May 8th 2018

Decertifying The Iran Deal Is Dangerously Reckless

by Alon Ben-Meier

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is an expert on Middle East politics and affairs, specializing in peace negotiations between Israel and the Arab states. For the past twenty five years, Dr. Ben-Meir has been directly involved in various negotiations and has operated as a liaison between top Arab and Israeli officials. Dr. Ben-Meir serves as senior fellow at New York University's School of Global Affairs where he has been teaching courses on the Middle East and negotiations for 18 years. He is also a Senior Fellow and the Middle Eastern Studies Project Director at the World Policy Institute. Dr. Ben-Meir hosts "Global Leaders: Conversations with Alon Ben-Meir," a series of debates and conversations with top policy-makers around the world. He also regularly holds briefings at the US State Department for international visitors. Dr. Ben-Meir writes frequently and has appeared in numerous newspapers, magazines and websites including the Middle East Times, the Christian Science Monitor, Le Monde, American Chronicle, the Week, the Political Quarterly, Israel Policy Forum, Gulf Times, the Peninsula, The Jerusalem Post, and the Huffington Post. He also makes regular television and radio appearances, and has been featured on networks such as CNN, FOX, PBS, ABC, al Jazeera (English and Arabic), and NPR. He has authored six books related to Middle East policy and is currently working on a book about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Dr. Ben-Meir holds a masters degree in philosophy and a doctorate in international relations from Oxford University. He is fluent in English, Arabic, and Hebrew.

 

The decertification of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) by Trump is most unfortunate. It seems that Trump was not swayed by either France’s President Macron or Germany’s Chancellor Merkel to preserve the deal. Instead, he appears to have taken Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s advice to decertify the deal, even though Iran continues to fully adhere to all of its provisions. It is dangerous that neither Trump nor Netanyahu appears to fully grasp the dire regional and international implications of the unilateral decertification of the deal by the US.

In January, Trump gave Britain, France, and Germany an unrealistic deadline—May 12—to fix what he considers the deal’s defects, including the sunset clauses under which some of the terms expire, Iran’s ballistic missiles program (which was not part of the deal), and the monitoring of suspected Iranian nuclear sites. This was mission impossible without the support of Russia and China, not to speak of the short period of time.

Netanyahu’s public stunt, displaying thousands of documents to provide further proof that Iran has been conducting a secret nuclear weapons program, is not new. His claim that the Iran deal was based on information that was not known before does not justify the decertification of the deal, especially because Iran has been fully adhering to all the provisions of the deal.

The fact that Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapons program was the main reason behind President Obama’s effort to strike the deal. As EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said in Brussels, “the deal was put in place exactly because there was no trust between the parties…” Secretary of Defense Mattis echoed precisely the same sentiment, adding that “the verification [procedure]… is actually pretty robust as far as our intrusive ability to get in.”

The deal is certainly far from perfect, but withdrawing from it and starting from scratch may be impossible, especially in light of Iran’s vehement refusal to modify the deal, as was expressed by Foreign Minister Zarif: “we will neither outsource our security nor will we renegotiate or add onto a deal we have already implemented in good faith.”

The decertification of the deal will force Iran to choose one of two options. The first is to exploit the division between the US and the other signatories. In this case, Tehran could continue to adhere to the provisions of the deal, even though Iran will still suffer from unilateral (but not as severe) American sanctions. Under US law, Trump must wait at least 180 days before imposing their most severe consequences, which includes targeting banks of countries that fail to appreciably cut their oil purchases from Iran.

The second option for Iran is to withdraw from the deal altogether, restart its nuclear weapons program, and potentially even withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to prevent the monitoring of its nuclear program by the IAEA, which is the worst thing for Israel and other American allies in the region.

 

The severe disadvantages of decertification

First, most observers agree that Iran would resume its nuclear weapons program, which could quickly lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East. This would also increase regional tension and a growing sense of insecurity by other countries in the area, which is a recipe for sparking new and further intensifying current violent conflicts.

Second, given the intense enmity between Israel and Iran, the Israeli government might well decide to preemptively attack Iran’s nuclear facilities before Tehran reaches the breakout point. This would more than likely lead to an Iranian-Israeli war and pull other countries, including the US, into the fray, which could have dreadful consequences throughout the Middle East.

Third, such development would also deepen Iran’s resolve to further entrench itself in Syria, which is precisely what Israel wants to avoid. This too will prompt Israel, as it has done in the past, to attack Iranian military installations in Syria, which could also escalate into a regional conflagration.

Fourth, Iran will have every reason to accelerate its ballistic missile program, which poses a greater danger not only to Israel but to the US’ allies throughout the region. In addition, Iran will have further incentive to increase its financial support of extremist groups to destabilize the region, which it has and will continue to exploit.

