Iran thwarts attempt by United States to detain an oil tanker

In a major act of defiance, Iran announced Wednesday that it had foiled a US attempt to confiscate Iranian oil in the Sea of Oman, setting the stage for further Iranian defensive acts to protect its oil exports in the face of growing threats from the US to restrict Iran’s oil trade. 

The naval forces of Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) have launched a daring operation to protect Iran’s oil export after American forces confiscated a giant Iranian oil tanker in the Sea of Oman and transshipped its oil shipment to another oil tanker, the Iranian state media said on Wednesday. 

According to Iran’s state-run TV, the IRGC navy forces conducted a heliborne operation to return the seized oil cargo to Iran. The IRGC troops landed onboard the oil tanker carrying the seized oil and led it into Iran’s territorial waters. 

In the meantime, US forces sent several helicopters and destroyers in a bid to retake the oil tanker but the IRGC navy prevented them from doing so, according to Iranian media. 

The US made another effort to prevent Iran from taking the oil tanker but failed. 

The oil tanker is now in Iran’s territorial waters. Iranian media offered no further detail as to when the encounter happened and which country the seized oil tanker belongs to. 

The IRGC media office confirmed the encounter in a statement on Wednesday and said the oil tanker has docked at a Bandar Abbas port. The statement described the US move as “robbery.”

The United States has remained silent on Iran’s announcement. Of course, a US military official to Al-Jazeera, “The allegations of the Revolutionary Guard Corps about the Iranian oil tanker are not true.”

But the IRGC said it had “clear, telling, and undeniable images of the encounter” that would be shared with mass media. 

The episode marked the first time Iran and the U.S. engaged in a tense encounter since Joe Biden took office nearly a year ago. It also came against a backdrop of heightened tensions between Iran and the West over when to resume the stalled Vienna nuclear talks on how to revive a 2015 nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

On October 27, Iran said the Vienna talks will begin before the end of November. It also said on Monday the exact date for resuming the talks will be announced this week. 

While Iran’s return to Vienna remains under consideration, Washington and allies in Europe and the region ramped up their pressures on Iran both diplomatically and now economically. 

On the other hand, Iran called on the US to provide “objective guarantees” that Washington won’t renege on its commitments under a revived nuclear deal with Iran again.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh described US administrations as “rogue regimes” that are not reliable to work with. 

“Onus is on @POTUS to convince int'l community—incl all JCPOA participants—that his signature means something. For that, ‘objective guarantees’ needed. No one would accept anything less,” Khatibzadeh said on Twitter. 

But it seems that the US has refrained from offering such guarantees. The secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, Ali Shamkhani, likened the current state of play between Iran and the US to the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. 

“The attacks from Saddam were in progress / the sanctions continue. Part of Iran was under the enemy’s occupation / the Iranian nation’s economy has been held hostage. The combatants were defending (Iran) in the front line / The scientists proceed with the legal nuclear activities,” he said on Twitter. 

Just as Saddam Hussein when he offered to hold negotiations with Iran, Shamkhani continued, President Biden too, is not repentant for his policy on Iran. And he is not willing to offer guarantees, the top Iranian security official added. 

“In case the current situation does not change, the result of negotiations would be clear in advance,” he warned. 

Shamkhani’s remarks, along with reports of a hike in Iran’s oil exports in recent months that seem to be the main reason behind the latest encounter, were the latest sign that the resumption of negotiations between Iran and the West won’t affect Iran’s active resistance policy adopted after former US President Donald Trump launched his “maximum pressure” campaign against Tehran. 

Biden administration sanctions top Iranian military official

Biden administration on Friday sanctioned a top Iranian military official for his role in the July attack on an Israeli-managed commercial shipping vessel in the Gulf of Oman. In addition to that there was blacklisting a network of individuals and companies behind Iran’s Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) program. 

Iran’s drone program is a highly criticized aspect of its military support and operations in the Middle East against US forces and partners in the region. 

This includes actions in Syria, Iraq and Yemen; actions against Saudi and Israeli entities; and its reported use in Ethiopia’s brutal, yearlong civil war. 

“Iran’s proliferation of UAVs across the region threatens international peace and stability,” Deputy Treasury Secretary Wally Adeyemo said in a statement.

“Iran and its proxy militants have used UAVs to attack US forces, our partners, and international shipping. Treasury will continue to hold Iran accountable for its irresponsible and violent acts.”

The sanctions come days after US intelligence officials reportedly pointed to Iran as behind a drone attack on a military outpost in southern Syria where American forces reside, although no injuries were reported.  

Targeted individuals include Saeed Aghajani, Brigadier Beneral of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), who oversees the military unit’s drone command and directs the planning, equipment and training of drone operations, the Treasury Department said in a statement. 

Aghajani is described as orchestrating a July 29 attack on the commercial shipping vessel Mercer Street off the coast of Oman, killing two Romanian crew members. The incident was condemned by the US, the United Kingdom, Romania and Israel. The Israeli management office was located in London. 

The Treasury Department further said that Aghajani was behind the planning of a 2019 attack against oil refineries in Saudi Arabia, which temporarily disrupted global oil markets and risked triggering a larger, regional confrontation. 

Other sanctioned individuals include IRGC Brigadier General Abdollah Mehrabi, Chief of the IRGC Aerospace Force Research and Self-Sufficiency Jihad Organization. The Oje Parvaz Mado Nafar Company, co-owned by Mehrabi, was also sanctioned along with its Managing Director, Yousef Aboutalebi.

The Treasury sanctioned the Kimia Part Sivan Company (KIPAS), an Iranian-based company that the US says has worked with the IRGC's elite Quds Force to improve its UAV program, and blacklisted Mohammad Ebrahim Zargar Tehrani for helping KIPAS source UAV components from companies based outside of Iran. 

The sanctions block any property or interests held in the US by the blacklisted individuals or companies, prohibit American transactions with those sanctioned and put international financial institutions on notice that they risk being blocked from the U.S. market if they engage with sanctioned entities. 

Iran is likely to take issue with the sanctions amid its deliberations to return to international talks to reinvigorate the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the international nuclear agreement that former President Trump withdrew the United States from in 2018.

Iran has said it is likely to return to talks before the end of November. The sixth round of talks ended in April.

The intent of the JCPOA is to put strict limits on Iran's nuclear activities and subject it to intensive oversight, but critics of the agreement say it does little to curb Iran's other problematic behavior, such as its support for proxy fighting forces across the Middle East.

US foreign policy held hostage by Israel

Some might recall US Presidential candidate, Joe Biden’s pledge to work to rejoin the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that was a multilateral agreement intended to limit Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon.

The JCPOA was signed by President Barack Obama in 2015, when Biden was Vice President and was considered one of the only foreign policy successes of his eight years in office.

Other signatories to it were Britain, China, Germany, France, and Russia and it was endorsed by the United Nations. The agreement included unannounced inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities by the IAEA and, by all accounts, it was working and was a non-proliferation success story.

In return for its cooperation Iran was to receive its considerable assets frozen in banks in the United States and was also to be relieved of the sanctions that had been placed on it by Washington and other governments.

The JCPOA crashed and burned in 2018 when President Donald Trump ordered US withdrawal from the agreement, claiming that Iran was cheating and would surely move to develop a nuclear weapon as soon as the first phase of the agreement was completed.

Trump, whose ignorance on Iran and other international issues was profound, had surrounded himself with a totally Zionist foreign policy team, including members of his own family, and had bought fully into the arguments being made by Israel as well as by Israel Lobby predominantly Jewish groups to include the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

Trump’s time in office was spent pandering to Israel in every conceivable way, to include recognizing Jerusalem as the country’s capital, granting Israel the green light for creating and expanding illegal settlements on the West Bank and recognizing the occupied Syrian Golan Heights as part of Israel.

Given Trump’s record, most particularly the senseless and against-American-interests abandonment of JCPOA, it almost seemed a breath of fresh air to hear Biden’s fractured English as he committed his administration to doing what he could to rejoin the other countries who were still trying to make the agreement work.

After Biden was actually elected, more or less, he and his Secretary of State Tony Blinken clarified what the US would seek to do to fix the agreement by making it stronger in some key areas that had not been part of the original document.

