In the weeks since Donald Trump took over the US presidency, there are speculations about possible negotiations for Tehran-Washington. Despite Iran’s constructive cooperation, he unilaterally withdrew during his first term, imposing the most serious anti-Iran sanctions within the framework of “maximum pressure” on Tehran.
In this respect, the revolutionary leaders sang Ali Khamenei in a gathering of commanders and staff of the Air Force and Air Defense Forces held on the morning of Friday 7 February. However, without reaching any consequences, the United States violated the same treaty despite its shortcomings and then unilaterally withdrew.
Therefore, such negotiations with the government are unwise, intentional, dishonest and should not be negotiated with it, Ayatollah Khamenei emphasized.
In addition to the JCPOA, a historical view of the history of US commitments and agreements with other countries around the world reveals the futile and harm of these consultations, and the numerous violations between the US and Russia. It makes clear that an inflationary agreement is an example of such a thing. case.
Washington in vain – Moscow military agreement
Relations between the US and Russia, and previously the Soviet Union, have always been subject to competition and often violations of bilateral agreements. Since the Cold War, the two countries have signed numerous treaties, many of which have been violated by the United States. Below are treaties violated by the United States as discussed.
Anti-Ammunition Missile (ABM) Convention – 1972
The anti-ballistic missile treaty, signed between the US and the Soviet Union in 1972, sought to limit the development and deployment of missile defense systems. The treaty specifically restricted countries to having only two missile defense systems, later reduced to one. The main goal of the treaty is to prevent unilateral advantages and strategies between the two nuclear forces, as the widespread development of missile defense systems undermines the concept of mutual deterrence and may lead to new arms races. It was about maintaining a balance.
However, the George W. Bush administration unilaterally withdrew from the treaty in 2002, citing the need to develop missile defense systems against potential threats from third countries. The lawsuit sparked a strong response from Russia as Russian officials viewed the withdrawal as a violation of the strategic agreement and a threat to the nuclear balance. Following this measure, Russia also expanded its programme to develop advanced missile systems, such as extreme systems, leading to a stronger arms race between the two countries.
Medium-range Nuclear Nuclear Part (INF) Treaty, 1987
It was signed in 1987 between the US and the Soviet Union with the aim of eliminating ballistic and cruise missiles in the range of 500-5,500 km. The treaty was one of the most important arms control treaties during the Cold War and helped to reduce nuclear tensions between the two superpowers. Under the treaty, both sides pledged not only to refrain from producing and deploying these missiles, but also to destroy existing missiles. The treaty was recognized as a turning point to reduce the arms race between the East and West, paving the way for subsequent arms agreements, such as the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (initiation).
However, in 2019, the Trump administration announced that it would withdraw from the treaty over what the US said was a violation of Russia. The US alleged that Russia had developed and deployed new missiles with more scope than those set by the treaty, but Moscow denied the charges and the US provided credible evidence in favour of the claims. He said that was not the case.
With its withdrawal from the US treaty, Russia urged it to announce that it would no longer comply with its commitment. The action has fueled global concerns about the revival of the arms race and the rise in nuclear threat, as the cancellation of the treaty allowed both countries to deploy medium-range nuclear missiles without restrictions. Some experts also believe that the US withdrawal from the deal was an excuse for the development and deployment of new missiles in Asia and Europe, leading to increased tensions between Russia and China.
Oral agreement on NATO expansion – 1990
During Germany’s unification negotiations in 1990, Soviet officials sought assurance that NATO would not expand eastward. In these negotiations, then-US Secretary of State James Baker told Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not expand “not a inch to the east.” This commitment was repeated by Western officials in other diplomatic conversations, leading the Soviets to agree to German unification as part of the NATO.
However, contrary to this promise, NATO has been steadily expanding the East since the late 1990s, with Eastern European countries, including Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and the Baltic states joining the military alliance. This expansion occurred despite repeated Russian objections, but is considered a violation of the verbal commitment of Western officials.
NATO’s expansion has become a key factor in tensions between Russia and the West, including the current crisis in Ukraine, as Moscow sees it as a direct threat to its security. Russia believes that NATO’s expansion to the border has reduced the balance of power and paved the way for Western military intervention in areas under Russian influence. Despite these concerns, the US has escalated tensions with Moscow over the past year by acknowledging Sweden and Finland to NATO.
Open Sky Treaty (OST) 1992
The Open Sky Treaty, signed in 1992, was one of the most important international agreements to create military transparency among member states. Signatories were able to conduct unarmed reconnaissance flights through each other’s territory to gather information about the other’s military movements and activities. The main purpose of the treaty was to reduce doubt, prevent unnecessary conflicts, and build trust, particularly between the US and Russia. The contract served as an important tool for monitoring military activities and verifying arms management commitments, with over 30 countries taking part.
The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) was first signed in 1991 between the US and the Soviet Union, with its main goal of reducing the number of strategic nuclear weapons and preventing further nuclear weapons races. The treaty focused on reducing intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMS), submarine-launched cruise missiles (SLBMS), and strategic bombers, among others. The agreement, with the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, became the foundation of new nuclear relations between the United States and Russia. The start was valid until 2009, but has since expired.
In 2010, a new treaty, “New Start,” was signed between the United States and Russia. To continue the nuclear weapons reduction process, the agreement will limit the number of strategic weapons countries have on their 1,550 nuclear warheads and reduce the number of missile launchers to 800. The treaty also includes important transparency and surveillance measures. Nuclear facilities in both countries. The new start was designed to enhance strategic stability and prevent the risk of nuclear war in the post-Cold War era.
The United States has repeatedly withdrawn or otherwise violated bilateral treaties with Russia under different administrations. These actions not only strengthened the arms race and increased mistrust between the two countries, but also raised broader global concerns about the future of international security.
Examples such as the mid-range nuclear treaties that directly influenced the nuclear balance and strategic security between the two superpowers, and the mid-range nuclear treaties that directly influenced the expansion of NATO, violate the promise. This is an example of expanding NATO. Expanding east is just a few of the cases that have created serious challenges for US-Russia relations. This situation not only led to a new arms race, but also created deep res and rifts between the main forces.
Finally, these trends could lead to a more unstable world as international relations are based on trust and shared commitments, and their violations were caused by loss of global stability and cold and tense. It could lead to a return to competition.
Now, in this critical case of non-commitment, the problem comes to mind. In particular, how can we reach an agreement that is favorable for both Trump, who has withdrawn from various treaties with Russia, as well as JCPOA. Will the Open Sky Treaty and the Medium Range Nuclear Force ban the treaty?
MA/6372925