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.”

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.

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.

Will China and Russia be the next targets if United States succeeds in imposing sanctions on Iran?

Reportedly on 14th August 2020, the 15-member UN Security Council (UNSC) unanimously rejected a resolution moved by United States to extend an arms embargo on Iran. All other JCPOA participants and most of the UNSC members argued that since the US was no longer a JCPOA participant it cannot use these provisions.

The majority of the UNSC members said they would not support the US move to snapback sanctions. One can still recall that US President, Donald Trump had signed a document reinstating sanctions against Iran after announcing its withdrawal from JCPOA on 8th May 2018. It is also on record that the US after ending its participation in the JCPOA had spared no effort to destroy the agreement.

One has to explore the validity of the US claim. It is believed that there is no legitimacy of the US claim. The imposition of sanctions and the defacto blockade of Iran is a long-standing act of the US to usher regime change, similar to those it had carried out in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. 

The next question to be explored is; will other members of the UNSC back the US move? It is doubtful that Russia or China would back anything the US aims at hitting Iran. The repeated failures of the US in UNSC have prompted it to move unilaterally to pursue its agenda against Iran.

Yet another question arises, can the US force other JCPOA members to back its actions? Historically, the US has used a variety of tools to threaten and coerce nations around the globe to support its demands. Its current trade war with China is in many ways designed to pressurize Beijing to make concessions. It is becoming evident that both China and Russia know that if the US is successful in imposing sanction on Iran, it will also become easier to take similar actions against them.  

The last question to be answered is, why has Trump focused on the Iran issue months before the 2020 presidential election? Trump had started talking about "ending the Iran deal" even before becoming president. If one looks at US foreign policy agenda, all US presidents eventually end up adopting the US policy papers like the Brookings Institution's "Which Path to Persia?" Declaring a desire to first create, then withdraw from a deal with Iran in order to make the US look like it tried to be reasonable before moving on to more extreme tactics. 

Barack Obama and Donald Trump merely played their role in this game - Obama created the deal and Trump withdrew from it. There are reasons to believe that the US had no intention of honoring its commitments even before its representatives sat down with their Iranian counterparts. Trump may win or lose the upcoming election, maximum US pressure will continue on Iran. Other JCPOA participants will have to deal with the US aggression pragmatically.