aIntroduction
The Iran nuclear deal is a preliminary framework agreement signed on April 2, 2015, between Iran and the P5+1 which are China, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States, along with the European Union. The JCPOA also formed which was the deal which was formulated exclusively for a peaceful nuclear use in Iran. This plan includes provisions under 5 types of annexes which make up the main clauses for the nuclear deal. This nuclear deal in the past has been a triumph for diplomacy in the past but with the passage of time since 2015 has turned to various dimensions as Obama’s Presidency made a shift in American foreign policy towards Iran. Through meeting and negotiating with Iran as one of his campaign platforms he believed that if the nuclear deal can move forward, and termination of sanctions can lead to a fruitful economic relationship, the agenda of cooperation may expand and violence-by-proxy may greatly reduce in the Middle East. However, under Trump’s administration due to the aggressive polices being upheld on Iran, both the states stand against each other. Which has shifted the U.S-Iran relations from diplomatic to offensive and aggressive. The latter i.e. Iran suffers from the heavy trade and business sanctions. Not only this but the continuous development of Iran towards its nuclear ambitions, is a major factor for the security dilemma in Saudi Arabia, possibilities may be that it may request assistance from Israel due to strong nuclear deterrence development. These factors along with others have their effect on the prospects on this deal. These all factors also highlight the possibility of a war between the two states by the look of events. The future developments and the changes that are currently in progress and the factors which will be affected as this nuclear deal further grows.
1. Offensive Trump Policies towards Iran nuclear deal
The Iran nuclear deal since the initiation of trump’s administration, has induced change not only in the U.S foreign policy vis a vis international community, also had declared the deal to be a fatal one for the U.S. The aggressive and the offensive posture was defined clearly since the inauguration of the president. Even as a candidate declared the Iran nuclear deal as the stupidest deals of all time, promising his public to get rid of it when he takes holds of the power was a clear sign for what was about to come in the near future.
Several reasons are out in the clear that justifies why is President trump and his administration lead by him offensive towards the deal.
• One of the reasons lies in the very statement he gave during the election campaign as he said, and paraphrasing his statement, he said that it was a one-sided transaction and they got nothing in response for 150 billion . Being a business man himself, it seems that the analysis has been made on monetary basis. Not earning any profit from the historic deal induces an offensive response to the deal. This was seen right after the inauguration of the president. From the very beginning of the term president trump, in less than 2 weeks into power he issued an executive order banning the citizens from entering mainland U.S from seven of the majority Muslim states, these included Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and Libya respectively. Casting a shadow on the diplomatic relationship between U.S and these Muslim states. The Iranian government reacted angrily to the ban, expressing their aggressiveness and claims of friendlier relationship towards Iran to be baseless. This action hinted at the U.S policies prior to Iran.
• Another reason of the offensive take of the president on the deal is the launch of the ballistic missiles by Iran. Which were not violating any provision of the deal but it was a threat to the ally Israel, who’s national security was at risk. Tensions escalated two days later after the travel ban. i.e. 29 January, when Iran test launched a Ballistic missile. Further details of the launched proved that it was not violating the deal however, it was found to be contradictory from the U.N security resolution no. 2231 . This resolution bans the state of Iran to test ballistic missiles which are capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Moreover, the ballistic missile program has been objected to violate the main purpose of the deal which has been stated in the very first line of the deal which states that the deal ensures that Iran nuclear deal will be exclusively peaceful. Following the incident, U.S, not only put Iran on notice for the test, also called for an emergency U.N meeting. This event triggered their offensive policies towards the state of Iran and the Iran nuclear deal.
To further restrict Iran from any kind of activity that threatens the U.S national security, it banned the specific 12 local companies and entities that supported the ballistic missile program along with the 13 individuals that supported the program or contributed towards the program in any manner. Not only this but the force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran was also sanctioned by the U.S as well . This was a heavy blow towards the Iranian economy and the Iranian defense, as it was not only challenged but placed Iran under strict conditions to develop as well. Many offensive and harsh tweets and statements followed the sanctions, made by the Iranian defense minister and the foreign minister as well. The Iranian officials also releasing a statement justified the reason for launching of the ballistic missiles to not intended for targeting the U.S state and neither to target any country.