Iran for its part insisted that the agreement did not need any additional caveats and should be a return to the status quo ante, particularly when Blinken and his team made clear that they were thinking of a ban on Iranian ballistic missile development as well as negotiations to end Tehran’s alleged interference in the politics of the region.

The interference presumably referred to Iranian support of the Palestinians as well as its role in Syria and Yemen, all of which had earned the hostility of American friends Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Israel inevitably stirred the pot by sending a stream of senior officials, to include Foreign Minister Yair Lapid, Defense Minister Benny Gantz and Prime Minister Naftali Bennett to discuss the Iranian threat with Biden and his top officials. Lapid made clear that Israel reserves the right to act at any given moment, in any way… We know there are moments when nations must use force to protect the world from evil. And to be sure, Biden, like Trump, has also made his true sentiments clear by surrounding himself with Zionists. Blinken, Wendy Sherman and Victoria Nuland have filled the three top slots at State Department; all are Jewish and all strong on Israel.

Nuland is a leading neocon. And pending is the appointment of Barbara Leaf, who has been nominated Assistant Secretary to head the State Department’s Near East region. She is currently the Ruth and Sid Lapidus Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), which is an AIPAC spin off and a major component in the Israel Lobby. That means that a member in good standing of the Israel Lobby would serve as the State Department official overseeing American policy in the Middle East.

At the Pentagon one finds a malleable General Mark Milley, always happy to meet his Israeli counterparts, and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, an affirmative action promotion who likewise has become adept at parroting the line “Israel has a right to defend itself.” And need one mention ardent self-declared Zionists at the top level of the Democratic Party, to include Biden himself, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and, of course, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer?

Rejoining the JCPOA over Israel objections was a non-starter from the beginning and was probably only mooted to make Trump look bad. Indirect talks including both Iran and the US technically have continued in Vienna, though they have been stalled since the end of June.

Trita Parsi has recently learned that Iran sought to make a breakthrough for an agreement by seeking a White House commitment to stick with the plan as long as Biden remains in office. Biden and Blinken refused and Blinken has recently confirmed that a new deal is unlikely, saying time is running out.

There have been some other new developments. Israeli officials have been warning for over twenty years that Iran is only one year away from having its own nukes and needs to be stopped, a claim that has begun to sound like a religious mantra repeated over and over, but now they are actually funding the armaments that will be needed to do the job.

Israeli Defense Force Chief of Staff Aviv Kohavi has repeatedly said the IDF is accelerating plans to strike Iran and Israeli politicians, including former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have regularly been threatening to do whatever must be done to deal with the threat from Iran. Israeli media is reporting that US$1.5 billion has been allocated in the current and upcoming budget to buy the American bunker buster bombs that will be needed to destroy the Iranian reactor at Bushehr and its underground research facilities at Natanz.

In the wake of the news about the war funding, there have also been reports that the Israeli Air Force is engaging in what is being described as intense drills to simulate attacking Iranian nuclear facilities.

After Israel obtains the 5000 pound bunker buster bombs, it will also need to procure bombers to drop the ordnance, and one suspects that the US Congress will come up with the necessary military aid to make that happen. Tony Blinken has also made clear that the Administration knows what Israel is planning and approves. He met with Israeli Foreign Minister Yair Lapid on October 13, 2021 and said if diplomacy with Iran fails, the US will turn to other options. He followed that up with the venerable line that Israel has the right to defend itself and we strongly support that proposition.

Lapid confirmed that one of Blinken’s options was military action. “I would like to start by repeating what the Secretary of State just said.  Yes, other options are going to be on the table if diplomacy fails. Eeverybody understands what does that mean. It must be observed that in their discussion of Iran’s nuclear program, Lapid and Blinnken were endorsing an illegal and unprovoked attack to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon that it is apparently not seeking, but which it will surely turn to as a consequence if only to defend itself in the future.

In short, US foreign policy is yet again being held hostage by Israel. The White House position is clearly and absurdly that an Israeli attack on Iran, considered a war crime by most, is an act of self-defense. However it turns out, the US will be seen as endorsing the crime and will inevitably be implicated in it, undoubtedly resulting in yet another foreign policy disaster in the Middle East with nothing but grief. The simple truth is that Iran has neither threatened nor attacked Israel.

Given that, there is nothing defensive about the actions Israel has already taken in sabotaging Iranian facilities and assassinating scientists, and there would be nothing defensive about direct military attacks either with or without US assistance on Iranian soil. If Israel chooses to play the fool it is on them and their leaders. The United States does not have a horse in this race and should butt out, but one doubt if a White House and Congress, firmly controlled by Zionist forces, have either the wisdom or the courage to cut the tie that binds with the Jewish state.

 

Iran to return to talks in November

On October 27, 2021, Iran’s lead negotiator announced the return to nuclear talks with the world’s six major powers by the end of November this year. 

Ali Bagheri, the new Deputy Foreign Minister, tweeted the announcement after meeting in Brussels with Enrique Mora, the EU coordinator for the talks.

In response, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said that the Europeans and the US negotiators would determine next steps. “Our framing continues to be compliance for compliance,” she told reporters. 

A return to negotiations in Vienna, however, is no guarantee that the diplomatic process will resolve the deep differences between Tehran and Washington over both substance and sequencing.

On substance, Iran wants guarantees that the United States will never reimpose sanctions if it returns to compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal, while the Biden administration says it cannot guarantee what another president might do.

On sequencing, Iran wants the United States to lift sanctions before Tehran reverses breaches that began in 2019, after the Trump administration abandoned the deal and reimposed sanctions. 

The Biden administration has stipulated that both countries must simultaneously return to their commitments in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

From April to June 2021, Iran and the world’s six major powers held six rounds of talks on restoring the 2015 nuclear deal. Diplomacy stalled in June during Iran’s presidential campaign and the political transition as Ebrahim Raisi took office and appointed his cabinet in August. The two main issues in the talks are lifting US sanctions and reversing Iran’s nuclear program that can be addressed in the following three likely scenario.

Scenario 1

President Raisi's team agrees to a deal that is marginally better for Iran than the package that was on the table in June. Although they were close to their bottom lines, both sides probably still have some maneuvering space. If they are willing to compromise, this would be the least costly option. It would provide the Raisi administration with an early political win, which could be framed as their victory given that the hardliners now control all levers of power and dominate the country’s media. It would also constitute a much needed economic reprieve amid a confluence of crises that Iran is facing, ranging from economic stagnation and social unrest to the raging COVID-19 pandemic.

The Biden administration, which has had a major setback in Afghanistan, would benefit not just by defusing a simmering nuclear crisis, but also by potentially paving the ground for de-escalation in Iraq and in the Gulf. This would allow Washington to shift its focus to the larger challenge of great power competition with China and Russia. The parties could then try to achieve a better-for-better deal that is more satisfactory for both sides and thus more stable than the JCPOA.

Scenario 2

Raisi's team drives a hard bargain and makes maximalist demands that are unacceptable to the United States and European powers. This is the most likely outcome because the Iranian leadership seems to believe that time is on its side. Iran sees an advantage in the exponential growth of its nuclear program. It also views the US leverage from sanctions as past its peak and now at the point of diminishing returns. Iran also believes that the West has no appetite for military confrontation. This calculus is underpinned by an optimistic view on Iran’s ability to remain afloat as its economy has stabilized and oil exports to China hover around a million barrels per day. 

In this scenario, Iran would insist that the United States lift all the sanctions that were imposed and reimposed since 2017, provide the sanctions relief upfront and allow several months for Tehran to verify its effectiveness. Iran would also demand guarantees. It is not hard to predict what comes next.

In 2005, when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to power, Iran pursued a similar confrontational approach, which led to 10 years of mutual escalation in what can be called the race of sanctions against centrifuges. It was a lose-lose game for both sides and brought them to the brink of military confrontation.

Renegotiating the package that has been coming together in six rounds of talks is not going to shift Washington’s bottom lines or core demands, but it risks bringing down the JCPOA. This is primarily because there are pressure points on the timeline. The United States and European powers are increasingly concerned that Iran’s advances are approaching the point of irreversibility, making the existing agreement, even if fully restored, insufficient.