Fifth, the unilateral withdrawal from the deal by the US will undoubtedly create a schism with the US’ allies as well as Russia and China and could foreclose any opening to modify the deal, which Trump failed to consider.

Finally, the US’ credibility will be seriously tarnished with both friends and nemeses, especially at this juncture when the US is preparing to work out a deal on denuclearization with North Korea’s Chairman Kim Jong Un, who would be given a legitimate reason to doubt any American commitment to adhere to future agreements.

 

The advantages, had the deal been maintained

Iran’s threat perception originates from its sense of encirclement, compelling it to pursue a defensive policy. Thus, I believe that Iran would have been willing to renegotiate various provisions of the deal to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons now or at any time in the future, only if it was assured that the new deal would first and foremost preserve the regime, and that the US commit to not seeking regime change now or at any time in the future.

Given that (other than Iran) there are six signatories to the deal and seven years to go before the first sunset clause expires, Trump along with the US’ European allies could have made every effort to enlist Russia and China to fully cooperate. Both powers would have supported a revised deal, as neither wanted the US to withdraw from the deal, nor Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.

This would have compelled Iran to take seriously the collective demand, fearing that otherwise joint crippling sanctions will be reinstated, which Tehran wants to prevent at all cost. Collectively, they could have exerted far greater influence on Iran to modify the deal and mitigate the US’ and regional allies’ concerns.

New talks would not have been limited to fixing the current deal, but to offering Iran a path for normalization of relations with the West. Iran exists and will continue to exist indefinitely. The US and the rest of the international community have every right to demand that Iran end all of its mischievous activities in the region. Similarly, Iran has also the right to govern itself as it sees fit, without fear and intimidation.

Revisiting the Iran deal would have provided a golden opportunity to change the regional dynamic, as long as Iran is ready and willing to play a constructive role to stabilize the region. This should have been the larger goal behind the search for a comprehensive and permanent new deal.

To that end, Tehran could have been required to commence talks about its ballistic missile program as a separate deal or in conjunction with the new talks to modify the current deal. Iran would have been under pressure to temper its bellicose rhetoric, support of violent extremist groups, cyber hacking campaigns, and end the building of a network of partners and proxies – the “axis of resistance” – which raises regional tensions and could lead to military confrontations.

Moreover, Iran would have been compelled to ease the regional tension in the countries where it is directly or indirectly involved, by taking the initiative to bring an end to the horrifying wars in Yemen and Syria, and keeping Hezbollah and other extremist groups at bay. Iran could have also been induced to stop threatening Israel’s existence to reduce the tension and prevent direct confrontation between the two countries, which in fact both sides want to avoid.

Notwithstanding the dreadful mistake of decertification, Trump can keep the deal on life support if he does not immediately reimpose the sanctions and gives the other five powers the time needed to work collectively with Iran and reach a new agreement—one that will chart a new course in the Middle East and potentially mitigate the multiple conflicts in which Iran plays a pivotal role.

Otherwise, we should all brace ourselves for intensified turmoil in the Middle East, thanks to the utter recklessness of Trump and Netanyahu, who failed miserably to realize how horrifying the consequences will be.

Related video:

Stormy's lawyer: Donald Trump atty. Cohen Got $500K From Moscow Oligarch | The 11th Hour | MSNBC

 

For What's New on Facts & Arts please follow: @olliraade on Twitter.

Olli Raade, Editor to Facts & Arts.

Browse articles by author

More Current Affairs

Mar 19th 2019
Last week, a far-right extremist killed at least 50 people – including a three-year-old child – worshiping at two mosques in the New Zealand city of Christchurch. Neither white supremacy, nor racially motivated terrorist attacks carried out in its name, are new phenomena. Yet the response to far-right terrorism remains thoroughly insufficient.
Mar 12th 2019
Allegations of Russian meddling in the affairs of Western countries have been a persistent feature of Western politics since the Cold War. Claims of Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election are only the most recent in a long series of suspected conspiracies across the past century or so. But Russian political discourse is also riddled with conspiracy theories. Everything bad that happens in Russia is traced back by some to one or another anti-Russian plot hatched in the West.
Mar 10th 2019
My Soviet school built a mesh fence around its yard. Every week, tardy kids who wanted to cut through the yard tore a hole in the fence. Every weekend, the administration fixed it. But the hole would reappear the morning after. This went on forever. I wish US President Donald Trump, the fence builder of the West, had gone to my school. The Soviet Union was a country of fences, barriers, and walls. Everything was prohibited, locked, and guarded. Warning signs were phrased in no uncertain terms: “Do Not Enter: Death!” “Strangers Are Forbidden.” “The Border Is Closed.” Barriers didn’t stop people from ignoring the warnings. But they complicated things.
Mar 8th 2019

 

WASHINGTON, DC – It seems that every time I write about Donald Trump’s presidency, I pronounce it to be in more trouble than ever. This time is no different: he and his presidency are indeed in more trouble than ever. And yet that may not prevent him from winning again in 2020.

