Criticism from Several Principlist Representatives on Referring the JCPOA Bill to the National Security Commission

After the Iranian Parliament's presiding board referred the urgent JCPOA bill for further review to the National Security Commission, several representatives criticized this action, stating that the bill should be examined in the JCPOA special commission. On Sunday, the Islamic Consultative Assembly was the scene of a vote regarding an urgent bill that would allow the government to implement the nuclear agreement while adhering to certain frameworks; however, the bill did not receive enough votes and was referred for further review to the National Security Commission. Nonetheless, the referral of this bill to the National Security Commission, along with statements from several representatives opposing the final report of the JCPOA commission, has sparked disagreements among representatives of the principlist faction. Several representatives, all opponents or critics of the nuclear agreement, criticized this action by the presiding board and expressed that this bill should have been reviewed in the special JCPOA commission. Among them, Mohammad Dehghan, a member of the Parliament's presiding board, stated that 'this bill should be referred to the most expert commission in Parliament regarding the JCPOA to avoid the appearance of duality in the Parliament.' Mr. Dehghan expressed that since the JCPOA commission has held over 150 hours of official sessions regarding the JCPOA text and spent more than 40 days, even during the summer recess, on this document, the competent commission for addressing the urgent bill is the 'special JCPOA commission.' This representative, a member of the principlist faction, told Mehr News Agency that 'referring the JCPOA-related bill to a commission other than the JCPOA commission is not in line with the past practices and norms of the Parliament.' The two major factions of principlist representatives in Parliament, namely the 'Principlist Faction' and the 'Faction of Followers of the Guardianship,' had disagreements on how to present the JCPOA bill, and while it was expected that last week's meeting of representatives from these two factions would lead to an agreement on the JCPOA bill, what was described by Kazem Jalali as 'the unfaithfulness of the Principlist Faction to dialogue' resulted in the urgent JCPOA bill not receiving votes contrary to expectations. Kazem Jalali, the head of the Parliament Research Center, told IRNA on Sunday that representatives from the Principlist Faction, namely Alireza Zakani, Ali Asghar Zarei, and Mehrdad Bazrpash, conditioned their faction's vote on the urgent JCPOA bill to the reading of the JCPOA commission report in the Parliament, but 'despite the agreement, they did not vote for the urgent bill.' However, Mehrdad Bazrpash, a member of the principlist JCPOA commission, also criticized the presiding board's action in referring the JCPOA bill to the National Security Commission as 'unprofessional' and called for the presiding board to reconsider this 'wrong decision.' Mr. Bazrpash's argument is that the special commission has been reviewing the JCPOA for a long time, and therefore 'the competence to address the urgent bill' also lies with this commission. This representative, a member of the Stability Front, criticized the presiding board of the Parliament, stating that 'unfortunately, some have a habit of considering any report or action that benefits their political inclination as fair and correct, and whenever a report is against their political inclination, they deem it political and unprofessional.' In response to criticisms of the 'one-sided report' of the special JCPOA commission, Hossein Naqavi Hosseini, the spokesman for this commission, claimed that 'every section of the JCPOA commission report was voted on and approved in the commission's session,' but some representatives 'question the entire work if their opinions are not met.' He told Mehr News Agency that the opinions of individuals like Aladdin Boroujerdi, Mansour Haqiqatpour, Abbasali Mansouri, and Vahid Ahmadi were 'received' in various committees of the special commission, and after aggregating the reports from different committees, the final report was compiled. He also attacked reformists, stating that 'I am truly surprised by some friends, especially reformists, who claim to advocate democracy and adhere to democratic principles but act in a dictatorial manner; in such a way that if their opinions are not met, they question the entire work.' Mohammad Kowsari, another representative from the principlist faction in the special JCPOA commission, also criticized the statement of five members of the JCPOA commission opposing the 'prestigious and sound' report of this commission, calling it 'illogical and unethical.' Five members of the special JCPOA commission issued a statement on Sunday, labeling the final report of the JCPOA commission as a 'one-sided' report that 'does not align with national interests and ignores the positive effects of this agreement.' These representatives reminded that the final report read in the Parliament was based on a discourse that 'has been opposed to the JCPOA from the beginning.' Among the protesting representatives against the JCPOA report are Masoud Pezeshkian and Gholamreza Tajgardoon, who are considered part of the reformist minority in Parliament, but the other three representatives, namely Aladdin Boroujerdi, Mansour Haqiqatpour, and Abbasali Mansouri Arani, are members of the principlist 'Faction of Followers of the Guardianship' who supported the urgent JCPOA bill. Each of these representatives is a member of the National Security and Foreign Policy Commission of Parliament, which is now responsible for reviewing the JCPOA bill. This key commission is chaired by Aladdin Boroujerdi, with Mansour Haqiqatpour as its vice-chair.