Exploring likely solutions to break nuclear stalemate with Iran

The Politico magazine has proposed three solutions to the US President, Joe Biden to break the deadlock to restore the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. The article is written by founder and CEO of the Bourse and Bazaar Foundation Esfandyar Batmanghelidj and policy fellow at the European Leadership Network (ELN) Sahil Shah. Following is the text of the article: 

Joe Biden has promised for months to reverse Donald Trump’s policy on Iran, saying Trump pulled out “recklessly” from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—the Iran nuclear deal—and that the rest of Trump’s approach was a “dangerous failure.”

The issue is becoming only more urgent. Three reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency this week highlight dangerous, albeit reversible, advances in Iran’s nuclear program. Iran will continue to roll back its implementation of the deal if it does not see economic benefits of the agreement restored.

But it’s far from obvious how to restart nuclear talks in the current environment, never mind revive the full deal. In his first press conference as US Secretary of State last month, Antony Blinken declared that “if Iran comes back into full compliance with its obligations under the JCPOA, the US will do the same thing.” However, Iranian officials have publicly questioned why they should be the first to move when the US is the country that left. Iran contends that notwithstanding its moves to increase its capabilities and uranium stockpile, it remains in full compliance with the deal, interpreting paragraph 36 of the agreement to mean that Iran can “cease performing its commitments” should another party do the same.

In the current political context, Iranian rejection of Blinken’s proposal is understandable. The Trump administration eroded American diplomatic credibility, not only on the Iran nuclear deal, but across a wide range of international agreements. Even those Iranian leaders who remain strongly in favor of the nuclear deal are concerned that the Biden administration will lack the political will to provide Iran the full range of sanctions relief it was promised. Conservatives in Tehran continue to mock deal supporters for being naive.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani once stated that the JCPOA would either persist as a “win-win” agreement for all parties or end up as a “lose-lose.” As the US looks toward reviving it, it’s important to remember that Iran’s experience of sanctions relief following implementation of the JCPOA was disappointing. Lifting sanctions proved complex, and Iran’s economy had been thoroughly stigmatized. The Obama administration struggled to deliver Iran the economic benefits it had promised. In a nod to this bitter experience, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei recently stated that “getting sanctions lifted has failed” and that Iran should instead seek to “nullify” sanctions pressure.

But if Iran stands pat, the US is unlikely to be the first to restore its own commitments under the deal. Moving first would go a long way to restoring American credibility with European allies and the wider international community and would be consistent with Biden’s vow to restore multilateral diplomacy. But any such move will worry some US allies and members of Congress about the Biden administration's willingness to drive a tough bargain with Iran, both on its current nuclear program and on future regional security issues such as ballistic missiles.

With neither Washington nor Tehran aiming to be the first to come back into full compliance with the deal, Biden needs to find a way to do something artful and difficult: Get both sides to restore compliance at the same time. This approach may be the most palatable option, but it will require significant technical discussions between the two sides. Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif has indicated Iran would be open to such an approach, stating that it may be possible to “choreograph” the mutual restoration of commitments with the Biden administration.

“Even those Iranian leaders who remain strongly in favor of the nuclear deal are concerned that the Biden administration will lack the political will to provide Iran the full range of sanctions relief it was promised.”

But Biden must open the door for these direct talks. His first step must be significant enough to restore belief in the original “win-win” logic of the deal and offer Iranian officials a credible rationale for engagement with the US. At the same time, it may be limited enough to keep the US outside of the deal, offering him political cover with critics and underscoring the necessity for Iran to also take reciprocal steps.

Taking this kind of first step could, in its way, be a signal of strength for Biden: He’d be showing domestic opponents of the JCPOA that he will not be bullied into compromising his Iran policy. The fight over the appointment of Robert Malley as Iran envoy showed that hawks will “play dirty” to undermine the credibility of Biden’s outreach to Iran. Biden ought to nip this kind of cynical politics in the bud.

If Biden goes this route, officials in the US, Europe, and Iran are currently deliberating what a reasonable first move could be. Our conversations with officials suggest that there is awareness that breaking out of the political deadlock may require Biden to be bold. He has a few options.

First, the Biden administration could restore temporary waivers that enable Iran to sell oil, while US sanctions remain in place. Iran’s oil production and exports are rising faster than projected despite the COVID-19 crisis and US sanctions. This trend has reduced the perceived urgency of restoring the nuclear deal among key political stakeholders in Tehran who may gain more power after the upcoming Iranian presidential election. The Biden administration’s efforts to re-enter the JCPOA would be best served by making already increasing oil sales once again subject to the “win-win” logic of the nuclear deal. Iran’s earnings from these oil sales would be accrued in escrow accounts and subject to strict oversight as per the waiver terms. Revenues would be used by Iran for sanctions-exempt trade with the country in which the funds are held. Such a step would serve to remove a key piece of tension with US allies such as South Korea, Japan, and India whose energy security has been impacted by US sanctions on Iran.

Second, the Biden administration could support Iran’s loan request for funds from the International Monetary Fund. Iran’s request has languished despite the IMF’s technical assessment that Iran qualifies for financial support to address the balance of payments crisis created by the pandemic. Iran has indicated it is ready for these funds to be disbursed to its accounts outside of the country to be used for paying for sanctions-exempt imports. The funds would not flow directly into Iranian government coffers, but rather be used to address trade deficits. The Biden administration should grant this loan as part of its commitment to address the humanitarian impact of sanctions and a wider push to encourage the IMF to use its full financial capacities to address the ongoing economic crisis brought on by the pandemic.

Finally, a third option could be easing Iran’s access to its existing foreign exchange reserves. Presently, Iran has free and ready access to an estimated 10 percent of its reserves, a circumstance that has placed extraordinary pressure on Iran’s currency and generated high levels of inflation that harm ordinary Iranians. Iran has been engaged in fraught negotiations with numerous countries to try and get access to frozen assets, who continue to look to the US Treasury Department for the final say. The Biden administration could give these countries, including allies Germany and South Korea, the approvals and guidance necessary to enable both central and commercial banks to readily execute payments on behalf of Iranian account holders. As with the oil waivers and IMF loan, these payments can be restricted to sanctions-exempt trade, a key outcome of which would be lower rates of inflation.

Should Biden take any of these three steps, Iran can be expected to cease ramping up its nuclear program. Neither country would be fully implementing its commitments under the JCPOA, but an opportunity will have been created for new talks in the spirit of “win-win” diplomacy. There is no guarantee that these talks, and the complicated choreography of JCPOA restoration, will succeed. But Biden needs to give himself a shot. After the last four years, timid gestures will fail to do that. It’s time to be bold.

 

US must lift curbs before Iran rejoins deal; Khamenei announces final and irreversible decision

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Sunday that Tehran’s “final and irreversible” decision was to return to compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal only if Washington lifts sanctions on the Islamic Republic, Iranian state TV reported.

The deal between Iran and six major powers limited Iran’s uranium enrichment activity to make it harder for Tehran to develop nuclear arms - an ambition Iran has long denied having - in return for the easing of the US and other sanctions.

It may be recalled that former US President Donald Trump had abandoned the deal in 2018, denouncing it as one-sided in Iran’s favour, and reimposed sanctions that have crippled Iran’s economy.

“Iran has fulfilled all its obligations under the deal, not the United States and the three European countries ... If they want Iran to return to its commitments, the United States must in practice ... lift all sanctions,” state TV quoted Khamenei as saying in a meeting with Air Force commanders.

“Then, after verifying whether all sanctions have been lifted correctly, we will return to full compliance ... It is the irreversible and final decision and all Iranian officials have consensus over it.”

Western media has been saying that in response to Trump’s withdrawal, Tehran has breached the deal’s key limits one after the other, building up its stockpile of low-enriched uranium, refining uranium to a higher level of purity and using advanced centrifuges for enrichment.

US President Joe Biden, who took oath last month, has said that if Tehran returned to strict compliance with the pact, Washington would follow the suit and use that as a springboard to a broader agreement that might restrict Iran’s missile development and regional activities.

Iran has repeatedly said it could quickly reverse those violations if US sanctions are removed but has ruled out any talks over the country’s ballistic missile programme and Tehran’s influence in the Middle East, where Iran and Saudi Arabia have been involved in proxy wars for decades.

Macron seeks to add Israel and Saudi Arabia to negotiation with Iran

According to a Reuters report, French President Emmanuel Macron has praised decision of the United States to engage with Iran. He also suggested Saudi Arabia and Israel must ultimately be involved in the negotiation with Iran. 

