Follow us on social

Shutterstock_1855337479-scaled

Experts urge swift return to Iran nuclear deal

In a letter to Biden, more than four dozen Iran observers say time to revive the JCPOA is limited.

Reporting | Middle East

A group of more than 50 international relations and Middle East experts have signed onto a letter urging President-elect Joe Biden to swiftly return to the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran.

President Donald Trump had broken with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, replacing it with an economic and military pressure campaign aimed at the Iranian government. The Trump administration insists that the goal is a better deal, although former administration officials say that the true objective was to bring down the Iranian government.

Biden has vowed to return to the nuclear deal, arguing that maximum pressure has failed and returning to the JCPOA is the first step to a wider diplomatic solution with Iran. But he may face serious domestic political obstacles in returning to diplomacy with Iran.

“The U.S. and Iran moved to the precipice of war twice, Iran expanded its nuclear leverage to counter America’s sanctions and the Iranian people were crushed between U.S. sanctions and their own government’s repression,” says the letter, which was led by the National Iranian American Council. “This self-inflicted wound set the U.S. on a destructive path with no easy offramp.”

It proposes “immediate action to revive diplomatic channels,” including revoking Trump’s 2018 executive order to leave the deal, calling a meeting of the other world powers involved in the deal, and providing Iran with coronavirus-related sanctions relief.

Several people affiliated with the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft signed the NIAC letter, including president Andrew Bacevich, executive vice president Trita Parsi, deputy director for research and policy Stephen Wertheim, and distinguished fellow Joseph Cirincione.

Other notable signatories include Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of the left-leaning pro-Israel group J Street; Mark Fitzpatrick, former acting U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state for nuclear nonproliferation; and Lara Friedman, president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace.

American hawks and Middle Eastern governments have argued that Biden should hold off on returning to the deal and continue with pressure for the time being.

“Rather than squander the leverage built up by Trump’s maximum-pressure campaign for no higher purpose than restoring a flawed arms-control agreement, Biden should exploit that leverage (and Iran’s desperate economic straits) to negotiate a better deal,” Foundation for Defense of Democracies senior counselor John Hannah wrote in a December 2020 article for Foreign Policy.

FDD chief executive Mark Dubowitz vowed in August 2020 that the Republican Party and Israel would “lobby against” the nuclear deal alongside his own organization. Israeli officials have been campaigning against a return to the JCPOA in recent weeks, and Iran’s top nuclear scientist was assassinated in an Israeli operation a little over a month ago.

Iranian officials themselves have said that they are not interested in negotiations without a return to the original 2015 deal. And experts are concerned that the pressure campaign could actually make an agreement harder as time goes on.

Paul Pillar, a former U.S. intelligence officer and signatory on the NIAC letter, pushed back against the claim that Biden should use Trump’s sanctions as leverage, writing in Responsible Statecraft last month that Iranian leadership may lose interest in a deal if they “see their country being punished no matter what it does.”

“Rather than see your negotiating position further erode, you should take immediate action to revive diplomatic channels,” the NIAC letter states. “Undoubtedly, reviving diplomacy will be difficult, but there is likely to be a time-bound window to save the JCPOA.”

The NIAC letter warns that continuing the pressure campaign could “risk allowing the window to negotiate with Iran to close entirely,” particularly if Iran throws off additional nuclear safeguards or if a hardline administration takes power in Tehran.

Iranian authorities announced on Monday that they would begin enriching uranium to 20 percent purity in accordance with a law passed by parliament. The move brings Iran within reach of producing weapons-grade uranium, but Foreign Minister Javad Zarif emphasized that it was “fully reversible” if all parties return to compliance with the JCPOA.

Under the JCPOA, the United States and five other world powers had agreed to lift economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for restrictions on the Iranian nuclear program. Trump re-imposed U.S. sanctions in 2018, severely damaging the Iranian economy and provoking Iran to ramp up its nuclear research.

The United States and Iran have also been engaged in an escalating series of covert operations and armed confrontations around the Middle East.

Tensions came to a head in July 2019, when Iranian air defense forces shot down a U.S. drone and Trump ordered airstrikes in retaliation, only to cancel the order. Another near-war broke out in January 2020, when U.S. forces assassinated Iran’s Major General Qassem Soleimani and Iranian forces responded with a ballistic missile attack on a U.S. airbase.

U.S. forces have been building up in the region again as the Trump administration warns of unspecified Iranian threats.

The NIAC letter is reminiscent of a September 2002 open letter in the New York Times warning against the imminent invasion of Iraq, signed by 33 international relations experts.

Several signatories of the 2002 letter — Columbia University professor Robert Jervis, Harvard University professor Stephen Walt, and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer — also signed the NIAC letter.


Photo: Alex Gakos via shutterstock.com
Reporting | Middle East
Antonio Guterres and Ursula von der Leyen
Top image credit: Alexandros Michailidis / Shutterstock.com

UN Charter turns 80: Why do Europeans mock it so?

Europe

Eighty years ago, on June 26, 1945, the United Nations Charter was signed in San Francisco. But you wouldn’t know it if you listened to European governments today.

After two devastating global military conflicts, the Charter explicitly aimed to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” And it did so by famously outlawing the use of force in Article 2(4). The only exceptions were to be actions taken in self-defense against an actual or imminent attack and missions authorized by the U.N. Security Council to restore collective security.

keep readingShow less
IRGC
Top image credit: Tehran Iran - November 4, 2022, a line of Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps troops crossing the street (saeediex / Shutterstock.com)

If Iranian regime collapses or is toppled, 'what's next?'

Middle East

In a startling turn of events in the Israel-Iran war, six hours after Iran attacked the Al Udeid Air Base— the largest U.S. combat airfield outside of the U.S., and home of the CENTCOM Forward Headquarters — President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire in the 12-day war, quickly taking effect over the subsequent 18 hours. Defying predictions that the Iranian response to the U.S. attack on three nuclear facilities could start an escalatory cycle, the ceasefire appears to be holding. For now.

While the bombing may have ceased, calls for regime change have not. President Trump has backtracked on his comments, but other influential voices have not. John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, said Tuesday that regime change must still happen, “…because this is about the regime itself… Until the regime itself is gone, there is no foundation for peace and security in the Middle East.” These sentiments are echoed by many others to include, as expected, Reza Pahlavi, exiled son of the deposed shah.

keep readingShow less
remittance tax central america
Top photo credit: People line up to use an automated teller machine (ATM) outside a bank in Havana, Cuba, May 9, 2024. REUTERS/Alexandre Meneghini

Taxing remittances helps make US neighbors poorer, less stable

Latin America

Among the elements of the budget bill working its way through the U.S. Congress is a proposal for a 3.5% tax on all retail money transfers made by all non-citizens residing in the United States (including those with legal status) to other countries.

Otherwise known as remittences, these are transfers typically made by immigrants working in the U.S. to help support family back home.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.