Further technicalities of the deal
As of the day October 3,2017 some of the officials of the trump administration analyzing the deal came up with the provisions of the deal, Iran was not in compliance with. These included some minor technicalities of the deal which could lead Iran towards the path of nuclear ambitions.
1. The officials claimed that Iran has not been complying with the limits of the heavy water stocks. Where according to the JCPOA, Iran is allowed access of about 130 metric ton limit which it as exceeded in February 2016 two times. The first time it was 0.7 % or by 900 kg and the second time by 0.08% which makes it approximately 100 kg respectively . However, according to IAEA , the amount does not tend to the nuclear ambitions of the state and does not exceed the limit by a margin.
2. Another offense the administration had regarding the deal was on the number of centrifuges rotating on site. According to the deal the centrifuges like IR-1, IR-6 and IR-8 respectively. While it was allowed the usage of IR-4 and IR-5 and was allowed the testing of 6 and 8. Iran was further questioned and held responsible for spinning too many centrifuges. Which they were not allowed the access of.
3. Another objection made by the administration was on the access to the nuclear facilities by Iran. Iran was held under the offensive action of not allowing access to the nuclear sites to IAEA. It was raised particularly in the Trump era because prior to the signing of JCPOA, Iran was found to be involved in building secret nuclear facilities which were found to be undeclared by the Iranian officials. Later on, it was also inferred by the concerned states that they may be involved in undeclared centrifuge plants and some Research and Development which can prove to be relevant to the manufacture of nuclear weapons.
4. Certain problems have arisen regarding the section T of the JCPOA where Iran commits not to involve or commit to certain specified activities that contributes towards the nuclear development of Iran . This section T of the deal includes the access to all the sites by the appointed IAEA officials in order to confirm that Iran is not involved in any parallel weaponization and some nexus of any kind that links to the nuclear ambitions of the state.
Within the past year, IAEA has verified that its inspection has exceeded to section T of the agreement. Furthermore, the IAEA official also found evidence of Iran illicitly involved in an activity which was prohibited under the Section T of the agreement, due to which they granted access to the sites which were considered to be involved in that activity. The offensive behavior of the Trump administration had been based on certain accusations which are elevated to a higher level of violating the deal. These illicit activities didn’t go against the provisions and the main objective of the deal.
This offensive aggressive relationship was nurtured further by the sanctioning actions of both the states. The primary objections had their merit, but the uprisal of the situation was developed by both the states, which further later proved to be yet another reason for the offense. Things then started to worsen when after the ban the president himself thanked the president trump for revealing the true face of United States. On March 17, trump’s administration sanctioned two Bahrainis which were found to have ties with Iran and were being supported by Iran to promote terrorism. Trump’s offense did not stop right there but it was followed by sanctioning of 11 entities and individuals which were noted by the administration to be providing sensitive items to the ballistic missile program. Iran’s response for the sanction was sanctioning the 15 American companies which are in business with Israel and are involved in the settlements in the west bank.
• In these state of affairs there was another matter which proved to another reason for the current U.S administration not being in favor of the deal. Iran was complying with terms of deal, when the president later in the mid of year 2017, objected of the IAEA officers not being provided the opportunity of monitoring and visiting the military sites. The technical terms of the deal do not require the visiting of the sites, unless it is to be done. The officers need to provide with a strong reason for doing so. Where the Iranians deny the reasoning for the visit rightfully, as it is not part of the deal .
• The Iranian contribution towards the Syrian crisis and its involvement in the supporting militias in other countries is a challenging concept for the U.S presence in the middle eastern region. This most of all presents itself as the challenging concept which automatically gains an offensive attention.
These are the main reasons that divert not only the bilateral relation but the whole nuclear itself in path for a confronting rivals and President Trump towards probably putting an end to the legacy of President Obama.
2. Offensive trump and the nuclear deal affecting the middle east
The middle eastern region is the most affected region of the globe which has experience a change in their policies as well. These including the Arab gulf states, highlighting the UAE and the Saudi Arab are at the top of the list. The main problem that has raised since the extremist play of policies between U.S and Iran is the negligence of the more important issues than the Iranian ballistic program.