At the same time, Iran is in a standoff with the IAEA over access for its inspectors and outstanding issues with regards to Iran’s past nuclear activities. If these issues are not resolved before the end of 2021, another referral to the UN Security Council is almost certain.

Scenario 3

Raisi's team seeks to negotiate a new deal to replace the JCPOA. A consensus seems to have emerged among the Iranian hardliners, who now control all levers of power that the JCPOA was flawed from the beginning and that its restoration is futile as it will only produce the same outcome ‑ depriving Iran of its nuclear leverage with an empty promise of economic incentives, followed by a return of sanctions. This approach has a lot of appeal to those in Tehran and Washington who deem the JCPOA inadequate and seek a more advantageous agreement, JCPOA-Plus. 

Kayhan, the daily whose editor in chief is appointed by the Supreme Leader, recently wrote, “The JCPOA must change is the one issue upon which Iran and the US converge.” But the path to a new deal is likely to pass through a risky escalation. 

Iran might up the nuclear ante further, prompting the United States to impose more coercive measures, both looking for more leverage ahead of a return to talks. Iran, as it has already indicated in the six rounds of talks in Vienna, would want more sanctions relief, including from US primary sanctions. They were the main obstacle to the Iranian banking sector’s return to the US$-dominated global financial system after the United States lifted sanctions in 2016. Iran also wants compensation for damages incurred during the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign. 

The path to a JCPOA-Plus does not need to be so treacherous. One option to avoid the escalatory cycle would be to quickly strike an arrangement that amounts to a JCPOA-Minus. Iran could agree to freeze proliferation-sensitive activities, including uranium enrichment above 3.67 percent, advanced centrifuge work, and uranium metal production. In return, the Western powers could accept an agreed-upon level of oil exports and/or partial access to its frozen assets.

An interim arrangement could cap the immediate nuclear proliferation crisis, deliver economic reprieve for Iran, and buy time for the parties to negotiate parameters of a more-for-more JCPOA-Plus that addresses their broader demands. One pertinent question here is whether such an interim agreement would trigger the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (INARA) of 2015 – a US law requiring any new deal with Iran to be subject to a congressional review, but a JCPOA-Minus is not a new deal, it is a waystation toward the original agreement.

Angry Americans Hysterical Reactions

After Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi virtually addressed the 76th United Nations General Assembly, many political analysts commented on the contents of his speech. However, what is interesting is that the authors of the JCPOA are crying over an empty coffin. 

To examine this issue, let’s review what the president told the UN General Assembly.

“Sanctions are the US new way of war with the nations of the world,” Raisi said at his speech. 

Is this a remark that anyone can object it? No. The fact is the United States has imposed crippling sanctions against Iran cannot be denied. Even the American or hardliner Israeli analysts admit this. As the Iranian president rightfully said, sanctions against the Iran started “not with my country’s nuclear program; they even predate the Islamic Revolution and go back to the year 1951 when oil nationalization went underway in Iran…”

The United States went too far in its illegal sanctions on Iran to the extent that strict financial sanctions even impeded the import of medicine and medical equipment to Iran at the time of the global Coronavirus pandemic. There is little doubt that the Americans committed medical terrorism against the Iranian people. Raisi also pointed to this fact in his speech.

“Sanctions, especially on medicine at the time of the COVID-19 pandemic, are crimes against humanity,” he said.

He also emphasized, “I, on behalf of the Iranian nation and millions of refugees hosted by my country, would like to condemn the continued illegal US sanctions especially in the area of humanitarian items, and demand that this organized crime against humanity be recorded as a symbol and reality of the so-called American human rights.”

Soon after the speech, a network of analysts and commentators started bashing Raisi, as well as screaming over a revival of the JCPOA. Since Raisi administration took the power in early August, Iran started to patiently evaluate the situation to return to the negotiations table. In a phone call on 14th September 201 with former British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab, Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian said that Iran is in the process of “consultations on how to continue the Vienna talks,. He reiterated to welcome negotiations that have tangible results and secure the rights and interests of the Iranian people.”   

This is what the Iranian president had previously touched on during first TV interview on 5th September.

“Negotiation is an option as a tool for diplomacy, but negotiation under pressure and threats is not acceptable at all,” Raisi insisted.

After Raisi’s speech, Ali Vaez, Director of Iran Project and Senior Advisor to the Crisis Group tweeted, “.@raisi_com’s speech at #UNGA was one of the most anti-American speeches I’ve heard from an Iranian president in years.” 

Barbara Slavin, Director of the Future of Iran Initiative at the Atlantic Council, replied to Vaez’s tweet, saying, “As harsh as @Ahmadinejad1956 but more coldly rational. Did you notice at the end, #Raisi said #Iran wanted 'large scale economic and political cooperation with all countries of the world? We need to remember, as well, that he is only the front man, not the decider.” 

Yet, the most predictable strategy was outlined by the CEO of The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), Mark Dubowitz.

He tweeted, “Raisi’s new negotiating team will ask for total sanctions relief and give less than the JCPOA. @USEnvoyIran @Rob_Malley will give them 97% and then pretend that they held the line and that there’s a “longer and stronger” deal to be had.”

It seems that the thinkers, who helped draft the JCPOA, don’t agree with the text anymore, as it ostensibly contradicts their desires. The plan is now clear. Bashing Raisi and his foreign policy team with every tool in order to write a “longer and stronger” deal to satisfy desires is not helpful at all. But what is really a longer and stronger deal? 

The United States has always been interested in dragging the Iranian missile program into the negotiations. For eight years, since the intensive negotiations started, Iran has made it crystal clear that its defensive capabilities are not up for negotiations. Yet, the United States is using various pressure tools to impose a deal on Iran. Iran has always reiterated that it will only go back to the original 2015 JCPOA text, if and only if the US verifiably lifts all sanctions. 

As for Raisi’s speech, he condemned US terrorism and extremism in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, asked for the lifting of all sanctions, and restated that Iran will return to the Vienna talks were intended to revitalize the nuclear deal.

If this is too harsh for the Crisis Group, then it shows that the JCPOA revival is not their concern. Had it been so, they would not have objected to a rational speech in which Raisi insisted on the need to lift sanctions. It is advised that the thinkers would not shed crocodile tears over the JCPOA revival. 

Prospects of US joining JCPOA getting bleaker

According to an AP report, Biden administration officials are insisting that the election of a hard-liner as Iran’s president won’t affect reviving the 2015 nuclear deal with Tehran. But, there are signs that prospects of concluding a deal are getting bleaker.

Optimism that a deal was imminent faded as the talks ended on Sunday without tangible indications of significant progress. On Monday, in his first public comments since the vote, incoming Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi rejected a key Biden goal of expanding on the nuclear deal if negotiators are able to salvage the old one.

Raisi is likely to raise the Iran’s demands for sanctions relief in return for Iranian compliance with the deal, as he himself is already subject to US human rights penalties.

“I don’t envy the Biden team,” said Karim Sadjapour, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace who has advised multiple US administrations on Iran. “I think the administration now has a heightened sense of urgency to revise the deal before Raisi and a new hard-line team is inaugurated.”

President Joe Biden and his team have made the US return to the deal one of their top foreign policy priorities. The deal was one of President Barack Obama’s signature achievements; one that aides now serving in the Biden administration had helped negotiate and that Donald Trump repudiated and tried to dismantle as president.

Despite Raisi’s impending presidency, Biden administration officials insist prospects for reaching an agreement are unaltered. They argue that Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who signed off the 2015 deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), will make the final decision, regardless of who is president.

“The president’s view and our view is that the decision leader is the supreme leader,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Monday. “That was the case before the election; it’s the case today; it will be the case probably moving forward.”

“Iran will have, we expect, the same supreme leader in August as it will have today, as it had before the elections, as it had in 2015 when the JCPOA was consummated for the first time,” State Department spokesman Ned Price said.

But hopes for substantial progress fizzled last week ahead of the Iranian election amid a flurry of speculation about the impact of the vote on the indirect talks between Iran and the US in Vienna. Diplomats and others familiar with the talks had thought the last round, the sixth, could produce at least a tangible result even if it fell short of a full deal.

Now, that round has ended and a seventh round has yet to be scheduled as Raisi, Iran’s conservative judiciary chief, brandished an absolute rejection of anything more than Iran’s bare minimum compliance with the 2015 agreement in exchange for a lifting all of US sanctions.