Macron claimed it was time for a new negotiation because Iran was closer to a nuclear weapon.  He also said the international community has to deal with Iran’s missile program.

Speaking with the Washington-based Atlantic Council think tank in a video conference from Paris, Macron noted, “We do need to finalize, indeed, a new negotiation with Iran.”

“I will do whatever I can to support any initiative from the US side to reengage a ... dialogue and I will be here ... I was here, and available two years ago and one and a half (years) ago, to try to be an honest broker and a committed broker in this dialogue,” he added.

Iran has already objected to the inclusion of Saudi Arabia to the JCPOA let alone Israel which Iran does not recognize and that it opposes a nuclear weapons free zone in West Asia.

In remarks on Wednesday, President Hassan Rouhani said there will be no changes to the content of the JCPOA and that no other country will be added to it.

Rouhani was in fact responding to Saudi Arabia which has said if the new Biden administration plans to rejoin the JCPOA its country should also be included. French President Emmanuel Macron has also called for inclusion of Saudi Arabia in the agreement. 

Rouhani emphasized, “The undue words should not be said. We did a job resulted from hard work. It took more than ten years to gain the achievements (JCPOA). In the beginning of the eleventh government, we made efforts during the first two years” to reach the multilateral agreement. 

In 2018, former US President Donald Trump quitted the JCPOA, which was designed to restrict Iran’s peaceful program in return for the lifting of the US and other sanctions. His successor, President Joe Biden, has said that if Iran returns to “strict” compliance with the deal, the US will too.

The Trump administration restored the US sanctions that Obama removed in 2015. Trump and his Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo perused a “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran with the aim of strangulating the Iranian economy. 

Abolfazl Amouei, the spokesman for the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, has responded to a French call to include Saudi Arabia in any future talks with Iran about the nuclear issue by saying that there are no links between Riyadh and the issue.

“Saudi Arabia has nothing to do with the nuclear agreement,” Amouei told the Qatari-owned Al Arabi Al Jadid newspaper, declaring his country’s refusal to include Riyadh in any possible talks with the parties to the nuclear agreement reached with Iran in 2015.

He stressed, “The Islamic Republic will not negotiate again about this agreement.”

According to Amouei, Riyadh did not have a place in the nuclear negotiations and that it has nothing to do with the issues related to the nuclear agreement between Iran and major world powers, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

Saeed Khatibzadeh, the spokesman for Iran’s Foreign Ministry, put out a statement dismissing the French president's recent remarks about the need for a new nuclear deal with Tehran. He called on Macron to “exercise self-restraint and refrain from hasty and ill-advised stances.”

“The JCPOA is a multilateral international agreement that has been endorsed and stabilized by the (UN) Security Council Resolution 2231. It is by no means re-negotiable, and its parties are also definite and unchangeable,” Khatibzadeh noted.

Pointing to the US withdrawal from the nuclear deal and Europe’s failure to maintain it, the spokesman said, “If there is any willingness to revive and save the JCPOA, the solution is easy. The US should return to the JCPOA and lift the whole JCPOA and non-JCPOA sanctions that have been imposed (on Iran) during the tenure of the previous president of that country.”

Aviv Kochav, chief of staff of Israeli armed forces, has recently issued stark threats against Iran while railing against the nuclear deal.

He said that Israel is not welcoming the expected efforts by the US and its European allies to revive the 2015 nuclear deal. The top Israeli general claimed that he had ordered several plans to launch offensive operations against Iran while voicing Israel’s opposition to any efforts to revive the JCPOA or even to improve it.

“I have instructed the IDF to prepare several operational plans in addition to existing ones, which we will develop throughout the coming year. The power to initiate them lies with the political echelon. However, the offensive options need to be prepared, ready and on the table,” Kochavi said in remarks delivered at the Israeli Institute for National Security Studies 14th Annual International Conference.

Robert Malley appointment as Iran envoy attracts mixed response

Joe Biden has named Robert Malley as special envoy for Iran. He was a key member of former President Barack Obama's team that negotiated the nuclear accord with Iran and world powers, an agreement that Donald Trump abandoned in 2018, despite strong opposition from Washington's European allies.

Malley’s appointment puts him at the forefront of Biden's efforts to find a way to deal with Iran after years of worsening relations under former President Donald Trump, who not only pulled out of a 2015 international nuclear deal with Tehran, but also re-imposed crippling economic sanctions.

When Malley's name first surfaced in news reports as a leading candidate for the post, he drew criticism from some Republican lawmakers and pro-Israel groups who expressed concern that he would be soft on Iran and tough on Israel, but a number of foreign policy veterans rushed to his defense.

It's a positive sign from Biden that he's really willing to revitalize American diplomacy. For too long, US foreign policy has been militarily very muscular, but diplomatically very weak," Sina Toossi, a senior research analyst at the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) told Middle East Eye.

Toossi said the humiliations that Iran had faced in recent years - including the US departure from the JCPOA, the killing of top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani and the assassination of nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh - make it difficult for the Iranian government to take the first step towards reviving the JCPOA.

Matt Duss, a foreign-policy adviser to Senator Bernie Sanders, lauded Biden for refusing to back down in the face of attacks against Malley's candidacy.

"Great news, there's no one better than Rob to make this policy succeed, which is why the hardliners didn't like the pick," Duss wrote on Twitter. "Also very good that Biden stood strong with this choice and disregarded their smear campaign. It won't be their last."

Khaled Elgindy, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, also praised the announcement, calling the nomination "great news". "Malley is a highly skilled and thoughtful negotiator with extensive knowledge and an empathic disposition - literally the polar opposite of every member of the previous administration’s Middle East team of clowns," Elgindy said in a Twitter post.

Senator Tom Cotton, a staunch conservative, had led criticism against Malley, accusing him of being sympathetic to the Iranian government and having "animus towards Israel".

Malley is an American lawyer, political scientist and specialist in conflict resolution, who was the lead negotiator on the 2015 Iran nuclear deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). He being once again tasked to bring the United States and Iran into compliance with the Iran deal abandoned by President Trump.

Previously, Malley was President and CEO of the International Crisis Group, a Washington, DC, committed to preventing wars. Prior to holding that title, he served at the National Security Council under Barack Obama from February 2014 until January 2017.

In 2015, the Obama administration appointed Rob Malley as its "point man" on the Middle East, leading the Middle East desk of the National Security Council. In November 2015, Malley was named as President Obama's new special ISIS advisor.

Malley is considered, by some, to be an expert on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and has written extensively on this subject advocating rapprochement with Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood. As Special Assistant to President Clinton, he was a member of the US peace team and helped organize the 2000 Camp David Summit.

Malley was criticized by supporters of Israel after co-authoring an article in the July 8, 2001 edition of The New York Review of Books arguing that the blame for the failure of the 2000 Camp David Summit should be divided among all three leaders who were present at the summit, Arafat, Barak, and Bill Clinton, not just Arafat, as was suggested by some mainstream policy analysts. Later, other scholars and former officials voiced views similar to those of Malley.

Malley and his views have come under attack from other critics, such as Martin Peretz of the magazine The New Republic, who has opined that Malley is "anti-Israel", a "rabid hater of Israel. No question about it” and that several of his articles in the New York Review of Books were "deceitful."

On the conservative webzine The American Thinker, Ed Lasky asserted that Malley "represents the next generation of anti-Israel activism."

 

 

 

 

  

Israel wish list for a new Iran Nuclear Deal

Ensuring US President Joe Biden administration works to fully and effectively prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon is the first priority for Israel. If the Biden administration enters into talks with Iran, Israel wishes to ensure the weak points of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the 2015 nuclear agreement between Iran and world powers are left out of the new deal.

Those include removing the sunset clauses, which gradually removed sanctions and limitations on uranium enrichment, such that Iran would have been able to develop a nuclear weapon in 2030 under the terms of the JCPOA.

Another Israeli priority is “anywhere, anytime inspections” of Iran nuclear sites, as opposed to Tehran being forewarned as the deal currently requires.

Those are far more important to Israel than something members of the Biden administration and some Israeli media reports have suggested: to add clauses to the JCPOA to stop Iran’s ballistic missile program and malign activities in the region. Israel believes Iran must not have a right to enrich uranium under whatever future framework is reached.