Mar 7th 2019
The Brexit process has exacerbated many of the disunities within the UK’s territorial constitution................polling in England suggests that many people think breaking up the UK is perhaps a price worth paying to deliver Brexit.......... At the referendum, only two of the four component parts of the UK – England and Wales – voted to leave the EU. This was enough to swing an overall UK-wide majority in favour of leave, but it went against the will of the Scottish and Northern Irish electorate. In both these parts of the country, significant majorities voted to remain – 62% and 55.8%, respectively.
Mar 6th 2019
Watching Michael D. Cohen, US President Donald Trump’s former lawyer and self-described “fixer,” testify to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform was a remarkable spectacle to behold. Here was a man who was hired by Trump to behave like a gangster. And he did that to perfection. When The Daily Beast was about to report on allegations by Trump’s first wife, Ivana, that her husband had raped her, Cohen barked at the journalist working on the story: “So I’m warning you, tread very fucking lightly, because what I’m going to do to you is going to be fucking disgusting. You understand me?” That journalist was hardly alone. Cohen’s job was to threaten anyone who got in the way of his old boss. He lied to congressional committees, paid off prostitutes to stop them from talking about their affairs with Trump, and much else. Cohen, who will soon begin serving a three-year prison sentence, has become what Mafiosi (and Trump) call a “rat.”
Feb 27th 2019
Extracts: "Some political catastrophes come without warning. Others are long foretold, but governments still walk open-eyed into disaster. As the possibility of a no-deal Brexit looms, most analysts agree that there will be severe economic and political consequences for the UK and the EU. And yet a no-deal Brexit still remains an option on the table....." ".......Although the consequences of a no-deal Brexit will be much less terrible, there are similarities in certain patterns of thinking and political behaviour, from the few who embrace disaster to the systemic pressures which prevent compromise. Avoiding disaster in 1914 would have required framing the stakes of the July crisis in less zero-sum ways and refusing to rationalise a general European war as an acceptable policy option. It required leaders with enough courage to compromise, even to accept defeat, and for states to offer rivals the prospect of long-term security and future gains in exchange for accepting short-term setbacks."
Feb 25th 2019
US President Donald Trump’s administration has underestimated China’s resilience and strategic resolve. With the Chinese economy slowing, the US believes that China is hurting and desperate for an end to the trade war. But with ample policy space to address the current slowdown, China’s leadership has no need to abandon its longer-term strategy. While a cosmetic deal focused on bilateral trade appears to be in the offing, the sharp contrast between the two economies’ fundamental underpinnings points to a very different verdict regarding who has the upper hand.
Feb 21st 2019
Extracts: "......after three years of referendum-induced turmoil, there is finally a new move, a brave move, by the eight Labour MPs and three Conservative MPs (and counting)......There are no policy announcements, no real statement of principles, and there is no leader or political platform. And yet, this policy-free political movement is of incredible political importance........this is an act of direct action, based on the concept of prefiguration. That is, the actual policy statement at the heart of the formation of this movement is the formation of the movement itself. There is no need for grand policy statements right now."
Feb 21st 2019
There is a fascinating chapter toward the end of Alexis de Toqueville’s Democracy in America titled “What Kind of Despotism Do Democratic Nations Have to Fear?” in which the author attempted something truly extraordinary – to describe a social condition which humankind had never before encountered. We find him trying to put his finger on something which does not yet exist, but which – in his extraordinary political imagination – he was able to foresee with startling clarity.
Feb 20th 2019
From Trump’s very inauguration day speech, written for him by the fascist gadfly Steve Bannon and man still without a prom date Stephen Miller, it was apparent that the 45th president was a constitutional crisis waiting to happen. And now, without our realizing it for the most part, the constitutional crisis is here.
Feb 11th 2019
The first step to defending Europe from its enemies, both internal and external, is to recognize the magnitude of the threat they present. The second is to awaken the sleeping pro-European majority and mobilize it to defend the values on which the EU was founded. Otherwise, the dream of a united Europe could become the nightmare of the twenty-first century.
Feb 7th 2019
Watching a sophisticated democratic society knowingly walk into a predictable and avoidable national disaster is a rare and alarming experience. Most British politicians are well aware that leaving the European Union with no agreement on the post-Brexit relationship will cause enormous damage to their country. They are not sleepwalking into the abyss; their eyes are wide open. A minority of deluded ideologues doesn’t mind the prospect of Britain crashing out of the EU with no deal. A few chauvinist dreamers on the right, egged on by sections of the press, believe that the bulldog spirit of Dunkirk will overcome early setbacks and Great Britain will soon rule the waves again as a great quasi-imperial power, albeit without an empire. Neo-Trotskyists on the left, including Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the main opposition Labour Party, seem to think that catastrophe will spur the British people to demand true socialism at last.