In his public comments Monday, Raisi brushed aside US calls for Iran to agree to follow-on discussions on expanding the initial nuclear deal to include its ballistic missile program and its support for regional groups that the US designates terrorist organizations.

“It’s nonnegotiable,” Raisi said’

Iran experts agree it will be a tough, if not impossible, for Biden to get Iran to go beyond the nuclear agreement.

“I’m very skeptical that once we’ve lifted the sanctions to get them to return they’ll feel any incentive to come back and negotiate more concessions,” Sadjapour said. “And, if we coerce them with sanctions to come back to the table, they’ll argue that we’ve abrogated our end of the nuclear deal again.”

Critics of the nuclear deal maintain that the administration has already given away too much in exchange for too little by signaling its desire to repudiate Trump’s repudiation of the nuclear deal. And, they say that even if Iran agrees to some sort of additional talks, the pledge will be meaningless.

“It was pretty obvious that the Iranians were never going to negotiate in good faith beyond the JCPOA,” said Rich Goldberg, a Trump administration National Security Council official who has espoused a hard line on Iran.

“But now, even if the administration gets some sort of face-saving language from the Iranians about future talks, Raisi has already said they’re not interested. The jig is up,” he said. “You can’t come back to a skeptical Congress, allies and deal opponents and say the promise means anything it means when Raisi has already said it doesn’t.”

But administration officials are adamant that as good as the nuclear deal is, it is insufficient and must be improved on.

“We do see a return to compliance as necessary but insufficient, but we also do see a return to compliance as enabling us to take on those other issues diplomatically,” Price said, adding that the point had been made clear to the Iranians “in no uncertain terms.”

An additional complication is that Raisi will become the first serving Iranian president sanctioned by the US government even before entering office, in part over his time as the head of Iran’s internationally criticized judiciary — a situation that could complicate state visits and speeches at international forums such as the United Nations.

Psaki and Price both said that the US will continue to hold Raisi accountable for human rights violations for which he was sanctioned by the Trump administration.

Trump withdrew from the nuclear deal in 2018 and set about a “maximum pressure” campaign on Iran that included re-instating all the sanctions eased under the agreement along with adding a host of new ones.

Will Ebrahim Raisi be next President of Iran?

Ebrahim Raisi, from the hard-liner camp, is being termed handpicked candidate of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei for the position of President as well as eventual pick to succeed himself. His positive statement toward Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) turned many heads. The front-runner and Judiciary Chief, Raisi has embraced the possibility of returning to the 2015 nuclear deal as long as Iran’s interests are met.

Raisi made the statement in a series of presidential debates that have been taking place since last week in the lead up to Presidential Election scheduled for 18th June 2021.

A mark of his campaign has been Iranian self-resilience and the “resistance economy” having the ability to overcome American sanctions by producing more critical items for everyday life domestically.

In general, Raisi has slammed current President Hassan Rouhani and his pragmatist camp as being too compromising with the United States and the West.

In contrast, his recent statement that he would not oppose a return to the JCPOA in the right circumstances is not that different from Rouhani and pragmatist policy.

The main difference between the hard-liner and pragmatist camp may simply be a matter of months.

If Rouhani would have preferred a return to the deal before the 18th June Election, both to enhance his legacy and to empower another pragmatist candidate, the latest predictions are that Raisi and Khamenei prefer that a deal wait until August, when the new president would take office.

Raisi’s somewhat pro-JCPOA statement was also noteworthy as in an earlier debate he had been criticized for undermining relations with the West and his response had evaded addressing the JCPOA as an issue head-on.

His follow-up answer in a later debate could signal a clear process to prepare the hard-liner base for compromising with the West and the US in substance, even if the tone will continue to be one of conflict.

During the presidential election of 2017, Raisi made some similar election season statements moderating his stance that he would abide by the JCPOA despite his and the hard-liners’ frequent criticism of talks with the West.

However, in that election Rouhani defeated Raisi, who came in second place with almost 16 million votes, or close to 40% of actual voters.

This time, Khamenei’s Guardian Council disqualified all viable contenders from rival camps who could have beaten Raisi, including even the current vice president and a former parliamentary speaker, reportedly to guarantee his victory.

None of the six other candidates approved to run are viewed as serious national contenders and the debates are viewed by many Iranians as going through the motions.

Experts predict the election turnout could be an all-time low, but by holding debates with six other candidates and making positive statements about the JCPOA, the hard-liners appear to be trying to build Raisi’s legitimacy to some degree.

Does change in MBS tone mean change of heart also?

Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler, Mohammad bin Salman (MBS) has expressed desire to mend ties with Iran for the first time in years, but refrained from offering any goodwill gesture to build confidence between two rivals, Saudi Arabia and Iran. In a dramatic change in his views on Iran, MBS called for a ‘distinguished relationship’. 

“At the end of the day, Iran is a neighboring country. All we ask for is to have a good and distinguished relationship with Iran. We do not want the situation with Iran to be difficult. On the contrary, we want it to prosper and grow as we have Saudi interests in Iran, and they have Iranian interests in Saudi Arabia, which is to drive prosperity and growth in the region and the entire world,” the Saudi crown prince said in a recent televised interview.

He also expressed hope that his country would be able to overcome some challenges affecting Iranian-Saudi relations. “We really hope we would overcome them and build a good and positive relationship with Iran that would benefit all parties,” MBS pointed out. 

Public diplomacy between Iran and Saudi Arabia came after several Western media outlets reported that the two countries held direct talks in Baghdad in early April for the first time in at least five years. These talks are widely expected to continue in the coming weeks especially after Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif visited a number of regional countries ‑ Iraq, Qatar, Oman, and Kuwait ‑ enjoying good relations with Tehran and some of them with both Tehran and Riyadh. 

During his regional tour, Zarif once again presented the long-standing Iranian peace initiative Hormuz Peace Endeavor (HOPE), which is mainly intended to foster dialogue among regional states on security. 

Zarif’s tour raised speculations over a possible exchange of messages between Tehran and Riyadh. The Arab Weekly, a publication close to the United Arab Emirates, has put Zarif’s visits into a broader context of de-escalation between Iran and Saudi Arabia, implying that the tour is aimed at bridging the divide between long-standing rivals and launch a dialogue between them.

Regardless of the motivation behind Zarif’s visits, relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia seem to be experiencing a period of de-escalation of tension, at least for now. Whether this easing would continue for a long time or advance to a full-fledged restoration of diplomatic ties remains to be seen.

Saudis demonstrated little enthusiasm about mending ties with Iran beyond a change of tone that was more likely necessitated by the changing dynamics of the region’s politics after Joe Biden moved into the White House. The Saudi apparent flexibility came amid renewed US diplomatic efforts to put an end to the world’s worst humanitarian crisis in Yemen. 

Right from the start, Joe Biden made it clear to the Saudis that the days of full US support for their regional adventurism are over. He started his new Saudi policy by focusing more attention on the Yemen crisis, naming a special envoy for the war-torn country. He then announced that his administration would pursue diplomacy with Iran to revive the 2015 nuclear deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), from which the Trump administration withdrew in May 2018.

Saudis first called on the United States to include them in the ongoing Vienna nuclear talks and expand the JCPOA in a way that encompasses other thorny issues such as Iran’s missile program and its regional influence. The US rejected the call to include the Saudis in the nuclear talks, while assuring them that these talks will not harm their interests. 

Facing a changing international environment, the Saudis seem to have decided to tone down their rhetoric against Iran and increase diplomatic contacts with the US and other Western powers. The diplomatic maneuver of MBS is not likely to heal the wounds Iranian-Saudi relations suffered in the past few years because this move is not driven by a genuine desire to change, but to realign him with the Biden administration.

Iranian presidential elections and fate of JCPOA negotiations

The next elections in Iran are scheduled for 18th June 2021. It is but obvious that the best efforts of President Rouhani’s team would be to get the sanctions imposed on the country removed and make a place for themselves in the history. He has stated that within the last 100 days of his presidency he would be able to get the sanctions lifted and relieve the economy.