Israel is preparing a plan to counter Biden administration’s intention to negotiate a return to the Iran deal. As reported in The Jerusalem Post earlier, the security cabinet has not met to discuss the matter, but the senior government source said a smaller forum of top ministers will likely determine overall strategy.

In recent weeks, Biden administration officials have said talk of rejoining the JCPOA is premature, and that they plan to speak with allies in the region, Israel among them, before negotiating with Iran. Israel is reassured by those remarks, and that Israel is not looking for a fight with Biden. Rather, Israeli officials prefer that there be conversations behind closed doors between top officials.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to seek an in-person meeting with Biden in the coming months. Such a meeting between the Israeli prime minister and the new US president is customary during the first few months of a new administration in Washington in recent decades, but has even greater urgency due to the administration’s Iran policies. However, Biden may not want to meet with Netanyahu before the March 23 election in order not to appear like he is taking sides.

Who was Sheldon Adelson?

Sheldon Adelson committed as much as half a billion dollars from his vast fortune to buy control over a major element of US foreign policy and subordinated American interests to those of Israel. He was the principal funder of the Republican Party under Donald Trump and receiving in return the withdrawal of United States from the Iran nuclear agreement (JCPOA), the move of the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, the recognition of Israeli annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights and a virtual concession that the Jewish state could do whatever it wants vis-à-vis the Palestinians, including expelling them from Palestine.

Casino magnate and Israeli patriot multi-billionaire Adelson, one of the world’s richest men, died in Las Vegas on 11th January 2021, at the age 87. He has been buried at the Mount of Olives Cemetery in Israel. When his body arrived in Israel it was met by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as well as Jonathan Pollard, the most damaging spy in the history of United States.

Tributes to the fallen “hero” poured in from the political class in both the United States and Israel and it has even been reported that President Donald Trump was intending to hoist the American flag at half mast over federal buildings to honor the “great humanitarian philanthropist.” Unfortunately, the flag was already at half mast honoring the death of Capitol Police Force officer Brian Sicknick, who was murdered in the Capitol building..

Trump had plenty to say about his good buddy Adelson, who has been the principal funder of the Republican Party over the past five years. As he can no longer use Twitter, the president’s condolences were posted on the White House site: “Melania and I mourn the passing of Sheldon Adelson, and send our heartfelt condolences to his wife Miriam, his children and grandchildren. Sheldon lived the true American dream. His ingenuity, genius, and creativity earned him immense wealth, but his character and philanthropic generosity his great name. Sheldon was also a staunch supporter of our great ally the State of Israel. He tirelessly advocated for the relocation of the United States embassy to Jerusalem, the recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and the pursuit of peace between Israel and its neighbors. Sheldon was true to his family, his country, and all those that knew him. The world has lost a great man. He will be missed.”

Missing from the Trump eulogy is any mention of what Adelson did for the United States, which is his country of birth and where he made his fortune engaging in activity that many would consider to be a vice. In fact, Adelson was all about the Jewish state, positioning himself as the principal funder of the Republican Party under Donald Trump and receiving in return as a quid pro quo the US withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement (JCPOA), the move of the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, the recognition of Israeli annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights, and a virtual concession that the Jewish state could do whatever it wants vis-à-vis the Palestinians, to include expelling them from Palestine. Adelson once commented that Israel does not have to pretend to be a democracy but it must be Jewish, presumably to help the process of Arab genocide move along.

Adelson’s mechanism, initiated under George W. Bush, is familiar to how the Israel Lobby operates more generally. It consisted of the exploitation of the incessant need of campaign money by the GOP, which Adelson provided with strings attached. He worked with the Republicans to completely derail the admittedly faux peace process begun under Bill Clinton, which depended on a two-state solution, and instead give the Jewish state a free hand to implement its own unilateral Greater Israel Project extending from “the Jordan River to the Mediterranean.” As part of that expansion, Israel has been building illegal settlements while also bombing and killing Lebanese, Syrians, and Iranians and assassinating scientists and technicians throughout the region.

All of the interventions against Israel’s neighbors took place even though the Jewish state was not technically at war with anyone. The US meanwhile funded Israeli aggression and watched the spectacle without any complaint, providing political cover as necessary, while also maintaining a major military presence in the Middle East to “protect Israel,” as Trump recently admitted.

In short, Sheldon Adelson committed as much as half a billion dollars from his vast fortune to buy control over a major element of US foreign policy and subordinated American interests to those of Israel. In addition to direct donations to both major political parties, he also paid for Congressional “fact finding” trips to Israel and funded a number of pro-Israel lobbies, so-called charities and other related Jewish projects. It is indisputable that he wielded an incredible degree of power to shape Washington’s actions in the Middle East. In her own tribute to her dead husband, Miriam Adelson, an Israeli, described how he “crafted the course of nations.”

Adelson was actively engaged on Israel’s behalf until the week before his death. He provided his casino’s private 737 luxury executive jet to transport Jonathan Pollard “home” to Israel. Pollard has served 30 years in prison after being convicted of espionage and was on parole, which restricted his travel. As yet another gift to Israel, Donald Trump lifted that restriction, allowing him to fly to Israel where he received a hero’s welcome. It is generally agreed that Pollard was the most damaging spy in American history, having stolen the keys to accessing US communications and information gathering systems. A month after Pollard’s arrest in 1985, CIA director William Casey stated, “The Israelis used Pollard to obtain our war plans against the USSR – all of it, the coordinates, the firing locations, the sequences, and Israel sold that information to Moscow for more exit visas for Soviet Jews.”

Sheldon Adelson used his wealth and political connections to shield himself from any criticism due to his openly expressed preference for Israel over the land of his birth. He publicly stated that he wished he had worn the Israeli Army uniform instead of that of the US Army, where he served briefly as a draftee. He also expressed his desire that his son would serve as an Israeli army sniper, presumably allowing him to blow the heads off of Palestinians.

In 2013 Adelson advocated ending nuclear negotiations with Iran and instead detonating a nuclear weapon in “the middle of the [Iranian] desert,” followed by a threat to annihilate the capital city Tehran, home to 8.6 million, to force Iran to surrender its essentially non-existent nuclear program.

Other acknowledgements of the impact of Adelson came from officials in the Trump Administration. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo commented how his “efforts to strengthen the alliance between Israel and the United States…the world, Israel and the United States are safer because of his work.”

Is the world a better place due to the passing of Sheldon Adelson? His Israeli wife Miriam owns more than 40% of Las Vegas Sands Corp Casinos Inc., estimated to be worth in excess of US$17 billion. She has proposed that a new chapter be included in the Jewish bible, the Book of Trump, and has pledged herself to continue her husband’s work. Trump had previously given her the highest award that a president can bestow, the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Nine hurdles to revitalizing JCPOA

A West Asia security and nuclear policy specialist at Princeton University, has enumerated nine hurdles to revitalizing Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), nuclear deal that Iran signed with 5+1 nations - five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany - in July 2015.

Seyed Hossein Mousavian points that “snapback” mechanism in JCPOA favors 5+1 nations only. “The ‘snapback’ mechanism built into the agreement allows any country to force the UN Security Council to reimpose multilateral sanctions against Iran if Iran fails to fulfill its commitments. But this is one-sided: There is no such remedy for Iran if other parties fail to do their part,” Mousavian writes.

The article was published in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists on 19th January 2021, one day before Joe Biden officially sworn in as President of United States.

Following is the text of the article titled “Nine hurdles to reviving the Iran nuclear deal”:

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on 8th January 2021 that Tehran was in no rush for the United States to rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), but, he also said, sanctions on Iran must be lifted immediately.

“If the sanctions are lifted, the return of the Americans makes sense,” he insisted. President-elect Joe Biden has announced his plan to return to the deal soon after he is sworn into office. “If Iran returns to strict compliance with the nuclear deal,” he wrote in an op-ed for CNN, “the United States would rejoin.” His Iranian counterpart, President Hassan Rouhani, has also expressed willingness to return to the deal, stating that, “Iran could come into compliance with the agreement within an hour of the United States doing so.”

