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.