As against this, the European countries, especially those not too keen in removing the sanctions may chose to slow down the process. Their choice would be to pressurize the newly elected regime to agree on revised terms and conditions.

The Vienna negotiations entered their third week on Tuesday 27th April 2021. Seyed Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s top negotiator, described the last meeting of the Joint Commission of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Actions (JCPOA) ‘on the right track’.

 However, it is evident that a confrontation is going on. Iran, China and Russia unanimously and unequivocally called for the immediate lifting of the sanctions. Iran is patiently waiting for E3 (Germany, France and Britain) to call on the US to lift all the sanctions.

But that is unlikely to happen, as E3 has shown in the past that they have no free will of their own. Time and again, they have followed what the US has said.

The Biden administration is said to be looking into possibilities of easing banking, oil and finance sanctions on Iran. Immediate removal of all sanctions in a verifiable way is the only demand Iran has.

The JCPOA experience proves that when sanctions are lifted on paper, nothing practical is done. After the JCPOA, Iran kept struggling with issues such as transferring its money withheld in other countries. 

The Biden administration must understand that delaying tactics will not help. Leader of the Islamic Revolution is asking all sides not to engage in ‘erosive and prolonged’ negotiations, but expedite the process. Yet, the United States keeps saying that they do not want to rush into a deal. 

“We expect this to be a long process. And we're very much at just the beginning period,” Jen Psaki, the White House spokesperson, said on April 8.

The US seems to be insisting that the negotiations would take longer than expected. History suggests that the US is likely to wait and see what happens in the elections, as they reportedly did in 2013, when John Kerry halted the negotiations. 

There are many details that need to be ironed out. For example, the sanctions on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), along with the sanctions on the office of Ayatollah Khamenei, Leader of the Islamic Revolution, need to be resolved. According to the Wall Street Journal, there is a big difference of opinion about the removal of sanctions on these two sides.

As regards stance of potential presidential candidates, they have announced their plans for the continuation of negotiations, if elected.

Rostam Ghasemi, former Minister of Petroleum during Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s administration and a presidential candidate, stated that sanctions removal is his first priority, and he will take the control of the negotiations himself if elected. 

Making the sanctions ineffective is his next priority. “If I want to negotiate, I will strengthen the country’s economy,” Ghasemi said.

“We should change the ‘imploring diplomacy’ to the diplomacy of power,” he said on his possible government’s diplomacy.

He added that the United States “must return to the JCPOA without any preconditions.”

Saeed Jalili, another potential and highly anticipated presidential candidate, is expected to continue the negotiations if elected. Based on his past experience as the Secretary General of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, and him being Iran’s Chief Nuclear Negotiator between 2010 and 2013, it is likely that he would continue the negotiations. 

Saeed Mohammad, the former Director of Khatam-al -Anbiya Construction Headquarters and a mysterious figure to many Iranians, has officially announced that he is running for president.

He has also declared that he is open to negotiations, on the condition that Iran “strengthens itself internally.” 

Saudis and Israelis don’t approve JCPOA talks

According to media reports, with Iran and world powers resumed nuclear talks, Saudi Arab and Israel also intensified consultations. Washington and Tel Aviv on the one hand and Washington and the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council on the other hand are having extensive talks. 

Both, Israel and Saudi Arabia wants to influence any US move to return to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, which they have publicly opposed right from the beginning.

As the Iranian negotiating team head to the Austrian capital of Vienna, a senior Israeli delegation comprising of Mossad Chief Yosef Cohen, Head of Military Intelligence Tamir Hayman, and National Security Adviser Meir Ben-Shabbat also arrived in Washington for talks. Chief of Staff of the Israeli Army Aviv Kochavi was also supposed to join the delegation but the recent hike in Israel-Gaza tensions forced him to cancel his trip to Washington.

The visiting delegation met with several high-level Biden officials including National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley and senior US military and intelligence officials. The focus of the conversations is squarely on the terms of the US return to the 2015 nuclear deal. 

Sullivan and Ben-Shabbat held their first in-person meeting since Joe Biden entered the White House. The US and Israeli officials discussed their serious concerns about advancements in Iran’s nuclear program in recent years. The United States updated Israel on the talks in Vienna and emphasized strong US interest in consulting closely with Israel on the nuclear issue going forward. The US and Israel agreed on the significant threat posed by Iran’s aggressive behavior in the region.

Following the meeting of Sullivan and Ben-Shabbat, the White House said the US and Israel agreed to establish a new group to counter Iran’s drones and missiles.

The United States and Israel agreed to establish an inter-agency working group to focus particular attention on the growing threat of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Precision Guided Missiles produced by Iran, claiming that these weapons are being provided to proxy groups in the West Asia region. 

Also US Special Envoy for Iran Robert Malley held talks with Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan alongside officials from the countries of the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). Malley said he discussed the Arab officials the situation around the JCPOA and the Vienna nuclear talks. 

The US discussions with Saudi Arabia aim to persuade them the US return to the 2015 nuclear deal will not harm their own interests. But this is exactly what the Obama administration told the Saudis and the Israelis after signing the JCPOA in 2015. Instead of supporting the deal, the Saudis and Israelis joined forces to kill the deal and the Trump came into power, they saw a new opportunity to scrub the deal. They may have even thought that the JCPOA would never be revived given the blows the Trump administration delivered to it. This may explain why they are so anxious about the JCPOA being revived after four years of anti-JCPOA rhetoric from Washington. 

If the Biden administration is really keen to revive the JCPOA, it needs to be aware of any possible unconstructive efforts on the part of the Saudis and Israelis because they have never been proponents of the deal and they are unlikely to change their mind just because there is a new president in the White House. Of course, they may stop short of calling on the Biden administration to refrain from rejoining the JCPOA but they will certainly ask the U.S. to at least make some amendments to the original deal, something that will be opposed by other signatories to the JCPOA namely Russia and Iran. 

Mikhail Ulyanov, Russia’s permanent representative to international organizations in Vienna, has recently said that the negotiators in Vienna have come to conclude that regional security and missile production are different from curbing Iran’s nuclear program.

Curbing Iran's nuclear program is a different matter from regional security and missile production. At the end of two rounds of talks in Vienna to revive the JCPOA, it was clear to all participants that only by reviving the original agreement could achieve the goals. No new terms or clauses needs to be added. Iran has strongly rejected any attempt to expand the JCPOA, while calling on the US to remove its sanctions. 

Return of Iran to oil market doesn’t pose any threat to producers

The ongoing JCPOA discussions are being watched by international oil markets closely. The possibility of Washington rejoining the international Iranian nuclear agreement is still in doubt, but the Biden Administration appears to be considering the move. Iran has indicated that it will only rejoin JCPOA if US sanctions on its main economic sectors, namely oil and gas, are lifted.

Some of the analysts are worried about the possible negative repercussions of Iranian oil on global oil supply and oil prices. The current global oil market is gaining stability, but a complete recovery is far from certain. It is only due to Saudi Arabia’s actions that markets have been able to rebound.

One of the main reasons Saudi Arabia has been able to make these unilateral production cuts is that other producers have been kept out of the market. Both Iran and Venezuela have seen their production constrained by international sanctions, while Libya and Iraq are suffering from internal conflicts.

Without these players in the market, Saudi Arabia is able to successfully control oil markets. The lifting of Iranian sanctions under JCPOA deal worries Arab producers, US shale, and Russia. These worries can be termed ‘unfounded’.

Some analysts argue that a JCPOA success could destabilize oil and gas markets, increase price volatility, and even see a return of oil gluts. There is a major flaw in this narrative because it is based on the assumption that the sanctions have successfully removed Iranian oil from markets. It is certainly true that Iranian volumes are no longer at historic highs, but looking at volumes reaching markets, Iranian oil is still very visible.

Oil and tanker trackers have been showing again and again that Iranian oil exports are not only very flexible, but also increasingly aggressively. The IEA reported that China never completely stopped its purchases of Iranian oil. The OECD energy watchdog also said that Iran’s estimated oil sales to China in the fourth quarter of 2020 were at 360,000 barrels a day (bpd), up from an average of 150,000 bpd shipped in the first nine months of last year.