Five years ago, after years of intensive negotiations, six world powers managed to sign the world’s most comprehensive nuclear agreement with Iran. While the agreement was a political one, it was also ratified by the UN Security Council in Resolution 2231. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the organization tasked with verifying the agreement’s technical aspects, Iran was fully complying with the deal for about three years, until President Trump withdrew from it in May 2018. In response to the US violations of the nuclear agreement, Iran too reduced some of its commitments. Most recently, on 4th January2021, Iran announced that it had increased its uranium enrichment levels to 20 percent. Although reviving the agreement is certainly still possible, it won’t be easy. The two sides will need to overcome nine hurdles to make it happen:

First, the sequencing of a mutual return could be an immediate problem. Iran expects the United States to lift sanctions first, because it was the Trump administration that withdrew first. While Tehran’s demand is legitimate, Washington may ask that Iran come into full compliance before lifting sanctions. Indeed, a straightforward reading of the quotation from Joe Biden’s op-ed suggests just that. In this scenario, after Joe Biden’s executive order rejoining the deal, Iran and the world powers can meet and agree on a realistic plan with a specified timeline of proportionate reciprocal actions.

Second is the issue of what compliance constitutes. During the Obama administration there was one major barrier to the full realization of the terms of the agreement: Many primary sanctions, targeting US citizens and permanent residents, organizations, and individuals that engage in trade and business with their Iranian counterparts, remained intact. These sanctions limited the economic benefits of the deal for Iran. The 29th paragraph of the deal clearly states that all signatories will refrain from any policy specifically intended to directly and adversely affect the normalization of trade and economic relations with Iran. This cannot be achieved without abolishing the primary sanctions.

Third, the Trump administration imposed numerous sanctions against Iran under the guise of terrorism and human rights, aimed at preventing the Biden administration from returning to the deal. For a clean implementation of the agreement, Biden will need to remove all of these sanctions as well.

Fourth, Trump’s withdrawal from the agreement and violation of the UN Security Council Resolution 2231 as well as other international commitments has damaged US credibility abroad. There is now a widespread belief among policy makers in Iran that the United States will simply not live up to its end of the bargain, no matter what that bargain is. This naturally raises the important question: What guarantees are there that the United States will remain committed to the deal in the post-Biden era?

Fifth, because of Trump’s maximum pressure policy, the Iranian economy has suffered hundreds of billions of dollars of losses, while Iran was in full compliance with the terms and conditions of the deal. Some Iranian leaders, including Iran’s foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, have demanded compensation for the economic damage the country suffered after the United States withdrew. The challenge will be to find a mechanism to compensate for the economic damages that the Trump administration inflicted on the Iranian economy.

Sixth, the “snapback” mechanism built into the agreement allows any country to force the UN Security Council to reimpose multilateral sanctions against Iran if Iran fails to fulfill its commitments. But this is one-sided: There is no such remedy for Iran if other parties fail to do their part. This became abundantly clear when the Trump administration first withdrew from the deal and then tried to unilaterally re-impose multilateral sanctions on Iran through the snapback mechanism. It was as if the injurer was demanding punishment for the injured. Although the UN Security Council rejected the US demand, the stunt revealed the structural flaw of the snapback.

Seventh, in the first week of December 2020, the Iranian parliament passed a bill mandating Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization to resume enriching uranium to 20 percent purity. The legislation also requires the Iranian government to cease voluntary implementation of the IAEA’s Additional Protocol within two months of the bill’s enactment if the other signatories fail to fully deliver on their commitments under the agreement. And after three months, the Atomic Energy Organization is obliged to begin using at least 1,000-second-generation centrifuges. In short, president-elect Biden will need to move fast.

Eighth, there were some in the United States who were worried that Trump may start a reckless last-ditch war with Iran before leaving office. While this concern is overblown, there should be no doubt that US partners in the region will do whatever they can to prevent Biden’s return to the deal. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has already said as much. To be sure, the hardliners in Iran are also fundamentally opposed to the deal.

Ninth, some pundits and politicians in Washington want Biden to leverage the Trump administration’s sanctions to pressure Iran to accept additional commitments beyond the original agreement as a condition for US return to compliance. These include limiting Iran’s missile capability, extending the “sunset” clauses within the deal, or resolving regional disputes. But from Iran’s perspective, such demands are a non-starter. As the spokesperson for Iran’s foreign ministry said recently, “No negotiation has been, is being, or will be held about Iran’s defense power.”

Despite these hurdles, Biden should nevertheless seek re-entry into the deal. Only a clean and full implementation by all parties can save the world’s most comprehensive nuclear agreement, contain rising US-Iran tensions, and open the path toward more confidence building measures. That path should include, upon Biden’s issuing an executive order to rejoin the JCPOA, the creation of a working committee of parties to the agreement tasked with ensuring full compliance by all signatories, and a forum, organized by the UN Secretary General, in which Iran and the Persian Gulf countries can discuss a new structure for improving security and cooperation in the region.

Israel fears losing its freedom to operate against Iran

Speculation about the extent to which the incoming American administration will appease Iran has been rampant. But US President-elect Joe Biden’s picks for relevant top positions don’t seem to leave much room for supposition.

Let’s start with William Burns, Biden’s nomination for CIA director. Burns currently serves as president of the left-wing foreign-policy think tank the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, one of its donors is the Open Society Foundations network, established by George Soros.

Burns has decades of experience as a career diplomat under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Burns is a longtime associate of Biden. The two have worked closely together, most recently when the latter was Vice President and the former was Deputy Secretary of State for Near Eastern affairs, during the administration of former US President, Barack Obama.

Burns who had served as Ambassadors to Russia and Jordan, also had a key role in talks with the regime in Tehran in 2013. These led to the 2015 signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between Iran and the 5+1 countries: the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia and China plus Germany. By that time Burns had retired, but his imprint lived on in the nuclear deal.

In this context, Biden’s statement about Burns – “[He] shares my profound belief that intelligence must be apolitical” – is not liked by his opponents. The cause of greater concern is Burns’s faith in the JCPOA from which outgoing US President Donald Trump withdrew in 2018.

In an 29th August 29 2020 opinion piece in The Atlantic titled “‘America First’ Enters its Most Combustible Moment,” Burns spelled out his objections.

 “Any leverage against Iran produced by the UAE-Israel agreement [the Abraham Accords between the United Arab Emirates and the Jewish state that subsequently were signed on 15th September 2020 at the White House] is already being swallowed up in the serial diplomatic malpractice of the administration’s ‘maximum pressure’ campaign – aimed more at toppling the Iranian regime than at changing its behavior,” he wrote. “Doubling down on failed policy is not a smart diplomatic prescription... but the Trump administration is not likely to see the light. Instead, it will continue to pretend that the United States can participate in only the punitive parts of the Iran nuclear deal... [a strategy that it] tried – and spectacularly failed at.”Nothing could be further from the truth. Trump’s “maximum-pressure campaign” is anything but “diplomatic malpractice.”

Antony Blinken, for instance – who, pending congressional confirmation, will replace Pompeo – is another JCPOA enthusiast. Blinken served under Obama, first as Deputy National Security advisor and then as deputy secretary of state. Like Burns, he was instrumental in formulating and promoting the deal. He also wants to lift sanctions against Tehran as one of those “goodwill gestures” that American multilateralists so love extending to the regimes.

He was clear about this in the immediate aftermath of Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA. In a thread of tweets on 9th May 2018, Blinken wrote, “By blowing up the Iran nuclear deal, President Trump puts us on a collision course with Iran and our closest allies. It gives Iranian hardliners the excuse to speed again toward the bomb without a united international coalition to oppose them or inspectors to expose them. Or if Iran and Europe stick with the deal, it forces us to sanction the latter to stop them from doing business with the former. Either way we lose.”

AS IF THIS weren’t an illustration of the degree to which Democrats misunderstand – or are willfully blind to – the mindset of the Iranian mullahs, Blinken goes on to make a ridiculous assertion. The cancellation of the JCPOA, he tweeted, “makes getting to yes with North Korea that much more challenging.

Cognizant of new reality, Israel is boosting its ability to combat Iranian forces and other proxy groups. The Democrats in the White House, State Department and Capitol building are lying in wait to lead the world, as Obama proudly did, “from behind.”

The Pompeo ploy

In a sign of inability to prevent the incoming administration from rejoining the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has resorted to what he took from the CIA archives to cook up a new story against Iran.

Lately, Pompeo participated in an event at the National Press Club in Washington, DC to level new accusations against Iran for its alleged links to the al-Qaeda (AQ) terrorist group. Pompeo claimed that Iran has become a “new Afghanistan” in terms of hosting al-Qaeda leaders.