Where the Saudi Arab is facing the problem of the as an existential security threat. It is a vital player when it comes to fighting terrorism and extremism. It acts as the Islamic factor in the fight against terrorism, which provides more meaning to the religion of Islam then what the extremism and terrorism had developed. The Iran nuclear deal is mainstream threat to the Saudi Arabia, with the situation worsening with every passing day, it gains more importance for the regional players as compared to other states. The Islamic Military Counter Terrorism Coalition is an important coalition of 41 countries which work together to fight against terrorism along the Arabian Peninsula, including the middle eastern region as well. If the deal comes to terminate, the whole contribution of Saudi Arab in the fight would be diverted towards developing counter deterrence of nuclear weapons for their neighbor Iran.
A more specific major affect has been the change in policy direction from focusing on the Islamic State in Iraq is no longer the matter to worry about, the major policy shift is towards the regional presence of Iran. The U.S has been actively entertaining this issue rather than global terrorism . Due to this change, more catastrophic events are expected in the region affecting millions of lives. Terrorism is a global phenomenon and its vast spread is an endangering threat for state survival. Trump’s policies have diverted states towards on a minor issue rather than attending the global threat. The offensive takes on the deal seems to be overpowering the a more important issue to attend to. There is now a more overt support for the Iranians protestors and a more increased animosity for JCPOA. The U.S administration not inculcating the major powers of the middle east in the nuclear deal negotiations and then the procedures following suite of the deal, increased the animosity and complications between U.S and its middle eastern allies. Things then are now leading to a diplomatically isolation. It is a gradual process but has a lasting effect on the strategic culture of middle east.
The Syrian crisis is one of most effected battle ground from the offensive and aggressive trump policies on the Iran nuclear deal. Where the current strong hold of the Assad regime in some areas is due to the strong support from the Iranian regime and the Russian administration. Things at present with regard to the Iran deal are posing in the direction of direct U.S withdrawal, especially after the conditions put forwards by the President Trump not being fulfilled, things are strongly headed for the U.S to exit from the deal. If that happens for that matter, there are more chances of Iran getting out of the deal, giving itself the perk of regaining its nuclear weapons back on track and empower itself with an effective existential deterrence. Which would prove very destructive in the Syrian crisis. Where there is a strong case for Iran to bring its weapons into play as well. Bringing a more global threat towards the nuclear proliferation on Syrian battle ground. And not just Iran but it would bring in other states into nuclear proliferation i.e. Israel (which has not announced its nuclear program but does keep it, Russia and U.S as well, where all these states will attain a chance for a proxy war on Syrian battle grounds.
Another major trickledown effect overall middle east would be the acquisition of civil-military energy sources and attaining nuclear energy for self-sustenance in the international society. From the states of turkey to Saudi Arabia and many other small developing states are now for civil energy sources as well.
More interstate conventional wars are on the rise, where there is not only the conventional conflict between Saudi Arab and Iran but now there are the conflicts arising for not only strategic purposes but for energy consumption, induced by the Iranian regional rise. A regional destabilization and general animosity interstate gestures and a light running security dilemma is now introduced to the middle eastern region due to offensive Trump relationship with the Iran deal.
The largest state to be sponsoring terrorism, as noted by the U.S is now involved in the terrorism as translated by U.S. This was an intention of Iran to gain more power and regional presence in the middle east compared to U.S, to counter it right in the Iranian neighborhood. This is also a after effect of the offensive take of the super power on the deal. Where in the recent month of December 14, the U.S ambassador to U.N, Ms. Nikki Haley, addressed the public about the Houthis attack inside Saudi Arabia. More over the attack on the King Khaled International Airport in Riyadh was also an attempt of attack on the state by these Houthi rebels which were again described by the U.S dept. to be sponsored by none other than Iran. This event marked itself as the triggering point for the tensions to escalate between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
The Iran nuclear deal not only did affect the U.S-Iran relationship but inculcated a long-lasting series of events and developments that in the near future is going to shape and influence the middle eastern strategic culture as well as the Gulf-Arab states as well.
