Written by Edward Carney
US President Donald Trump is expected to announce on
Friday not only whether he plans to recertify Iran’s compliance with the 2015
Iran nuclear deal but also the details of his overall policy toward the Islamic
Republic going forward. That policy has been under review roughly since the
previous occasion on which the president was required by US legislation to
certify the national security importance of sanctions relief under the nuclear
deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
Although the broader policy position could have
transformative effect, the world’s attention remains primarily focused on the
JCPOA certification, which Trump is expected to withhold despite having
begrudgingly provided it in April and then again in July. The president is
scheduled to speak on this and the surrounding issues at 12:45, Washington
time.
Among the media outlets to analyze the situation in the
day ahead of that deadline was the BBC, which reports that some of Trump’s own
top advisors continue to support the deal. It is these figures who supposedly
prevailed upon the president to convince him to certify it on the previous
occasions, citing such complications as the potential damage to America’s
relationship with its European allies.
Germany, France, and the United Kingdom, along with the
European Union in general, are all party to the JCPOA, and all continue to
vigorously support it. Al Jazeera reported on Thursday that UK Prime Minister
Theresa May had issued a statement declaring that she “reaffirmed the UK's
strong commitment to the deal alongside our European partners, saying it was
vitally important for regional security.”
Those partners including French President Emmanuel
Macron, who said that withdrawal from the JCPOA would be a “grave error.” However,
some figures’ support of the agreement have arguably softened in recent weeks,
as suggested for instance by Macron’s acknowledgment last month that the deal
was “not enough” in light of Iran’s regional behavior. This behavior is
ostensibly an issue apart from the JCPOA, but Trump has declined to separate
them, citing Iranian ballistic missile tests and other provocative activities
as violations of the “spirit” of the deal.
Opponents of the nuclear agreement have cited its
preamble to support this position, noting that it affirms that the signatories
anticipate that its implementation will contribute positively to the security
of the region. This language is reflected in the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review
Act, the congressional legislation that imposes the requirement for the
president to certify Iran’s compliance and the broader national security
implications of sanctions relief.
The non-separation of the nuclear issue from broader
issues of Iran policy was presumably a major factor in opposition to the deal,
especially among congressional Republicans, during its negotiation. However,
Reuters reports that with the deal now in effect, some of those same opponents
are now at odds with Trump on the topic of its potential dissolution. In fact,
the report begins with the claim that the staunch former opponents of the JCPOA
may now become its unlikely saviors.
The president could order the immediate reimplementation
of nuclear-related sanctions upon decertifying the deal, but it is not
generally expected that he will do this. An alternative is that Trump could
declare Iran to be non-compliant but take no further action, leaving the US as
a signatory to the deal pending a congressional vote within 60 days on the
prospect of ending sanctions relief.
Any congressional measure to unilaterally re-implement
sanctions would apparently face serious challenges in light of declared
opposition to the president’s position by some leading Republicans. Ed Royce,
the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said for instance, “As
flawed as the deal is, I believe we must enforce the hell out of it.” And
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker has even gone so far as
to suggest changing the legislation that he helped to author, in order to
eliminate the every-90-day certification requirement and effectively take the
issue of the nuclear deal’s survival further out of Trump’s hands.
Even Arkansas Republican Senator Tom Cotton, widely
regarded as the most hardline voice on Iran policy, has recommended that
Congress take advantage of the full 60 days before voting on sanctions renewal,
during which time the White House would be able to lobby its European allies
for a broader consensus on the future of Western policy toward Iran.
That project may already be underway, especially in view
of the efforts by such figures as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and UN
Ambassador Nikki Haley to use international communications in order to set the
stage for Trump’s potential decertification. Bloomberg reported on Thursday
that Tillerson had spent part of that day informing European counterparts of
the president’s decision. Despite scheduling the relevant announcement for
Friday afternoon, Trump began suggesting weeks earlier that he had already come
to a decision. And even before that, he had already told the media that he
expected Iran to be found non-compliant this time around.
This has given European leaders time to plan their
response should Trump decertify. But the Bloomberg report concludes that most
of these plans involve the maintenance of the status quo, at least until such
time as Congress votes upon sanctions. With this in mind, various European
diplomats were reportedly already lobbying Congress over the future of the deal
on Thursday.
Opinions vary regarding the impact on Europe in the event
that Congress does go ahead with the re-implementation of sanctions. Some
European officials have insisted that there are legal provisions for their
governments to mitigate the effects of US sanctions that are directed against
other foreign entities. But Bloomberg notes that other such officials are
anxiously awaiting clarification regarding the implications of those sanctions
for Europe-based businesses. Meanwhile, Al Jazeera states that it would be
quite difficult for such businesses to continue doing business with Iran and
yet avoid far-reaching consequences if sanctions reemerge.
If, however, European entities are both able and willing
to continue their dealings with the Islamic Republic in the wake of American
decertification of and even withdrawal from the JCPOA, then Trump’s moves
against the deal may have little effect. This was the focus of a report by the
Huffington Post, which pointed out that European business with Iran has grown
steadily while American business has actually contracted compared to the period
immediately following the deal’s conclusion. The report goes on to say that
this greatly diminishes the amount of economic leverage that the US is able to
exert unilaterally, thereby making global consensus all the more crucial to the
plans by Trump and Congress to take a harder line on Iran.
Despite the disagreements between the White House and the
legislature regarding the nuclear deal itself, there is apparently much less
disagreement on the non-nuclear issues that Trump will address on Friday. The
same Reuters report that highlighted support for JCPOA enforcement among the
deal’s former opponents also pointed out that those opponents would like to
take advantage of other means for clamping down on Iran while focusing on a
broader strategy.
Trump may unveil just such a strategy on Friday. As Al
Jazeera points out, while Trump used Wednesday to reiterate his claim that the
JCPOA is the “worst deal” the US has been a party to, he has also “ramped up
criticism” of the Islamic Republic as a whole in the days leading up to his
policy announcement.
Purveyors of similar criticism may even support
decertification of Iranian compliance with the nuclear deal specifically
because it sends an assertive message, even if it does not lead to the end of
that deal. On Thursday, Voice of America News quoted Michael Pregent of the
Hudson Institute as saying that the Iranians are concerned about the prospect
of decertification because “It calls them out for their behavior. It punishes
them for their behavior.”
Perhaps as an expression of that concern, hardline
figures in the Iranian regime have responded to the current situation with
bombastic threats. But the VOA News report indicates that various American
intelligence and military figures expect that Iran will not directly act upon
those threats and that even if it does, it would not be departing very much
from its normal belligerence.
But according to The Guardian, the most serious Iranian
threats come not in response to the potential decertification of nuclear
compliance, but instead in response to another prospective measure that Trump
may take on Friday: the designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as
a Foreign Terrorist Organization.
The Guardian explains that such designation would be
unprecedented insofar as the IRGC is a military organization recognized by its
country’s constitution. But the same report points to how this measure could
also begin to confront Iran’s malign activities. It quotes a founding member of
the IRGC who is now an exiled dissident as saying that the organization has
become “a monster” as a result of unmitigated growth, making it a major driving
force behind Iran’s hardline policies both at home and abroad.
This article was first published by irannewsupdate.com
Comments
Post a Comment