Just before the JCPOA discussions restarted, Iran increased exports to China to around 600,000 bpd. OPEC also reported that Iran's crude oil output increased in March 2021 by 6.3%. OPEC report published lately showed that Iran’s crude output had surged by 137,000 bpd. OPEC data also showed that Iran’s average output in 2020 hovered at 1.985 million bpd, down from 2.356 million bpd recorded in 2019 and 3.553 million bpd in 2018. Major Asian clients in China, India, and elsewhere are much too happy to take Iranian volumes based on their very low price. To forget or diminish the role of Iranian oil at present in the market is a major error.

A JCPOA success would not only threaten oil prices, but could also lead to an increase in Tehran’s revenue base. Currently, Iranian oil export successes are based on illegally or partly “not-known” sales to customers, at lower prices but still generating cash. If sanctions on oil exports are removed, Tehran won’t only see higher export volumes but it will also stop selling its crude at a discount. Iranian oil could, and most probably will, be priced at normal market price levels.

In the short term, a potentially higher revenue stream could be generated, based on higher volumes. At the same time, Tehran should take into account the fact that customers will not be willing maybe to take Iranian volumes at higher prices. The current demand-supply situation doesn’t allow for millions of additional barrels to hit the market.

In the coming months, Iranian volumes will not increase at all, regardless of how successful the JCPOA discussions are.  With overall Iran oil export potential of around 2 million bpd, current exports are estimated around one million bpd, the markets will not be shocked. Demand is still weak, and it is being threatened again as COVID’s 3rd wave in Europe is blocking the opening of markets, and Asia’s emerging giant India is recording an increase of COVID casualties. 

Iran’s oil potential and exports are unlikely to derail the market. Looking at the OPEC plus strategies and cohesion, another one million bpd on the market coming from Iran will not be a shock to the system. The market is not able to take more volumes, while Iranian clients are unlikely to be willing to increase costs. It will be interesting to watch how investors decide to price these events into oil markets. Looking at the current fundamentals, OPEC plus leaders are still the real power players in the oil market.

Lifting US sanctions on Iran not an easy job

The most complicated issue in the United States-Iran relationship is the intertwined US sanctions, which were aimed at punishing the Islamic Republic on multiple counts and in the worst possible manner. 

These include from activities related to the nuclear program and support of terrorism to missile proliferation and human rights abuses. Some of Iran’s major institutions, including the Central Bank Iran, were sanctioned, both for their roles supporting the nuclear program and for aiding the alleged terrorist attacks by proxy militias.

The Biden administration wants to lift the sanctions related to Iran’s nuclear program – as promised in the 2015 deal – if Tehran, in turn, rolls back recent breaches of the nuclear deal. The complicating factor in current and future diplomacy is that key Iranian institutions and individuals could remain sanctioned for secondary reasons, thus not providing Iran the economic relief it seeks.

Iran’s oil industry, the country’s main source of export revenue, is a prime example. Biden could lift sanctions on NIOC for its role in funding programs on weapons of mass destruction. But it would remain sanctioned for financially facilitating terrorism orchestrated by the Revolutionary Guards. The same problem of overlapping sanctions could arise in any future talks about Iran’s missile program because institutions involved in proliferation are also sanctioned for supporting regional terrorism.

The Biden administration has the authority to provide temporary exemption from sanctions; it would keep sanctions in place legally but nullify their effects until the Treasury formally revokes sanctions. “Iran is unlikely to be satisfied with such an approach and could demand formal removal of counter terrorism sanctions on these entities, a move that would be hugely unpopular in US domestic circles,” Brian O'Toole wrote for the Atlantic Council.

The issue of sanctions was further complicated when President Donald Trump abandoned the nuclear deal—brokered by the world’s six major powers over two years of intense diplomacy—in 2018. He then re-imposed earlier sanctions from the Bush and Obama administrations that had been lifted when the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was implemented in 2016. He also took the unusual step of sanctioning Iran’s banking and oil sectors for funding the Revolutionary Guards and extremist proxies across the Middle East.

On April 2, Iran has begun indirect talks in Vienna with the United States on returning to compliance with the JCPOA. The Iranian delegation included representatives from the Central Bank of Iran and the Petroleum Ministry, which reflected Tehran’s interest in sanctions relief.

Therefore, there is an urgent need to assess the sanction imposed on Central Bank of Iran, National Iranian Oil Company, National Iranian Tanker Company, National Petrochemical Company, Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines and 18 commercial banks. The filth of more than four decades can’t be cleaned in a few days or months.

Israeli attack on Iranian ship Saviz indicates change in modus operandi

An Iranian vessel was attacked in the Red Sea as Iran and the West resumed nuclear talks in Vienna to revive the 2015 nuclear deal between Tehran and major world powers. Saudi and American media outlets claimed that Israel was behind the attack. The Saudi-owned Al Arabiya reported that an “Israeli commando” attached “a magnetic explosive device” to an Iranian vessel in the Red Sea.

The Tasnim news agency confirmed the attack and identified the vessel as “Iran Saviz.” It reported “The incident happened after the explosion of limpet mines attached to the hull of the ship.”

A day later, Iran officially commented on the issue. The Iranian Foreign Ministry issued a statement confirming the attack.

“The Iranian merchant ship Saviz sustained minor damage in the Red Sea off the coast of Djibouti on April 6, 2021, due to an explosion, the cause of which is being investigated,” Saeed Khatibzadeh, the Ministry’s spokesman said. 

He said the vessel has been deployed to the region in coordination with the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and it has been involved in ensuring maritime security. 

“As already officially announced and based on the arrangements made with the IMO, the non-military Saviz ship had been stationed in the Red Sea region and the Gulf of Aden in order to ensure maritime security along shipping lanes and to counter pirates,” explained the spokesman.

“The ship practically served as Iran’s logistical station (for technical support and logistics) in the Red Sea; so, the specifications and mission of this vessel had already been officially announced to the International Maritime Organization,” he added.

Iran didn’t point the finger at anyone. But, The New York Times suggested that Israel was behind the attack. “The Israelis had notified the United States that its forces had struck the vessel,” the American newspaper quoted a US official as saying.

Although, the official said that the Israelis had termed the attack ‘retaliation’ for alleged earlier Iranian strikes on Israeli vessels, but the timing of the attack strongly indicated a link between the resumption of nuclear talks in Vienna and Israeli efforts to derail those talks.

The Times implicitly pointed to this link, saying the attack came as progress was reported on the first day of the Vienna talks, which are aimed to revive the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) - the very deal that Israel has been working hard to sabotage since 2015.

Therefore, Israel may have intended to send a message to the Biden administration that it will do whatever it can to prevent a revival of the JCPOA. Israel’s modus operandi in the latest attack also suggests a change in Israel’s approach. Israel has reportedly been involved in a shadowy naval war with Iran in recent years.

Several Western news media reported that Israel has been attacking Iranian vessels carrying oil and other commodities since 2019 in a bid to spoil Iran’s economic ties with other countries. These attacks mostly went unnoticed and Israel refused to publicize them until most recently. 

The Israelis would often attack Iranian commercial ships deep into the night using helicopters equipped with machine guns from a distance of many kilometers, a source familiar with the matter told the Tehran Times. 

The Israeli attacks were more of a harassment nature than an operation meant to inflict real damage, according to the source. 

The attack on the Saviz, however, indicates a new modus operandi. First, it was reportedly done with a limpet mine attached to the hull of the Iranian vessel by an Israeli commando. Second, it was carried out early in the morning, a clear indication that the attacker wanted it to be publicized. Leaking the news of the attack to Al Arabiya and The New York Times left little doubt about the intention of the attacker. 

Israel seems to be busy working to prevent the US from returning to its commitments under the JCPOA. If the US is willing to revive the nuclear deal then it needs to pay more attention to Israeli machinations. 

Biden not likely to take any bold action against Iran or Saudi Arabia

Within a very short span of time, it has become evident that President of United States, Joe Biden is not likely to take any bold actions, especially with regard to the Middle East. 

Khashoggi killing was a test case for Biden, who had promised to penalize the Saudi crown prince, but his administration exempted him. This raises serious questions about his proclamation of upholding human rights.

In his election campaign, Biden pledged to reverse Trump's policies and make fundamental changes in US foreign policy. Some observers doubt he can make any significant difference. There is hardly any difference between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to foreign policy of the United States. The conservative-liberal divide appears more significant when it comes to domestic policies.