“Al-Qaeda has a new home base: it is the Islamic Republic of Iran. As a result, bin Laden’s wicked creation is poised to gain strength and capabilities. We ignore this Iran-al-Qaeda nexus at our own peril. We need to acknowledge it. We must confront it. Indeed, we must defeat it,” the hawkish top US diplomat claimed.

Pompeo pointed out that the United States has taken drastic measures against al-Qaeda since the 9/11 attacks. These measures, Pompeo claimed, have pushed the al-Qaeda members to search for a new haven.

“That effort drove al-Qaeda to search for a safer haven, and they found one. The Islamic Republic of Iran was the perfect choice,” he claimed. The outgoing US secretary of state went to say that Iran still has links to al-Qaeda.

Pompeo did not present any evidence to support his allegations, and, in fact, some of these allegations are nothing new. However, they elicited a strong response from Iran and Russia.

Iran termed Pompeo’s claims as “warmongering lies.”

“From designating Cuba to fictitious Iran 'declassifications' and AQ claims, 'we lie, cheat, steal' is pathetically ending his disastrous career with more warmongering lies. No one is fooled. All 9/11 terrorists came from @SecPompeo's favorite ME destinations; NONE from Iran,” Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif tweeted in response to Pompeo’s remarks.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry also rejected the allegations as “baseless,” calling on Pompeo to “die of anger.”

“Resorting to such ploys and threadbare and baseless claims can, by no means, help the terrorist US regime correct its path, which is full of mistakes, and restore the unjustifiable image of the officials of this regime,” Saeed Khatibzadeh, spokesman for Iran’s Foreign Ministry, said in a statement. “As martyr Beheshti aptly put it, Mr. Pompeo! Be angry and die of this anger,” the spokesman continued.

Pompeo accused Iran of supporting al-Qaeda while ignoring his predecessor’s admission that it was the US that “created” and “funded” al-Qaeda. Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said many times that the US has created and funded al-Qaeda to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan.

“Let’s remember here that people we are fighting today, we funded 20 years ago. And we did it because we were locked in the struggle with the Soviet Union; they invaded Afghanistan. And we did not want to see them control Central Asia and we went to work. And it was President Reagan in partnership with the Congress led by Democrats, who said you know what? Sounds like a pretty good idea. Let’s deal with the ISIS and the Pakistani military, and let's go recruit these mujahidin. And great, let's get some to come from Saudi Arabia and other places, importing their Wahhabi brand of Islam, so that we can go beat the Soviet Union. And guess what? They retreated. They lost billions of dollars, and it led to the collapse of the Soviet Union,” Clinton infamously said testifying before a Congressional committee.

But why does Pompeo ignore these facts? The question is simple, because he hates the 2015 Iran nuclear deal – officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – and wants to make sure that the incoming Biden administration would not be able to return to it.

This was on full display during his Tuesday speech. Pompeo sought to use the alleged links between Iran and al-Qaeda to warn against reviving the JCPOA. He claimed that before 2015, Iranian authorities had strictly restricted the movement of al-Qaeda members living inside of Iran, “putting them under virtual house arrest.”

“But I have to say today that is not the situation. Indeed, everything changed in 2015 – the same year that the Obama administration and the E3 – France, Germany, and Britain – were in the middle of finalizing the JCPOA,” Pompeo noted.

He then tried to imply that Iran may use its links to al-Qaeda to put pressure on JCPOA signatories to revive the nuclear deal.

“Imagine that al-Qaeda starts carrying out attacks at Iran’s behest, even if the control is not perfect.  Who is to say that this isn’t the next form of blackmail to pressure countries back into a nuclear deal?” Pompeo asked.

Pompeo is clearly trying to torpedo any future effort to revive the JCPOA. Over the past few years, he has taken many measures to ensure that the nuclear deal will not be revived. Pompeo led the Trump administration’s efforts to change the logic of sanctions and, in some cases, reimpose previously imposed sanctions under non-nuclear-related authorities, including the U.S.’s counterterrorism sanctions authority. The main purpose of these measures was to create what pro-Trump experts call a “wall of sanctions,” a strategy that aims to make it harder for the Biden administration to lift sanctions against Iran.

Establishing links between Iran and al-Qaeda may be intended to make it even more difficult for the incoming US administration to lift sanctions that were re-imposed under United States counterterrorism sanctions authority.  Pompeo may have succeeded in doing so.

In his recent interview with the website of the Leader’s office, Zarif said that a US return to the JCPOA will not be enough anymore because the US has imposed pre-JCPOA sanctions and changed their logic to terrorism-related authorities, which made the lifting of sanctions even more difficult.

According to Zarif, when the JCPOA was negotiated there was a different kind of sanctions imposed on Iran and the JCPOA has outlined how these sanctions would be lifted but the situation has changed after the Trump administration pulled out of the JCPOA.

“Over the past four years, Trump worked to hollow out the JCPOA and impose sanctions that even if the U.S. returns to the JCPOA, they will remain in place. For example, they (the Trump administration) removed nuclear-related sanctions on our Central Bank and Petroleum Ministry and imposed sanctions on them under counterterrorism authority. They basically changed the logic of sanctions,” Zarif said.

Biden appeasing Iran would be bad for US security, says Mike Pompeo

Lifting sanctions on Iran while it maintains its nuclear aspirations will endanger America and the world, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warned in an interview for The Jerusalem Post-Khaleej Times conference.

“If we appease Iran, if we underwrite Iran, if we allow Europeans to reenter [Iran] and create wealth for the kleptocrats at the head of this theocracy, that would be a bad thing for the region’s security, for Europe’s security and for American security,” Pompeo said.

Pompeo expressed hope that President-elect Joe Biden’s administration “will recognize that this is not 2015…The whole world can recognize that Iran is the destabilizing influence in the whole Middle East.”

The Trump administration left the 2015 Iran deal in 2018, and has maintained a “maximum pressure” sanctions campaign against the Islamic Republic. Biden has said he intends to bring the US back to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the Iran deal’s official name, along with an Iranian return to compliance.

Iran has repeatedly violated the agreement, most recently declaring last week that it would enrich uranium up to 20% in the underground Fordow facility.

As a result of the “maximum pressure,” Pompeo said “it’s very clear that Iran is more isolated than it has ever been.”

“Our decision to abandon the ridiculous thing called the JCPOA, which enabled, armed and provided resources and money to the largest state sponsor of terror in the world…put Iran in a place where it had to make hard decisions about its own economy, whether to feed its own people or fund Shi’a militias in Iraq and Syria,” he said.

Should Iran change its ways, the US can engage with its regime, Pompeo said, but “if they don’t, the US has to make sure it is part of a coalition that works alongside each other to promote stability in the Middle East.”

Building that coalition was one of the major factors in launching the Abraham Accords, in which the United Arab Emirates established diplomatic relations with Israel in August, followed by Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco.

“One of the things that enabled the Abraham Accords was America’s recognition that the most important players in this effort [against Iran] were the countries in the region, Gulf states, Israel – all those players were truly impacted,” Pompeo said.

Still, Pompeo said those countries did not just normalize ties with Israel because of the US; “it happened because it was the right thing to do.”

“Those sovereign nations came to the Abraham Accords…because it was the right thing for their own people,” he said. “These commercial, security and diplomatic relationships will continue to grow, and I hope the US will be an encouragement for that.”

The Abraham Accords has allowed the countries to partner with Israel to be “safer, more prosperous and more secure,” Pompeo said.

Normalization with Israel is “the right direction of travel for the entire region,” he added.

Asked if the rioting at the US Capitol last week was an obstacle to more countries establishing relations with Israel in the final days of US President Donald Trump’s term, Pompeo said he saw no correlation whatsoever.

“It’s not binary, normalizing or not. We see lots of countries moving in the right direction even if they have not formally signed the Abraham Accords,” he said.

Pompeo projected that Muslim-majority nations in Asia and Africa will likely be next to have open ties with Israel.

“It truly augurs well for security in the region,” he said.

Asked about the Pompeo Doctrine, his declaration that the State Department no longer sees settlements as illegal per se, he said: “We knew we had to recognize reality", adding that the US recognition does not undermine security for any country in the region. 

Similarly, Pompeo said that Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish people and Israeli sovereignty in the Golan Heights are “just reality, and we recognized it.”

“We were told if we recognize those things all hecks would break loose and that didn't materialize,” he added.

At the same time, Pompeo said that the Trump administration worked to find a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, calling its peace plan “a real, true pathway for better existence for the Palestinian people.”

“The Palestinian leadership must get on board,” he said.