3. JCPOA and the international community
Under Trump’s administration, the merits of the JCPOA are now more than ever. It beholds and maintains a vital deal to not only keep Iran in place and limits but also ties the international community on one page. This deal not only does ensure the control on the nuclear proliferation threatened by Iran but also brings the developed nations to cooperate and work together for a bigger motive than national security.
However, with the continuation of the limiting sanctions and the pressure insisted on Iran by U.S sanctions and policies will be leading the deal towards either the U.S exiting the deal, leading to Iran getting out from the deal. Which could be more dangerous for the future of nuclear deterrence.
Not only have the European states contributed towards protecting the deal and sustaining the status quo of the JCPOA, but certain other states have also contributed towards either protecting the deal or either breaking it. Post deadline affairs in the U.S have not been great, where after the deadline for the renewal of the Iran deal under President Trump’s conditions long gone, the super power then aimed at deciding whether to stay in the deal or give a heads up for their exit. At that time being, the role of the International community has been the highlighting factor in the history of the JCPOA.
Where after the demand of President trump to fix the terrible flaws in the deal by the signatories in a three months period i.e. from January 2018 to March 2018 respectively or else threatening the powers of his withdrawal was a mighty challenge to conquer. The European powers were the first stand up to the challenge. French President Emanuel Macron, visited the white house in person to negotiate and convince President Trump not to withdraw but further add to the sanctions included in the deal. But not to exit the deal was the main agenda, results were not hopeful but then Germany followed suite and indulged in talks in the white house visit where their German Chancellor Angela Merkel visited the white house and tried to talk the administration out of the exiting the deal. The negotiations, one after the other seem to be failing but yet the Britishers tried their last effort in diverting Trump away from U.S exit.
After wards at the end of April, Israel which is not a party to the deal, live broadcasted an address by their head of the administration Benjamin Netanyahu, which presented a power point presentation on the evidence that claims to have collected by the means espionage. The report consisted of 55000 printed pages and a total of 186 discs that he claimed to have collected from Iran, which depicts the visual proof of Iran developing its nuclear arsenals . This caused a stirring in the series of events, Israel which is a bigger ally of U.S in the middle east urged the President Trump to make the decision which is the right thing to do. The general perception of the whole presentation from the international community was not convincing enough. The Israel’s biggest objective getting U.S out of the deal had bigger drastic effects on the international politics. Where it was not only challenging the officials responsible for inspection but also challenges the efforts of Russians, Chinese and the Europeans to keep the deal alive. The credibility of the information also comes into question. But this address makes a point to influence the decision of the U.S administration.
Further negotiations between the P5+1 gives an understanding of up to what extent has these powers been coordinating towards the accomplishment of the reservations that Trump beheld against the deal. These are stated as follows:
• The Trump administration demanded about the Ballistic missile program of Iran which makes it closer to the nuclear arsenals at Iran’s disposal and that the JCPOA has not been able to stop these developments. As a result, the French, German and U.K has agreed to proceed with the deal with some additional strict sanctions by them which will even stricken the control over Iran’s regional behavior, its militant proxies and to pressurize the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Hezbollah as well. That would get Iran under complete control.
• The next demand asked for more broader and more aggressive inspections of the military sites by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and certain other U.N bodies as well. In a reply by the authorities responsible, they assured of Iran being cooperative for inspection as much as they needed them to be and are in compliance with the provisions of the treaty.
• Last but not the least, third demand was for the Europeans to automatically boost up their sanctions on the state of Iran if by any means they intend to bolster their Uranium enrichment program. However, it was not so, but the powers reassured the administration that they would still restrict Iran from developing a bomb under the deal and would impose sanctions if Iran does intend to strengthen their uranium enrichment program. These additional sanctions if being imposed would be done by direct negotiations with Iran on a follow up agreement with the signatories of the deal.