Feb 4th 2019
We’re off to the races - the 2020 presidential races, that is. Since the beginning of the year, at regular intervals, new candidates have been coming forward to announce their intention to compete for the presidency. Some are interesting and/or exciting, while others frankly leave me scratching my head and asking “What are they doing? How on earth do they think they’re going to be elected?”      
Jan 29th 2019
Extract: "As it happens, on that Friday night when Trump buckled, I was at a restaurant where Pelosi and her husband, Paul, were dining with another couple. When the House Speaker left her table, customers and staff alike applauded her. A waitress standing beside me was nearly in tears. She choked out, “We need someone who will fight for us.” "
Jan 28th 2019
Recognizing that opinion in Parliament is moving strongly against leaving the EU on the terms proposed by May, with a growing number of members even in favor of a second referendum to test whether we should leave at all, some right-wingers have flirted with the idea of trying to close down the House of Commons for a time. They want the government to be able to get its own way without any democratic opposition. It is a sign of their desperation to get Britain out of the EU whatever the constitutional or economic cost. Is May prepared to get to grips with this? If she runs away from the task, despite growing Parliamentary unease about the path we are on, Britain is in big trouble.
Jan 25th 2019
At the end of last year, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia had completed final testing of an “invincible” new hypersonic nuclear-capable missile, the “Avangard,” calling it “the best New Year gift” for his country. With Putin seeming to up the ante on his increasingly frequent doomsday rhetoric, should the world be bracing itself for a nuclear conflict?................In recent months, popular support for Putin in Russia has declined sharply, with his approval rating falling from over 76% to 66% in the second half of last year. At the same time, a kind of neo-medieval thinking, focused on the restoration of autocratic monarchy and the supremacy of the Orthodox Church, has been gaining prominence in Russia. Putin’s fire-and-brimstone rhetoric may actually reflect the mindset of these fundamentalists, who view nukes as a “practical solution” to the world’s problems.
Jan 24th 2019
Over the past three decades I wrote more than two hundred articles about Israel, envisioning it to be a democratic state, independent and free, a champion of human rights, a force of unity for world Jewry, united in its citizenry, admired by its friends, envied by its detractors, and above all at peace with the Arab states and especially with the Palestinians. My vision about Israel was founded on my deep sense of the Jews’ turbulent and tragic history and their yearning for a home of their own in which to live in peace and security. As the years went by, I became increasingly disillusioned with Israel’s endemic political disunity, its inability to resolve the conflict with the Palestinians, the growing public complacency, the loss of the country’s unity of purpose, and the abandonment of its moral responsibility.
Jan 22nd 2019
China’s strategy for economic growth has been a work in progress since Deng Xiaoping launched the country’s “reform and opening up” in 1978. While the last 40 years of reform have been far from error-free, the government has displayed a willingness to adapt, as well as a capacity for navigating complex transitions, supported by a healthy internal policy debate. But how is China’s development model likely to evolve in the future, as external conditions pose new challenges to economic growth? A defining feature of China’s four decades of reform has been the state’s evolving role in the economy, about which there is still significant domestic disagreement. Some argue that the state – and, by extension, the Communist Party of China (CPC) – must retain a prominent role, in order to uphold the social stability needed to sustain economic development. Others claim that spurring the innovation needed to reach high-income status requires the state to be less like a market participant and more like a referee, regulator, and arbiter of economic and social priorities.
Jan 16th 2019
Consumer studies academics have been picking up on changing habits for a number of years. This includes an increased ambivalence towards consumption itself: people are buying less often and less overall. This is particularly true in the clothing industry, where research shows that millenials are especially unforthcoming – even after you factor in the shift to online retail. A lack of bricks and mortar did not, for instance, prevent online fashion retailer Asos from shocking the City with a profit warning shortly before Christmas. The American car industry is another harbinger of generational change: sales are stalling because younger people seem less interested in ownership. The average age of a new car buyer in the US was 50 in 2015. Or to give one more example, witness Apple’s recent trading problems. People are not only opting for cheaper smartphones, but they are keeping them for longer. If the world’s first company to pass the trillion dollar value mark is showing signs of struggling, we ought to take note.