Will US President Trump make the world safer or more dangerous in his remaining days in power?

It is no secret that Donald Trump, President United States had asked for military options for attacking Iran and that Israel has been preparing for such an eventuality. It is the collective responsibility of all to examine the possibility of the US or joint US-Israel attack on Iran and its consequences.

There is absolutely no justification for such an attack, but that is no guarantee that it won’t happen. It needs to be emphasized that none of this would be happening if the Trump administration had not taken the reckless and destructive step of reneging on the JCPOA and launching an economic war on Iran. Whatever adversities the world may face only the Donald Trump would be held responsible for that.

When Trump ordered the assassination of Soleimani in January 2020, administration officials eventually lined up behind the excuse that it was intended to “restore deterrence” against rocket attacks from Iranian-backed Iraqi militias. Even though these attacks have continued, throughout the year, the US administration is back to issuing of threats of military action in response to attacks that would not be happening if it were not for the president’s own reckless actions. As the anniversary of the Soleimani assassination approaches, the administration is once again drifting towards an avoidable and unnecessary conflict.

Were it not for the president’s “maximum pressure” campaign, the US forces in Iraq would have faced far fewer risks than they do today, and conflict between the two governments would have been less intense. Had it not been for the president’s decision to order the illegal and provocative attack that killed Soleimani and an Iraqi militia leader, tensions between the US and Iran would not be as great as they are now. Trump’s approach to Iran for the last two and a half years has been to pick a fight and then blame the other side for responding to his provocations. Far from deterring attacks from Iranian-backed militias and the Iranian military itself, the Trump administration has been provoking and inviting them. It is mostly a matter of luck that this has not yet triggered a larger conflict.

For its part, the Israeli government is also raising the temperature by sending one of its submarines through the Suez Canal to signal its readiness to respond to retaliation for its murder of Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh. An Israeli submarine has embarked for the Persian Gulf in possible preparation for any Iranian retaliation over the November assassination of a senior Iranian nuclear scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, Israeli media reported.

The above-water, fully visible Israeli deployment into the Suez Canal and then the Red Sea was a rare move that was reportedly carried out with the acquiescence of Egyptian authorities and was seen as a clear warning to Iran that Israel was preparing for battle as hostilities continue to rise.

The deployment of the Israeli submarine is described as a “message of deterrence,” but it is in fact the result of an ill-advised and illegal attack inside Iran. Had the Israelis not carried out a terrorist attack on Iranian soil, they would not now be worried about possible retaliation. This gets at a basic problem with the hawkish framing of our news coverage related to Iran and the constant misuse of the concept of deterrence by both the US and Israeli governments.

When hawks in the US and Israeli governments talk about “restoring deterrence,” what they really mean is that they want to commit acts of aggression but present them as defensive actions. Blowing up Soleimani had nothing to do with deterring future attacks, and one can see that it has failed to deter them. Murdering Fakhrizadeh definitely had nothing to do with deterring anything. It was just a gratuitous killing that the Israel government did because they could. Now both the US and Israel find that they have to make additional shows of force and issue new threats to ward off possible responses to these earlier aggressive acts. Instead of making them more secure, these aggressive acts have exposed Americans and Israelis to greater risks than they faced earlier on.

Joe Biden reaffirms support for JCPOA, vows to engage Iran

Joe Biden has said that he still stands by his views on the 2015 Iran nuclear deal that were articulated in a mid-September op-ed, but a US return to the deal would be “hard.” In an interview with The New York Times’ columnist Thomas Friedman, Biden addressed a variety of domestic and foreign policy issues, including the Iran nuclear deal, which President Donald Trump quit on May 8, 2018.

Asked whether he still stands by his views on the Iran deal that he expressed in a September 13 op-ed for CNN, Biden answered, “It’s going to be hard, but yeah.”

This is the first statement on Iran; Biden said in the op-ed that he will return to the nuclear deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

“I will offer Tehran a credible path back to diplomacy. If Iran returns to strict compliance with the nuclear deal, the United States would rejoin the agreement as a starting point for follow-on negotiations. With our allies, we will work to strengthen and extend the nuclear deal's provisions, while also addressing other issues of concern,” then-presidential candidate Biden said.

According to Friedman, the view of Biden and his national security team is that once the deal is restored by both sides, there will have to be, in very short order, a round of negotiations to seek to lengthen the duration of the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program — originally 15 years — as well as to address Iran’s regional activities.

The columnist also said that the Biden team may involve Iran’s Arab neighbors, namely Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, in follow-on negotiations on Iran's regional activities.

“Ideally, the Biden team would like to see that follow-on negotiation include not only the original signatories to the deal — Iran, the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France, Germany and the European Union — but also Iran’s Arab neighbors, particularly Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates,” wrote Friedman.

A few days ago, Friedman wrote a column urging a Biden administration to address Iran’s precision-guided missile before restoring the JCPOA. But this column seems to have failed to influence the Biden team. “But for now they insist that America’s overwhelming national interest is to get Iran’s nuclear program back under control and fully inspected,” Friedman admittedly said.

Biden himself expressed less enthusiasm about addressing Iran’s missiles. “Look, there’s a lot of talk about precision missiles and all range of other things that are destabilizing the region,” Biden noted, adding that “the best way to achieve getting some stability in the region” is to deal “with the nuclear program.”

If Iran gets a nuclear bomb, Biden claimed, it puts enormous pressure on the Saudis, Turkey, Egypt and others to get nuclear weapons themselves. “And the last goddamn thing we need in that part of the world is a buildup of nuclear capability.”

Then, Biden said, “In consultation with our allies and partners, we’re going to engage in negotiations and follow-on agreements to tighten and lengthen Iran’s nuclear constraints, as well as address the missile program.” The US always has the option to snap back sanctions if need be, and Iran knows that, he added.

It’s worth noting that Iran has always said that it is not seeking to develop a nuclear bomb, and it even considers this kind of bomb religiously indecent.

UN Security Council session on JCPOA

The United Nations Security Council will hold a briefing session on the latest development in the West Asia region, including the situation around the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.

“Before the Christmas break, the Council will hear briefings on the Middle East [West Asia] peace process, including the question of Palestine, and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran’s nuclear program,” the UN said in a statement on Tuesday.

Council President Jerry Matthews Matjila said the Council will not discuss the recent assassination of prominent Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh because the 15-member UN body has not received any request concerning the assassination.

“As for the recent killing of an Iranian nuclear scientist, he said the Council has not received any request to act on that matter, but the meeting on Iran’s nuclear program later this month will be held in ‘a new global environment,’” the UN statement said.

Israel usually informs the US administration of information about its targets and the operations it intends to carry out prior to carrying out, but he refused to confirm whether the Israeli government had done so this time.

Iran's retaliatory step against the Americans will make Biden's job difficult regarding lifting sanctions on Tehran and launching the diplomatic process.

Additional sanctions will be imposed on Tehran within the next week and the following, as Trump has given Pompeo a “Carte Blanche” to continue imposing a policy of maximum pressure on Tehran over the next two months.

But slapping new sanctions on Iran could ratchet up tensions in the region especially after the assassination of the Iranian nuclear scientist significantly raised the tension in the region.

The UN has called for restraint hours after the assassination of Fakhrizadeh.

“We have noted the reports that an Iranian nuclear scientist has been assassinated near Tehran today. We urge restraint and the need to avoid any actions that could lead to an escalation of tensions in the region,” Farhan Haq, the deputy spokesman for the UN secretary-general, said.

Also on Friday, Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations Majid Takht Ravanchi sent a letter to the UN secretary-general and Security Council, warning against any “adventurist” steps by the US and Israel against Iran in the waning days of the Trump administration.

Warning against any adventurist measures by the United States and Israel against my country, particularly during the remaining period of the current administration of the United States in office, the Islamic Republic of Iran reserves its rights to take all necessary measures to defend its people and secure its interests," Ravanchi said in the letter.

Iran says won’t negotiate terms of JCPOA

Mahmoud Vaezi, Chief of Staff of Iranian President said, the nuclear agreement, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) which was signed in July 2015, is not open to new rounds of negotiations. The negotiations were held in the past that led to the deal, Vaezi told reporters after a cabinet meeting.

Vaezi also said while Iran has welcomed US President Donald Trump’s defeat, but it is not optimistic about the US administration unless it acts differently.

