Alireza Forghani, in an interview with the website of the Strategic Council on Foreign Relations, referring to the plan of 16 countries to form an anti-sanctions and coercion coalition with an aim of defending the UN Charter and countering unilateral sanctions policies, said: This plan which was proposed two years ago, is currently in the process of issuing a statement. In fact, in defending the UN Charter, those countries have protested against the US monopoly, which is contrary to the UN Charter.

Referring to the problems facing the implementation of this plan, he added: The United Nations is completely under the influence and authority of the United States, and it seems that since this plan seeks to advance the protests within the framework of this organization, it faces many problems. In fact, those countries are acting in defense of the UN Charter.

Ambiguities of 16-nation coalition plan

Recalling that the coalition was proposed by Venezuela and supported by Iran and some other countries, the secretary of the Policy Council of the Anti-Sanctions Club said: Although there are ambiguities regarding its details, including the level of this coalition and related negotiations, it should also be borne in mind that this is not an effective plan in itself, and seems to be just a statement of protest.

Forghani continued by saying that raising such issues, once in a year, is from a position of weakness, adding: It has been declared that the actions of this coalition and the condemnation of US sanctions are in favor of the UN Charter, while unfortunately many sanctions are supported by the UN and are under the US influence and leadership. The main drawbacks are included there; in fact, it seems that the illegitimate power of the West is accepted and in defense of it, for example, a part of that power is attacked. This action is basically a violation of purpose and does not work.

Coalition should not be limited to issuing a statement

He expressed the hope that the coalition would not remain in the form of issuing a statement, adding: If this coalition is a serious start to a new movement and help other measures that have been taken to counter sanctions, it is useful; this means that if those 16 countries make a statement this year, they will hold a summit at the level of heads of state or foreign ministers next year and then reach a structure and organization. Not to remain as a statement and then it ends.

Forghani, meanwhile, said that the measures taken within the framework of the 16-nation plan could accelerate the discussion of the anti-sanctions club, which started a few years ago and is set to reach a new structure, adding: It was supposed to take three or four years for convincing and reaching consensus in 25 countries, but the design of such coalitions and the sense of necessity for its existence could accelerate convincing within a year, so it is a positive move.

Referring to the consequences of unilateral US sanctions against countries, he added: In recent years, US foreign policy, as well as US-centered European policy, in both the Jackson and Wilson schools, has been faced with doubt. The Wilson atmosphere is an anti-war atmosphere and the Jackson atmosphere is a warlike atmosphere. In matters of American national security, sanctions are the common denominator of the two schools, that is to say, they use sanctions together to invade Iraq and together they use sanctions for color revolutions. In the case of Iran, too, within the framework of the Wilson school, they pursue a policy of weakening until people get tired; so sanctions are a common tool for them.

Game of double boycott of sanction imposers

The expert on international affairs continued: By creating clubs and coalitions to counter sanctions and coordinate against it, the United States will reach a point where the more it imposes sanctions on any country, this colony will further grow, and if it does not impose sanctions, it will be interpreted as retreat from its policies and values.

Forghani said: In such circumstances, if the United States continues to impose sanctions, the number of member countries of this club or coalition will increase, and the world’s bipolarity will become a tripolarity and find new dimensions. If it does not impose sanctions, it will be weakened in other ways. Certainly the situation in the world today is no longer such that the United States can consider itself the chief of the world and easily boycott any country it does not like; so in both cases the club wins and it will be a double boycott game for the sanctions imposers.

He also referred to the efforts to build a consensus within the framework of the plan of the Club of Anti-Sanctions countries and said: Accordingly, 25 sanctioned countries and possibly other countries that are not sanctioned but can benefit from the interests of this coalition, will face a new mechanism.

Referring to the Supreme Leader’s remarks on the need to protect the country from sanctions and emphasizing that we should not just think about circumventing sanctions, the expert on international affairs continued: This view means that a new playground should be defined, when we are working on the UN playing field, we are still within the same framework. Maybe some issues will change and be updated at an unknown time and with new rules, and maybe there will be no change either! But the Sanctions Club is a new arena with new structure and rules in which the United States must regulate itself with its regulations.

The Secretary of the Policy Council of the Anti-Sanctions Club, saying that in legal department of the club is trying to design a framework for cooperation between those countries with the least friction, added: This framework is such that it is not within the framework and rules of the United Nations and will not go under question very quickly.