Outcomes of Boris Johnson's trip to Tehran

TEHRAN (defapress) – The visit of British Foreign Secretary, "Boris Johnson", to Tehran has been called a special trip by many analysts of foreign policy and international affairs, and subjects such as "the case of security convicts", "the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)" and "regional issues" are considered among his goals of this visit. There are some important points about Johnson's trip to Tehran:

News ID: 67420

Date: 12 December 2017 - 11:05

Boris Johnson has been accused by many British politicians of failing to perform his duties during the past months, especially weeks before his recent trip to Iran. Following Johnson's remarks about Nazanin Zaghari's case, and emphasizing that she was in Iran for running a journalism course, we were witnessing new protests against the British Foreign Secretary. They have reached a point where some British officials, including the Labor Party's leader" Jeremy Corbin", demanded Johnson's resignation from his post. Beyond that, some members of the conservative party also expressed their opposition to supporting Johnson being the British Prime Minister after Teresa May's possible resignation. Under such circumstances, one of Johnson's main goals of his trip to Tehran has been to revive his legal personality. In analyzing the British Foreign Secretary's visit to Tehran, one shouldn't overlook these political and personal motives.

- The British Foreign Secretary has recently held talks with members of the US Congress, and in particular some prominent Republican and Democratic presidential candidates. Johnson, on his trip to Tehran, also emphasized that his country supported the nuclear deal. However, it should be noted that London has been accused of violating the nuclear deal over the past two years. Nuclear analysts emphasize that after the United States, Britain has been the most important obstacle on the way of the JCPOA and made every effort to prevent its realization. In March, the British Foreign Office called Iran a challenging place for trade, calling on investors and businessmen in the United Kingdom to be cautious about investing in Iran and to make the necessary consultations in this regard. Also, the UK made lots of barriers during the purchase of 950 tons of uranium and yellow cake by Iran, which eventually prevented the deal from happening. More importantly, after Trump's recent and controversial speech on the JCPOA, Boris Johnson has tried to distinguish between "changing the JCPOA" and its "cancellation".

In his controversial remarks, he emphasized that the US Congress is only calling for a reform in the content of the JCPOA, and not for its cancellation. The British government has promised to Washington to do its best to change the JCPOA to the benefit of the United States. This includes removing clauses related to time limits (Sunset clauses), limiting Iran's missile program, and inspecting Iran's military sites. London is fully in favor of these changes, and any statements made by the English authorities in concluding a deal are merely tactical statements (in order to persuade public opinion).

- The third point is about London's regional policy. Undoubtedly, Boris Johnson as the British Foreign Secretary is deeply concerned about the rising costs of London's defeat in the West Asian region. Over the past year, Britain has had lots of failures in the region and has incurred a lot of costs: in Yemen, the direct support of the British government from the Saudi regime for the massacre of men and women and children had no benefits for this country, even the continuation of the Yemen war has led to an increase in Britain's failure and incapacity in the campaign. In Bahrain, over the past five years, the British government has worked hard to support the Al Khalifa regime. Even Britain has supported actions such as the siege of Bahrain's Shiite leader, "Sheikh Isa Qassim" in the Al-Daraz area. Training Bahrain's police to suppress people, has been another step by British government and security authorities to support the hated regime in Manama. However, the erosion of Bahrain's developments and the shattering of the foundations of the Al-Khalifa government made Britain frightened over Manama's future.

In the two countries of Syria and Iraq, Britain has suffered much tougher failings. In 2013, Britain, along with the United States, tried to use ISIS as an instrument for managing the region's changes. However, the defeat of ISIS in Syria and Iraq and the presence of popular mobilized forces (especially the popular mobilization in Iraq and Syria) and the strength of the Resistance Front have confused London in its calculations in the region. Thus, Boris Johnson came to Tehran in a period when the cost of Britain's defeats in West Asia is far greater than before.

In such a situation, the British authorities are trying to preserve their being rightful as ever-gest in the first place.

Basically, Boris Johnson and other British officials should be responsible for their anti-security measures in Iran as well as their anti-Iranian acts during the post-JCPIA period. What is certain is that today, Johnson and other British officials should merely stand in the position of "answering" to the Iranian people and they are in no position to "demand" anything from us.

The experience of years and decades has shown that one of the British tricks in face of crisis in its foreign policy, is to lead the game from formal and public diplomacy to "hidden diplomacy."

The British authorities have been trying to prevent the concentration of public opinion on their Achilles' heels and weaknesses in the field of foreign policy by changing the game and leading it towards the field of hidden diplomacy. Therefore, the diplomatic and foreign policy system of our country should in no way allow the British authorities to implement this policy. Boris Johnson and other English officials know well that if the game is drawn to public diplomacy, they can't defend themselves against the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ultimately, Johnson has no choice but to admit to his country's defeat in the region and to admit to the mistakes his government has made with respect to Iran. Obviously, any pressure from the British authorities to maintain the status quo and put pressure on Iran to threaten our country will double the cost of London's defeat against Tehran.