“President Rouhani announced that if the other JCPOA parties return to January 20, 2017, the day Trump came to power, Iran is ready to step back to the same date as well,” the presidential chief of staff said.

Vaezi, who was a high-ranking diplomat in the Rafsanjani administration, said Trump has disturbed the international order and ruined international relations, including those in the Middle East. “He has put intense pressure on the Iranian people over the past three years,” he added.

Tensions soared between Tehran and Washington when Trump unilaterally withdrew the US from the JCPOA on May 8, 2018. The US president not only exited the deal but has since targeted Iran with a series of harsh economic sanctions Trump has called the sanctions his “maximum pressure” campaign aimed at forcing Iran to renegotiate the nuclear deal. However, Tehran has rejected renegotiating the terms of the deal.

Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has insisted that “under no circumstances” would Tehran consider renegotiating the terms of the deal which was adopted as a UN Security Council Resolution.

“If we wanted to do that [renegotiate], we would have done it with President Trump four years ago,” Zarif told CBS News earlier this month.

Former European Union foreign policy Chief Catherine Ashton has said there will be resistance to further “asks” of Iran, especially if the US is not offering more in return.

“Yet the Iranians will be relieved to have survived the Trump administration’s ‘maximum pressure’ campaign and undoubtedly many will hope Biden’s election represents the opening of a new chapter,” Ashton wrote in an article published by Time magazine on Monday. “But there will be little appetite in Tehran to do more, if asked.”

She confirmed that until President Trump withdrew the US from the nuclear deal, Iran kept to its side of the bargain.

Ashton added, “Finding a way to get support in Congress will be challenging when, as things stand, the Democrats may not have control of the Senate. To put a revived JCPOA on firm foundations, he needs to be able to guarantee that if Iran sticks to its part of the bargain, the US will too.”

She also called on the incoming Biden administration to work with Congress, saying, “Returning to the JCPOA with only Presidential authority to keep it in place might work for the short term, but it is not a sustainable approach.”

Iranian refining and downstream industries flourishing despite sanctions

Persian Gulf Star Refinery (PGSR) located in Iran’s southern province of Hormozgan is the first of its kind. It is based on gas condensate feedstock received from the South Pars gas field which Iran shares with Qatar in the Persian Gulf. As the largest processing facility for gas condensate in West Asia, PGSR has made Iran an exporter of gasoline.

This refinery has increased Iran’s gasoline production to 110 million liters per day, while the country’s consumption is 74 million liters. PGSR has not only made Iran self sufficient in gasoline production, but enabled it to export surplus output. The products exported by the refinery during the first half of the current Iranian calendar year were 120 percent higher than the products exported during the same period last year.

Pars Oil and Gas Company (POGC), responsible for developing South Pars gas field, delivered about 60 million barrels of gas condensate to PGSR during the first half of the current year. PGSR receives 375,000 barrels of condensate daily from South Pars gas field as the feedstock.

Historically, Iran has remained a net importer of gasoline in recent decades and restriction on sale of gasoline was used as one of the tools to pressurize the country. Those sanctions were lifted with the implementation of JCPOA (Iran’s nuclear deal with the world powers, known as Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), concerns about their return led to construction of PGSR to be pursued more rapidly and in different phases. In January 2019, when the third phase of the refinery was inaugurated, Iran was able not only to eliminate the need to import gasoline but also to export surplus gasoline and bring more income to the country.

 According to Secretary General of Iran’s Oil Refining Industry Companies Association (ORICA) the country’s oil refining capacity has increased to two million barrels per day. The activities of the refineries, in addition to meeting the domestic need, have led to the export of surplus products, which plays a significant role in combating the sanctions.

The Secretary General of ORICA went on to say that in addition to the main products, 32 other special products are produced in the refineries, which are allocated on priority to domestic petrochemical industries.

He highlighted the role of refineries as 32,000 people are directly employed in this sector and now all refineries are run by domestic experts and not a single foreign engineer is employed in this industry.

In the recent past, the quality of domestically produced fuel was not comparable to international standards, but over the last four years the quality of local gasoline has improved so much that ordinary gasoline has replaced super gasoline. It is also worth noting that the country's refineries are operating at optimum capacity utilization.

Lately, Iran’s Karoon Petrochemical Company (KPC) has unveiled two new products that are going to save the country US$27 million. The production lines of two new grades of MTDI and KMT-10 were officially launched with the aim of meeting the needs of downstream sectors and completing the value chain of the country’s petrochemical sector.

KMT-10 is produced by pre-polymerization of methyl phenyl isocyanate and by the formation of urethane groups. With the production of this new product, the petrochemical industry will practically eliminate the need to import similar grades which have been previously imported from China, Japan, South Korea, and Germany. This strategic product has wide applications in the automotive, office, and home appliances industries.

MTDI products include Aradur 830 CH, Aradur 850 CH, and Aradur 2963 CH. Karoon Petrochemical Company has introduced this product in order to meet the needs of downstream producers of paint, resin, and polyurethane and in order to complete the value chain of petrochemical products.

The petrochemical industry is playing a crucial role in Iran's non-oil economy, the second-largest foreign exchange earner after crude oil. Petrochemical exports already make up nearly 33 percent of the country’s non-oil exports.

Head of Iran’s National Petrochemical Company (NPC) Behzad Mohammadi said the country’s petrochemical products basket would be further diversified. The official noted that major development plans were underway for diversifying the country’s petrochemical output considering the wide range of feedstock available.

Israel the biggest resistance in easing US Iran conflict

In 2018, soon after becoming President of the United States Donald Trump withdrew from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, calling it “the worse deal ever.” In response, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, vowed never to renegotiate another nuclear deal with the United States. Iran must accept that if Trump is reelected, it will have no choice but to reengage in negotiations with the United States.

Based on his recent statements, including uttering during the peace ceremony between Israel, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, Trump appears eager to get back to the negotiating table. He may even try to get Senate approval (67 votes) to convert his deal into a treaty.

Former vice president Joseph Biden, if elected, is also expected to quickly negotiate a new deal with Iran, with the help of other participants of the deal. Some of his advisers have circulated working papers with the aim of getting “back to the JCPOA,” the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

Many in Israel believe that Biden would offer up-front sanctions relief to bring Iran back to the table, without getting much in return. They insist, it was a bad idea in 2013, 2015 and would be problematic 2021. They openly say that since the United States withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018, the Iranian regime has engaged in nuclear blackmail, enriching more uranium, installing new centrifuges, enhancing its R&D efforts, and taking many other dangerous steps.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has issued several reports expressing its concern, backed by Israeli findings that the Mossad captured during its daring raid on Iran’s then-secret atomic archive. They say, the international community has failed in taking any decision or decisive action. Europeans have contributed to this inaction. Iranians, meanwhile, have played their cards well, deferring any major decision until after the elections in United States.

In Israel there is a perception that no matter who negotiates, the dangers are clear. They allege, Iranians have a demonstrated history of fleecing American counterparts at the negotiating table. The American negotiators failed to seize the advantage, despite the fact that Iranian President Hassan Rouhani telegraphed his negotiation strategy in his 2010 book. They also say that the errors of the 2013–2015 negotiations, which yielded Iran massive sanctions relief and sunsetting restrictions, made that abundantly clear.

Israel insists that the new agreement must address all core weaknesses of the JCPOA. Indeed, it cannot be more of the same with some minor improvements. The goal must be to establish clear new terms so that the JCPOA’s vagueness does not persist. The deal should include an end to Iran’s support for terrorism, regional destabilization and other malign activities. This was all articulated by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in his “12 points” plan. It demands the new agreement should also include all three elements of Iran’s illicit nuclear program: fissile materials, weaponization, and means of delivery.

Israel insists that a new deal should be achieved only after the regime comes clean about its past, admits to previous violations and declares its past inventory. Even then, it will not be enough. The JCPOA included dangerous sunset clauses that expired over the course of a decade. Those must be removed for decades, with stricter monitoring and verification.

Some say the right agreement would never be accepted by Tehran. Acquiescence to such an agreement would tantamount to regime change given that it would run counter to the “revolutionary” aims of the Islamic Republic. But that does not mean that America’s president, Democrat or Republican, should accept anything less.

In a nutshell Israel demands, regardless of who wins this November, there should be a “sanctions wall” in place, and it should not be easy to take down. These sanctions should punish the wide range of Iranian terrorist activities, human rights violations and aggressive behavior.