Biden administration has imposed a ban on some Saudi officials for the Khashoggi killing. But it was not extended to bin Salman. Many believe Biden is not serious when he is talking about human rights, especially with reference to Saudi Arabia.

It may not be wrong to say human rights issues never determine the US foreign policy, it is just a propaganda tools. The mantra is used against hostile states and not the friendly ones. Saudi Arabia is still a US ally and the US does not want to undermine its relations with Riyadh.

It was the United States that pulled out of JCPOA unilaterally in 2018, but Biden administration is not taking concrete steps to rejoin and lifting the sanctions imposed on Iran unilaterally. Biden wants to use the existing sanctions to force Iran to agree to talks on other issues.

Biden policies towards Iran seem even more confusing because he is trying to keep Trump's sanctions in place as well as talking about diplomacy. He wants to force Iran to make some basic concessions, such as reducing its missile program and changing its regional strategy. Biden wants to achieve these goals through diplomacy. Trump, too, wanted to talk to Iran, provided Tehran agreed to his conditions.

Presidents of United States are generally more receptive to Israeli Mantra. Israel has been advising the US not to return to the JCPOA without significant concessions from Tehran. Some hardliners in Israel still hope to trigger a military confrontation between Iran and the United States.

Israel’s military chief has warned of a new plan to strike Iran's nuclear facilities. Some Iraqi groups have claimed that Israel is behind some provocative attacks on US military bases in the Iraqi territory. All this is aimed at derailing the process of revival of JCPOA.

Resolution against Iran at IAEA will disrupt the situation, says Zarif

Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iranian Foreign Minister, on Monday warned the three European parties to the 2015 nuclear deal that a resolution against Iran by the IAEA Board of Governors would disrupt the current conditions, reports Tasnim news agency.

Speaking to reporters after a meeting with members of the Parliament National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, Zarif warned of agitation in case the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Board issues a statement against Iran over its decision to suspend the voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol of the NPT.

“The Europeans (UK, France, and Germany) have begun a wrong move at the Board of Governors with the backing of the United States. We believe such an action would upset the conditions,” Zarif noted.

He also stressed that Iran’s ambassador to the Vienna-based international organizations has already warned the Board of Governors about the consequences of confusing the status quo.
 
“We hope wisdom would prevail, otherwise, we would have (other) approaches,” Zarif warned.

Speaking at the parliamentary meeting, Zarif also said the US has no right to return to the JCPOA – the official name for the 2105 nuclear deal- until it recommits itself to its obligations.

In accordance with the Iranian Parliament’s legislation on lifting sanctions, Iran has halted the voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol because the signatories to the 2015 nuclear deal have failed to fulfill their commitments.

Following last week’s visit to Tehran by the IAEA Director General, Tehran and the UN nuclear watchdog issued a joint statement, declaring that Iran will stop its voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol and will deny IAEA inspectors access to its nuclear facilities beyond the Safeguards Agreement as of 23rd February 2021, for three months.

According to Reuters, Britain, France and Germany have draft a US-backed resolution at the IAEA’s Board to criticize Iran for limiting cooperation with the Agency, despite Russian and Iranian warnings of serious consequences,.

The IAEA’s 35-nation Board of Governors is holding a quarterly meeting this week against the backdrop of faltering efforts to revive Iran’s nuclear deal with major powers now that US President Joe Biden is in office.

Iran scaled back its cooperation with the IAEA last week, ending extra inspection and monitoring measures introduced under the deal, including the power given to the IAEA to carry out snap inspections at facilities that have not been declared to be related to nuclear energy. Tehran’s move is a response to the US withdrawal from the deal in 2018 and the re-imposition of sanctions that had been lifted under it.

The European trio (E3), all parties to the 2015 nuclear deal, circulated a draft resolution for the Vienna meeting voicing “serious concern” at Iran’s reduction of transparency and urging Iran to reverse its steps.

Iran has warned to cancel a deal struck a week ago with the IAEA to temporarily continue many of the monitoring measures it had decided to end - a black box type arrangement valid for up to three months and aimed at creating a window for diplomacy.

Iran said on Sunday it would not take up a proposal by European Union Foreign Policy Chief, Josep Borrell to hold an informal meeting with the United States.

It is unclear how many countries would support a resolution. Moreover, Russia warned that a resolution could hurt efforts to revive the deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and that it would oppose it.
 
“Adoption of the resolution will not help the political process of returning to the normal comprehensive implementation of the JCPOA,” Russia’s note to other member states said.

“On the contrary it will hugely complicate those efforts undermining the prospects for the restoration of the JCPOA and for normal cooperation between Iran and the Agency,” it added. 

What could be likely quantum of Iranian oil exports even if United States eases sanctions?

According to some of the analysts, one of the reasons for lingering imposition of sanctions on Iran by the United States is pressure of large oil producers from the Middle East. Thanks to Israel which has drilled into their minds, “Iran is a bigger threat as compared to Israel”.

As Joe Biden seems adamant at joining the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), anti Iran elements have once again started talking about adverse impacts of re-entry of Iran in oil trade.

Fitch Solutions, a subsidiary of Fitch Ratings, which is one of three biggest credit rating agencies of United States, has forecasted a 6.8% growth in Iranian oil exports in 2021 if the US comes back to the 2015 nuclear deal.

In one of its latest reports dubbed “Iran Oil and Gas Report”, Fitch has stated that crude oil exports of Iran would double in 2022 compared to 2020.

“The prospects for the Iranian oil sector have brightened significantly following Joe Biden's victory in the US presidential election, He has indicated re-entry of the US into the Iranian nuclear deal, paving the way for a roll-back of secondary sanctions and recovery of around 2.0 million barrels per day (bpd) in oil production,” the report said.

Fitch also stated that Iranian gas production is also expected to rise in the coming years considering the new developments in the country’s giant South Pars gas field that Iran shares with Qatar in the Persian Gulf.

“However, Iran needs to find new export markets in neighboring countries to maximize the productivity of the new output capacities,” the report reads.

Fitch further mentioned development of the Iranian oil and gas industry’s downstream sectors saying, “The outlook on the downstream is relatively robust, with the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) making continued investments to expand and upgrade its refined fuels production, and with a robust demand outlook for both oil and gas as the market recovers from the combined effects of Covid-19 and US nuclear related sanctions.”

Also, the study of the risk index of the upstream sectors of the country’s oil and gas industry in this report shows that, given the huge oil and gas resources, these sectors are reasonable options for investment in the country.

According to the report, Iran ranks fourth among 12 countries in the region in terms of the oil and gas industry’s risk-return index, while the country occupies 20th place among the world’s top 72 oil-producing countries.

Iranian oil production and exports have been both increasing over the past few months despite the US sanctions. Iranian Oil Ministry has announced its readiness for boosting the country’s crude oil output to the pre-sanction levels in case of the US rejoining JCPOA.

Back in January this year, the data from SVB International and two other firms indicated that Iranian oil exports were climbing in January after a boost in the fourth quarter despite US sanctions.

Iran’s Deputy Oil Minister Amir Hossein Zamaninia had said earlier that the country started boosting its oil production and would be able to reach pre-sanction levels within two months.

Iranian oil won’t create any surplus in the oil market and the market will be able to accommodate the country’s maximum oil output of around 3.9 million to four million barrels a day, Bloomberg quoted Zamaninia as saying on the sidelines of the Iran Oil Show in Tehran in late January.

 

Netanyahu terms Iran Nuclear agreement worthless

Israel will not rely on efforts to return to a nuclear deal with Iran, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Tuesday. “Israel isn’t pinning its hopes on an agreement with an extremist regime like (Iran),” he said at a memorial service for the 1920 Battle of Tel Hai.

“With or without an agreement, we will do everything so Iran isn’t armed with nuclear weapons,” he added.

Referring to the story of Purim, which begins on Thursday night, Netanyahu said, “2,500 years ago, a Persian oppressor tried to destroy the Jewish people, and just as he failed then, you will fail today… We didn’t make a journey of thousands of years to return to the Land of Israel to allow the delusional ayatollahs’ regime to finish the story of the rebirth of the Jewish People.”