Another major agenda on the table was of the deal working and functioning in its true means and up until now the state of Iran has not violated any terms of the treaty. The U.N bodies responsible for the inspection of the sites along with the IAEA officials are of the view that the deal fully working and functioning. Not only are the officials of the view but the parties to the treaties are also with Iran on the point of its compliance with the deal and is not violating any terms and conditions of the deal.
The national security is the top priority of the signatories as well as the European powers, as their national security interests are tied along the deal. This is the reason, the powers are nagging along the U.S administration to cooperate along with the deal with certain important changes in the deal. The negative consequences for the national security interests of the European powers as well as Russia and China, may prove to be destructive for the U.S if it does not comply with the deal and leads to not only U.S itself exiting but leaving Iran with no choice but to leave the deal and develop its nuclear program.
4 The departure of U.S from the deal
After the two-month debate on whether U.S would comply with the terms and agreements on the Iran deal, U.S president gave an ultimatum of the date 12 may to publicly announce his decision on whether to stay in the deal or not. Going in early the president announced in a tweet on the 6th of May that he will be announcing his decision about the deal on 8th of May. So, on the day accurately on 18:00 GMT, the president gave a well-structured speech starting with the confrontations and the attacks encountered by the state due to Iran . He mentioned the non-complying attitude of Iran in the form of terrorist attacks and supporting terrorist organization. Further on addressing the failure of the deal where it being poorly structured and not being able to stop Iran from enriching uranium and developing a nuclear weapon . Moreover, he addressed the deal to be a mere fiction to be getting the murderous regime down to only achieving a simple peaceful energy program. The president announced the U.S withdrawing from the deal, along with the imposition of the highest level of the economic sanctions possible on Iran.
The future of JCPOA
Now after the withdrawal of U.S from the deal, the other states i.e. the signatories of the deal, presented their narratives.
The French chancellor Macron, addressed the deal to be not dead after the withdrawal of U.S. Moreover, the French pledges to salvage the land mark agreement which the Trump administration is leaving. He further intends to save the agreement as U.S has presented protectionist, unilateral and isolationist logic for getting out. France also intends to protect its businesses from the measures of U.S as well. It intends to salvage the deal by starting some negotiations on the deal with Iran on the way forward.
The Germans also expressed its regret on the decision and concern on the future of the deal as Iran had been fully complying with the obligations of the treaty. The Germans also on the same page with France aims to talk about a broader deal that goes beyond the Iran nuclear deal.
The state of U.K also expressed its solidarity with the rest of the parties to the treaty, it also along with other states did not intend U.S to leave the deal. But as it happens, U.K Foreign secretary has declared in the latest update of 9th may, that U.K also does not intend to leave the deal and will ensure the smooth running of the deal so that Iran could be kept in place and its people should be benefitting from the uplifted sanctions under the terms of the deal.
The most important subject to the deal, the state of Iran has expressed aggressive sentiments towards the reasons the President Trump gave for the withdrawal. The main important reaction Iran gave is of aggression and claiming the statements to be shallow and inculcated of several lies. The most important decision by Iran made on this reaction was of asking for a guarantee by the signatories of the JCPOA. And if they fail to do so, Iran will also exit the deal and the JCPOA cannot continue.
Another major development that does affect the future of the deal is the restarting process of the uranium enrichment by Iran, without limitations. Which can trigger a nuclear arms race in the middle east between the major developed and developing states.
There is now a heavy chance of a conventional conflict between the state of Israel and Iran on the Syrian grounds. As the states of Saudi Arabia and Israel praised the decision of getting out of the deal. The differences between the allies of U.S, U.S itself , the middle eastern states and the signatories of the deal becomes complicated.
Conclusion
The Iran nuclear deal, when U.S was a part of the deal and after its withdrawal didn’t hold any major importance in U.S. The deal now under the remaining signatories is close to non-existential status, where it is threatened to break off. Moreover, Iran is now also under the decisive mode whether to break off the deal or to approach their nuclear ambitions and continue their uranium enrichment under the deal which can lead to more controversial events. Peace needs to be made with Iran and the spirit of the deal needs to be re-instigated with the concerned states. There might be slight chance of U.S diplomatic isolation due to its noncooperation with the fellow parties to the deal.