the same, because he was deeply involved in these issues, especially at the end of the negotiations."

Responding to a question about how other signatories players, including China, Russia, France, Britain and Germany, he said: "Everyone calculates the issues differently. Therefore, the French calculate enrichment to some extent than us, relative to the British, to the Germans, to the Russians and then the Chinese. This is not a simple process. You have to get to the point where all the level is comfortable. When you do multilateral diplomacy, it is a very complex process and you can't ignore the steps. "Because if you ignore the steps, you will undermine trust and do not work."

The former US negotiator responded to another question about why Iran's nuclear case was restricted and the US lack of focus on "restricting Iran's support for Hamas, Hezbollah or other Iranian proxy forces": "If we wanted Iran to support Hamas, Hezbollah or the Assad government, "In exchange for less support for Hamas, we will enrich more uranium and our main goal was to prevent Iran from accessing nuclear weapons."


I don't know if the Iranians believed in the US threat

He also responded to a question about the US readiness to take military action against Iran in the event of failure to negotiate: "I don't know if the Iranians believed it, but the alternative solution was military action. I think they believed. People look at the past that we need to be more decisive about military action. I think it is quite evident now that people are willing to take military action. For me, it was evident at that time. This does not mean, of course, that one was excited about this possibility, because it could lead to a war between Iranians and Arabs. "This will be very important and full of consequences in other ways."

"We were in a place where we really needed to bring everything on paper, but as we found out, if something was on paper, the Iranian delegation would have to return it immediately," he said. So we wanted to protect their space as a negotiator. So I asked my team to find a big white board for me. I wrote every element that was part of the agreement on that board. We then discussed the elements one by one. Everyone was angry with you, but it was all informal. Then we wiped the whiteboard. "

"I picked up that plan of the elements and asked someone to type it so that Kerry could carry it everywhere, because every time you do a job, it affects several other things in the agreement," he said. "So you have to keep all the puzzle pieces in front of you to get the right place and so the calculations are logical."

In response to a question about the mutual confidence of the Iranian and American delegation, Sherman said: "I am not one who believes that the Iranians never trusted me and I have never trusted them. This is true today, but I think we may have respected each other's interests, their abilities, the fact that they were trying to achieve their national interests. "They were only national interests that were to be violated."

Sherman's shame for disrespect for Iranians

In response to a question about his disrespect to the Iranians, he said: "I was taught in front of the US Senate and a senator told me, aren't the Iranians deceitful? And I said, yes, it is deception in their blood. I immediately regretted saying it. Over time, I regretted even more because the Iranians came to the streets of Tehran and said death to Sherman. So, I did a Voice of America's Persian radio interview and asked the presenter to actually ask me in this case, and I said I regret that the choice of words was very bad and then the situation was calm. "

Sherman responded to a question about the sense of signature: "It was an executive agreement, not a treaty, so you do not sign anything in itself, although all the ministers went to a small room at the UN headquarters in Vienna, and the United States, which is U., was the last to speak. Kerry began to speak and suddenly silenced how he went to Vietnam and how he returned to protest the war in which he fought and how he turned his life into his life that never happened. It was very important to him. "It was very intimate and tears in the eyes of all."

Responding to a question about US President Donald Trump's departure from Brajam, she said, "I knew this was happening."

Responding to another question about the value of international agreements when they are easily violated, Sherman claimed: "Its value is that we have been knowing more about Iran's nuclear program for many years. We were paying attention to what they are doing, we still pay attention. You know, nothing is guaranteed in life. World War I was called to end all wars. Three years later, which is nothing with the criterion of history, we had World War II. Was World War I wrong? No! But with the advancement of the world, with the advent of modernity, with the change of geopolitical conditions, was there a guarantee that there would never be a war again? Obviously, no. "