On Monday, Netanyahu met with Defense Minister Benny Gantz, Foreign Minister Gabi Ashkenazi, IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Aviv Kochavi, Mossad Director Yossi Cohen, National Security Adviser Meir Ben-Shabbat, Ambassador to the US Gilad Erdan and others to discuss Israel’s strategy and response to the Biden administration’s attempted rapprochement with Iran.

The United States is seeking to start a dialogue with Iran and move toward a return to the 2015 Iran deal, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken recently said in a statement with the European countries that were party to the deal. Officials in Washington have called on Iran to return to compliance with the deal before the US would remove sanctions.

Officials in the meeting were split on whether Israel should advocate for the US to stay out of the Iran deal until it can get a better, more-secure agreement, or be more supportive of what US President Joe Biden’s stated plan is, to rejoin the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, as the 2015 Iran deal is officially called, and then negotiate tougher terms.

Netanyahu reportedly took the first, harder line, while Gantz and Ashkenazi supported a less-confrontational approach.

As indicated by Netanyahu’s remarks, open opposition to a return to the JCPOA is still on the table.

Rejoining “the old nuclear deal of 2015 that paves Iran’s path to an arsenal of nuclear bombs will be a mistake,” Erdan told KAN Reshet Bet on Tuesday.

If the US returns to the JCPOA by lifting sanctions, it won’t have any leverage to convince Iran to reopen negotiations for a stricter deal, he said.

Nevertheless, “a diplomatic solution is always preferable to a military solution,” Erdan said, adding that “the question is whether there will be an agreement that blocks any way Iran can get a nuclear weapon.”

The officials at Monday’s meeting agreed Israel should continue its ongoing dialogue with the Biden administration rather than opt for open confrontation, as it did in former US president Barack Obama’s second term.

Erdan emphasized the importance of dialogue during his interview with KAN Reshet Bet.

“The new US administration has shown a very honest and deep will to hold organized consultations with Israel, led by US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan,” he said. “Israel is in a process of full dialogue with the Biden administration and they are listening to our stance – the American government and also central countries in Europe.”

Also Tuesday, the European parties to the JCPOA, known as the E3, said Iran’s decision to block snap inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency was dangerous and a violation of the Iran deal.

The foreign ministers of France, Germany and the UK said they “deeply regret” that Iran suspended what is known as the Additional Protocol of the JCPOA.

“Iran’s actions are a further violation of its commitments under the JCPOA and significantly reduces safeguards oversight by the IAEA,” they said. “The E3 are united in underlining the dangerous nature of this decision.”

The foreign ministers said stopping snap inspections would limit IAEA access to nuclear sites and its ability to monitor Iran’s nuclear program and related activities.

“We urge Iran to stop and reverse all measures that reduce transparency and to ensure full and timely cooperation with the IAEA,” they said.

The foreign ministers said they seek to preserve the JCPOA and negotiate for Iran and the US to return to it.

The JCPOA’s additional protocol said the IAEA could hold short-term inspections in locations that Iran had not declared as nuclear sites.

Iran announced it would stop the inspections on Tuesday, going back on a prior agreement to extend them for three more months. The move was a response to the US not lifting sanctions on the regime.

Israel views the E3 as more open to the Israeli position than in the past due to Iran’s repeated violations of the deal’s limitations, KAN reported.

In recent weeks, Iran announced it would enrich uranium up to 20% and produce uranium metal, which the E3 said has no credible civilian use.

Israel has increased pressure on the E3 to try to talk them out of rejoining the old Iran deal, with many more discussions about Iran than usual, KAN reported.

Can Russia and China restore balance to JCPOA?

As the United States doubles down on its diplomatic effort to reach a common consensus with Europe on the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, pundits raise speculation on how the European Union, particularly EU Foreign Policy Chief Josep Borrell, can save the day by setting the stage for Iran and the US to ultimately implement the nuclear deal in full.

These pundits rarely point to the fact that the European signatories to the nuclear deal – Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – have lost the neutrality needed to act as a go-between since Joe Biden won the US presidential election in November. The Europeans are now harboring even more hawkish views than Washington itself.

During the Trump administration, the European parties to the JCPOA – France, Germany and the UK (E3) – had been calling on Iran to fully implement the nuclear deal in the hope that Trump would lose the presidential election and then they will revive the JCPOA in collaboration with a more favorite Democratic administration.

Trump lost the election and was replaced by someone who had played a direct role in negotiating the JCPOA in the first place. But the Europeans were quick to renege on their promise to salvage the nuclear deal. They called for a new negotiation with Iran after Biden assumed office, one that would expand the JCPOA and add other thorny issues such as Iran’s defensive missile program and its regional activities to it.

The top diplomats of the E3 and the US reiterated this position during a recnt joint meeting.

“The E3 welcomed the prospect of a US and Iranian return to compliance with the JCPOA. The E3 and the United States affirmed their determination to then strengthen the JCPOA and, together with regional parties and the wider international community, address broader security concerns related to Iran’s missile programs and regional activities. We are committed to working together toward these goals,” the chief diplomats said in a joint statement after the meeting.

The Europeans are now planning an informal meeting of all JCPOA participants and the US. Citing a European official, Reuters said that the date of this meeting is yet to be set.  The official also pointed to a US willingness to accept an invitation from the EU to participate in a meeting of the P5+1.

Earlier, US State Department spokesman Ned Price said Washington was willing to attend a meeting of the P5+1, although the US is not a member of this group of major world powers.

“The United States would accept an invitation from the European Union High Representative to attend a meeting of the P5+1 and Iran to discuss a diplomatic way forward on Iran's nuclear program,” Price noted, referring to the UN Security Council's five permanent members and Germany.

Price’s remarks signified a U.S. desire to walk into the P4+1 with the help of the E3 even before lifting its sanctions on Iran.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh reminded the West that the US is still not a JCPOA member and the only way to get the JCPOA membership is to lift sanctions.

Because of US withdrawal from JCPOA, there is NO P5+1. It is now only Iran and P4+1. Remember, Trump left the room and tried to blow it up. Gestures are fine. But to revive P5+1, US must act lift sanctions. We will respond, Khatibzadeh said on Friday.

But while the E3 tries to sneak the US in the JCPOA without lifting the sanctions, two JCPOA parties, namely China and Russia, can ensure that the US would rejoin the nuclear deal after correcting the mistakes Trump made against Iran.

China took a step in this regard by saying that US should unconditionally return to the JCPOA and lift all sanctions.

Speaking at a news conference, China’s Foreign Ministry Hua Chunying said, “Currently the Iranian nuclear issue is at a critical stage with both opportunities and challenges. China holds that the return of the United States to the JCPOA is the only correct approach to resolve the impasse on this issue. All parties should act with greater urgency, work together to implement consensus reached at the foreign ministers' meeting last December, and push for the unconditional return of the United States to the JCPOA as soon as possible and the lifting of all sanctions on Iran. On its part, Iran should resume full compliance with the JCPOA. In the meantime, we call on all sides to remain calm and exercise restraint, avoid taking actions that will escalate the situation and reserve space for diplomatic efforts.”

Russia, for its part, reminded the West why the JCPOA ended up a failed deal. Dmitry Peskov, spokesman for the Kremlin, has welcomed a US decision to rescind the Trump administration’s restoration of all UN sanctions on Iran in September.

Peskov also said that the main reason for the non-implementation of the JCPOA is the sanctions pressure that the US put on Iran.

Also, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov told TASS that Iran cannot be suspected of carrying out a covert nuclear weapons program as the E3 and the US ramped up pressure on Iran, accusing it of pursuing nuclear activities that have no civil justifications.

“We have always said and are saying now that a state, which has an agreement on comprehensive guarantees with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and which has been committed to this deal - and Iran has such an agreement, and a state, which has been fully observing the JCPOA for a long time, cannot be suspected of carrying out a covert program on weaponization in the nuclear field,” Ryabkov noted.

With the E3 working to pave the way for a US return to the JCPOA without lifting the sanctions, Russia and China have a unique opportunity to ensure that the dispute around the JCPOA is resolved reasonably. They need to make it clear to the West that a dispute settled unfairly is bound to break out in the not-so-distant future.