Thursday, November 15th | 7 Kislev 5779

Subscribe
May 9, 2018 7:24 am

Decertifying the Iran Deal Is a Dangerous Mistake

avatar by Alon Ben-Meir

Email a copy of "Decertifying the Iran Deal Is a Dangerous Mistake" to a friend

US President Donald Trump signs a proclamation declaring his intention to withdraw from the JCPOA Iran nuclear agreement in the Diplomatic Room at the White House in Washington, U.S., May 8, 2018. Photo: Reuters/Jonathan Ernst.

The decertification of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), popularly known as the Iran nuclear deal, by President Trump is most unfortunate. It seems that Trump was not swayed by either French President Emmanuel Macron or Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel to preserve the deal. Instead, he appears to have taken Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s advice to decertify it, even though Iran continues to adhere to 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; the lack of action on 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 display of thousands of documents to provide further proof that Iran had been conducting a secret nuclear weapons program revealed no new information. His claim that it did still does not justify the decertification of the deal, especially because Iran has been adhering to its provisions.

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.” US Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis echoed precisely the same sentiment, adding that “the verification [procedure] … is actually pretty robust as far as our intrusive ability to get in.”

Related coverage

November 15, 2018 1:22 pm
0

Is the Situation in Gaza the ‘Problem from Hell’?

JNS.org - Avigdor Lieberman announced that he was stepping down as defense minister on Wednesday, in protest of what he...

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 Muhammad Zarif, “We will neither outsource our security nor will we renegotiate or add on to 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 it will still suffer from unilateral (but not as severe) American sanctions. Under US law, Trump must wait at least 180 days before imposing these sanctions, which include 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 are as follows:

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 a 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 US allies throughout the region. In addition, Iran will have further incentive to increase its financial support of extremist groups to destabilize the region.

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

Finally, 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, are as follows:

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’s 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 crippling joint sanctions would be reinstated, which Tehran wants to prevent at all costs. Collectively, the countries together 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 also offered Iran a path toward 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 was 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 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 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 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 also have 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 sanctions and gives the other five powers the time needed to work collectively with Iran to 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.

Dr. Ben-Meir is a senior fellow at New York University’s Center for Global Affairs who specializes in Middle East peace negotiations between Israel and Arab states.

The opinions presented by Algemeiner bloggers are solely theirs and do not represent those of The Algemeiner, its publishers or editors. If you would like to share your views with a blog post on The Algemeiner, please be in touch through our Contact page.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner

Algemeiner.com