No matter who wins, there is a risk that the next administration will be too occupies with concerns about China, followed by Russia and North Korea, relegating Iran to a lesser priority. This might soften the ground for a less stringent nuclear deal. More must be done to avoid this.

Israel believes, Trump if wins has an opportunity between now and January 2021 to sanction Iran’s entire energy sector as part of its “maximum pressure” scheme. It can also blacklist all of Iran’s nuclear agency workers.

The Biden team has indicated that it may lift sanctions on Iran. Some of his advisers believe that sanctions relief will help achieve an agreement that can help in avoiding war. It is being opposed on the pretext that sanctions can help reach the right agreement and prevent war. Propagators of this philosophy insist that the threat of war can be helpful. Indeed, without a credible military threat, the Iranians won’t come to the table willing to negotiate real changes to the JCPOA.

One significant change since the last round of talks is the peace agreements between Israel and three Arab countries (the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and now Sudan). These countries and others strongly object to granting any concessions to Iran, in the nuclear file or with any of its other malign activities. The concerns of America’s regional partners were ignored last time but should not be ignored again. Their decisions to make peace with Israel were driven, in part, by their shared concerns about Iran and a future flawed deal.

Some former Israeli officials have recently suggested offering other red lines in a future Iran deal. However, others insist red lines do not yield desired results. They demand Israeli government should reject any compromises that give Iran the benefit of the doubt. The priority should be to convince the international community that business with Iran is off limits as long as its policies do not change.

Zarif urges neighbors to choose peace over tension

Iranian Foreign Minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif has urged neighboring countries to choose peace, security, stability and prosperity for all instead of remaining prisoners of the past and perpetuate instability and tension in the region.

Zarif made the remarks in an address to a virtual debate of the United Nations Security Council under the title “Maintenance of International Peace and Security: Comprehensive Review of the Situation in the Persian Gulf.”

Pointing to the Hormuz Peace Endeavor—or HOPE—that was proposed by President Rouhani in his address to the UN General Assembly last year, Zarif said Iran stands by that initiative which is the culmination of various Iranian proposals for security and confidence building in the Persian Gulf region.

He said in the past couple of decades, the region has been the scene of several wars, massive foreign military buildups, ensuing nightmare of extremism and terrorism, dangerous accumulation of the most sophisticated weaponry, and aggression and power projection by various actors.

The foreign minister added, “The disparities in power, geographic size, and natural and human resources are very real. Historical anxieties and rivalries among many regional countries cannot be overlooked.” 

“We know that most of our neighbors prefer peace and dialogue, but it cannot be achieved if one or two pursue confrontation and wishfully wait for alien vampires to ‘cut their neighbor’s head’. That delusion will never be realized.”

He named three flawed prescriptions that have caused catastrophic consequences, saying, “First, that you can purchase security from others: Be it from Saddam Hussein invading Iran on some of our neighbor’s behalf; or from the US coming to rescue our neighbors from the monster that they had together created; or through unprecedented purchase of military hardware.”

According to Zarif, the second flawed prescription is, “you can have security at the expense of the insecurity of your neighbors: Be it Iran, Kuwait or Qatar at one time or another.”

The third, he continued, “you can establish regional hegemony: Be it in Yemen, North Africa or the Horn of Africa.”

He condemned extra-regional actors for looking at the regional disparities, unending rivalries and new hegemonic illusions as opportunities to expand their military presence and to sell more weapons.

The United States has deployed nearly 50,000 troops in the Persian Gulf region in 29 military installations with more than 300 combat aircraft, he said, adding, “The US has at least one aircraft carrier patrolling our waters at any given time, as well as tens of destroyers and other vessels with four Central Command Headquarters for its Army and its Special Forces, Air Force and Navy.”

Zarif also voiced Tehran’s appreciation to the overwhelming majority of Security Council members for rejecting US efforts to kill the JCPOA and Security Council Resolution 2231. 

Iran does not intend to engage in any arms race in the region and start a buying spree in spite of the end of Security Council restrictions, the foreign minister highlighted.

Zarif called on regional countries to envisage a broad spectrum of cooperation and confidence building measures that include water management, environmental protection, nuclear safety, energy security, education, tourism, economic cooperation, trade, investment, poverty eradication and people empowerment.

 “We all have anxieties and grievances. Certainly, Iranians will never forget 8 years of an imposed war: the aggressor fully financed by our neighbors,” Zarif reminded the regional countries.

“We can choose to remain prisoners of the past and perpetuate instability and tension. Or, all of us—and I stress all—can choose peace, security, stability and prosperity for all. The choice, surely, should be obvious to everyone,” he concluded.

Iran marks end of arms embargo

On October 18, the global ban on the sale of conventional arms to Iran expired and opened the way for the Islamic Republic to import weapons, including warplanes and helicopter gunships, missiles, tanks, artillery and other weapon systems. The ban was imposed by UN Resolution 1929 in 2010. It was lifted as part of the 2015 nuclear deal – enshrined in UN resolution 2231 – as one of the incentives for Tehran to cooperate on its nuclear program. Iran was also allowed to export its domestically produced arms for the first time in a decade. 

Iran hailed the expiration of the arms embargo. “As of Sunday, we can purchase or sell arms from and to anyone we desire,” President Hassan Rouhani said. He noted that the United States had failed to extend the arms embargo in a new UN resolution. “Today is a momentous day for the international community ... in defiance of the US regime’s effort,” Iran’s foreign ministry said in a statement. In a tweet, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said “normalization of Iran’s defense cooperation with the world is a win for the cause of multilateralism and peace and security in our region.”

 In April, the Trump administration launched a diplomatic initiative at the United Nations to extend the embargo on the sale of conventional arms indefinitely. But on August 14, the Security Council roundly rejected the US resolution in one of the worst diplomatic defeats ever for Washington. Only two countries (the United States and the Dominican Republic) on the 15-member council voted for the resolution; two (Russia and China) rejected the resolution, and 11 nations abstained. To win passage, a Security Council resolution needs nine votes in favor and no vetoes from the Council’s five permanent members – Britain, France, China, Russia and the United States. In September, after the UN vote, the United States unilaterally reimposed UN sanctions despite criticism for other world powers.

As the embargo expired in mid-October, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo threatened to sanction any individual or company that supports Iran’s conventional weapons program. “Any nation that sells weapons to Iran is impoverishing the Iranian people by enabling the regime’s diversion of funds away from the people and toward the regime’s military aims,” he warned in a statement.

“Today is a momentous day for the international community, which in defiance of the U.S. regime’s efforts, has protected UN Security Council Resolution 2231 and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). As of today, all restrictions on the transfer of arms, related activities and financial services to and from the Islamic Republic of Iran, and all prohibitions regarding the entry into or transit through territories of the United Nations Member States previously imposed on a number of Iranian citizens and military officials, are all automatically terminated.

In one of the JCPOA’s innovations, the definitive and unconditional termination of arms restrictions and travel bans requires no new resolution, nor does it require any statement or any other measure by the Security Council. The lifting of arms restrictions and the travel ban were designed to be automatic with no other action required. This was achieved after painstaking negotiations, and with a prescient anticipation of the possibility of a breach of obligations by one or more of the other parties to the JCPOA. The very same procedure is applied for the termination of missile-related restrictions in the year 2023, and the subsequent conclusion of ‘consideration of the Iranian nuclear issue’ in the Security Council in the year 2025.

“Therefore, as of today, the Islamic Republic of Iran may procure any necessary arms and equipment from any source without any legal restrictions and solely based on its defensive needs, and may also export defensive armaments based on its own policies. It should be underlined here that rejecting imposition in any form is the cornerstone of Iran’s foreign policy. Therefore, the imposition of any restriction on any field—including finance, the economy, energy, and armaments—has never been recognized by Iran.

“At the same time, Iran’s defense doctrine is premised on strong reliance on its people and indigenous capabilities. Ever since the eight-year imposed war on Iran by Saddam Hussein’s regime—during which the Iranian people were victims of sophisticated and lethal weapons provided to Saddam by the West while Iran was deprived of procuring even the most basic defensive weaponry—the Islamic Republic of Iran has provided for its defensive needs through indigenous capacities and capabilities.

This doctrine has been and will continue to be the principal driver behind all measures of the Islamic Republic of Iran in maintaining its strong defensive power. Unconventional arms, weapons of mass destruction and a buying spree of conventional arms have no place in Iran’s defense doctrine. The country’s deterrence stems from native knowledge and capability, as well as our people’s power and resilience.