Currently, the US holds the presidency of the UN Security Council and so has the leverage to direct talks towards whatever topics they deem critical. Trump’s meeting to discuss the Islamic Republic will actually be attended by the heads of state of the UN Security Council’s members and will coincide with the 73rd session of the UN General Assembly.
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, a leading expert on Iran and US foreign policy, wrote: “Without a doubt, the US decision to lead a meeting on Iran is a blow to the theocratic establishment.”
This meeting has caused panic throughout the Iranian Regime, with foreign minister Mohammed Javad Zarif claiming that Trump is “violating” the existing UNSC resolution on Iran, abusing the power of the UNSC presidency, and “bullying” the other member states.
It is ironic to hear Iran complain that someone else is violating the UNSC resolution, when they have violated it on many occasions, and fanciful to hear them talk of the other UNSC members being bullied by the US or the US abusing its powers when the Security Council presidency rotates every month. Plus, Iran has threatened or bullied state or non-state actors allied with the US since 1979, ranging from incendiary rhetoric to terrorist attacks.
The US is completely within its powers to hold talks on Iran as the Regime’s destabilizing behaviour is causing or exacerbating many security crises across the world, from Syria to Yemen, and considering their heavy involvement in terrorism, human rights violations, and other violence, why wouldn’t the US want to lead talks on Iran.
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh wrote: “With respect to human rights and global terrorism, the Iranian regime is top in the world when it comes to the number of executions per capita, is the world’s leading executioner of juveniles — according to Amnesty International — and is the top state sponsor of terrorism in the world.
Shouldn’t the brutal activities of such a regime be at least one of the topics discussed in the UN body?”
For the longest time, the Iranian Regime has relied on significant political and financial capital to keep the rest of the world agreed to an appeasement policy, but this has to change.