India one of largest buyers of military hardware from Israel

Israel and India have agreed to form a task force that will build a 10-year cooperation plan to identify new areas in defense cooperation between the two countries. The plan that includes defense procurement, production and research and development, has been agreed upon during a recent visit of Ajay Kumar, Director General of Indian Ministry of Defense to Israel.

Kumar met with his Israeli counterpart, Director General of Defense Ministry Amir Eshel at the Kirya military headquarters in Tel Aviv for the 15th meeting of the Joint Working Group on defense cooperation.

According to The Times of India, during the meeting, the two officials discussed bilateral military technological cooperation as well as strategic challenges in the Middle East and Indo Pacific regions.

“The two sides reviewed the progress made in military to military engagements, including exercises and industry cooperation,” an Indian official was quoted by the report, adding that “it was also decided to form a new sub-working group on defense industry cooperation.”

India recently participated in the Blue Flag international air drill, sending for the first time a Mirage fighter squadron to Israel. India had also participated in Blue Flag 2017. 

Israel has been supplying India with various weapons systems, missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles over the last few years, making India one of Israel’s largest buyers of military hardware.

A 2020 report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute found that Israel’s arms exports over the past four years have been the highest ever and accounted for 3% of the global total. 

According to the report, the top three customers of Israeli arms were India (45%), Azerbaijan (17%) and Vietnam (8.5%). Weapons sales to India have consistently totaled over US$ one billion per year.

In September, India purchased 4 Heron MK II from Israel Aerospace Industries in a deal worth some US$200 million as part of the country’s plans to upgrade the military amid its ongoing border strife with China.

The Indian Air Force already operates more than 180 Israeli-made UAVs, including IAI-made Searchers and 68 unarmed Heron 1s, for surveillance and intelligence gathering, as well as a fleet of IAI-produced Harpy UAVs, which carry a high-explosive warhead and self-destructs to take out targets such as radar stations.

Last year the Indian cabinet approved an order of two Phalcon AWACs from Israel in a deal reportedly about US$ one billion that had been in the works for the past few years.

Mounted on a Russian Ilyushin-76 heavy-lift aircraft the system has Active Electronic Steering Array (AESA), L-Band radar with 360° coverage and can detect and track incoming aircraft, cruise missiles and drones before ground-based radars.

The first three Phalcon AWACS were obtained by the Indian Air Force in 2009 after a US$1.1 billion. The deal was signed between India, Israel, and Russia in 2004.  

The two countries have also signed contracts to manufacture and supply BARAK 8/MRSAM missile kits for the Indian Army and Air Force.

The MR-SAM system, jointly developed by India’s Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) in close collaboration with Israel's Israel Aircraft Industry, is a land-based configuration of the long range surface-to-air missile (LRSAM) or Barak-8 naval air defense system. It is capable of shooting down enemy aircraft at a range of 50 to 70 km; it will help to protect India from enemy aircraft and will replace the country’s aging air defense systems. 

Israel accuses Iran for installing advanced anti aircraft batteries in Syria

Israel has carried out hundreds of strikes in Syria in an attempt to thwart Iranian entrenchment and supply of advanced weapons to not only to Hezbollah in Syria and Lebanon but also in countries like Iraq and even further.

While Israeli strikes on Syria have intensified, the response time by Syrian air-defense batteries has become quicker. This has lead to the Israel Air Force (IAF) changing it acts during such operations that include having larger formation during operations so that more targets can be struck at once instead of having jets return to the same target.

In 2018, an F-16 crashed in northern Israel after it was struck by an S-200 missile fired by Syrian forces during an Israeli operation. Syrian missiles have also landed in Israel in recent years, including this year when shrapnel from one missile hit northern Tel Aviv and another errant interceptor missile landed close to the Dimona nuclear site in the Negev Desert.

Iran is a top priority for Israel’s military and Chief of Staff Aviv Kohavi has set aside an additional defense budget for war readiness and military exercises. The IAF has also resumed intensive training for scenarios in which Iran’s nuclear facilities are targeted.

In an attempt to challenge Israeli jets, Iran has changed the deployment of its anti-aircraft missile batteries, separating their radars from the missile launchers. Such a move forces more Israeli jets to take part in any possible operation against the country’s nuclear program.

The IAF believes that the defense industry of Iran is robust. While it might not have an air force, its drone capabilities are enormous and pose a major threat to Israel and other regional countries, as evident from the 2019 Aramco attack and the recent attack on Mercer Street earlier this year.

Defense officials have identified an increased amount of Iranian drones in the hands of Hezbollah, Hamas, and other groups.

Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad group and Hezbollah have all used weaponized drones to carry out attacks after they invested in drone capabilities.

Drones have breached Israeli airspace in recent years, leading the IDF to scramble jets or fire missiles. Hamas used Iranian drones during the last war in May, and several Iranian drones tried to breach Israeli airspace in the North of the country.

Following the attack on Mercer Street, Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz warned that Iran has used its drones in several attacks, and it is “exactly why we must act now against Iran. Iran not only strives to gain nuclear capabilities, but it is also sparking a dangerous arms race and creating instability in the Middle East through militias armed with hundreds of UAVs, in Iran, Yemen, Iraq and other countries.”

Warning that the threat posed by Iran is “not a future threat but a tangible and immediate one,” Gantz vowed that Israel will work to remove any threat against Israeli citizens and interests.

Biden wants to mend relations between US and France

Joe Biden, President of the United States, has lately acknowledged that handling of a submarine deal with Australia by his administration was clumsy.

 He sought to repair relations between the US and France during a one-on-one meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron in Italy.

The security pact made between Australia, United Kingdom and the United States, known as AUKUS, caused a rift between the US and its oldest ally, France and resulted in France temporarily recalling its ambassador to the United States

“I think what happened was, to use an English phrase, what we did was clumsy,” Biden told reporters during the meeting with Macron at the French Embassy to the Holy See. "It was not done with a lot of grace. I was under the impression certain things had happened that hadn’t happened."

“I want to be clear: France is an extremely, an extremely valued partner,” Biden continued. “We have the same values.”

Biden later said he was under the impression that France had been informed long before the AUKUS pact was announced, in fact Paris had not been.

“We clarified together what we had to clarify,” Macron then told reporters. “And now what’s important is precisely to be sure that such a situation will not be possible for our future.”

Macron insisted on the need for “stronger coordination" and "stronger cooperation” and said the two countries had taken steps in recent weeks to enhance their ties.

"What really matters now is what we will do together in the coming weeks, the coming months, the coming years," he said.

France was caught flat-footed with the announcement of the AUKUS pact, which deals with security in the Asia Pacific, and reacted angrily to the announcement last month. The pact involves the U.S. and the U.K. selling Australia nuclear-powered submarines and caused France to lose out on a multibillion-dollar deal to provide submarines to Australia.

At the time, one French official likened Biden to former President Trump, who often acted unilaterally to the dismay of US allies.

Biden and Macron have spoken twice over the phone since the incident. On Friday, there were signs of a thawing. Biden and Macron shook hands, sat closely to one another and occasionally smiled in the meeting, giving way to a genial atmosphere that seemed to ease tensions between the US and France in recent weeks.

A senior administration official told reporters following the meeting that the two leaders discussed a range of topics, including Russia, China, Iran and nuclear issues.

The official also said of the US-France relationship: “We’re moving forward.”

 “We had some hard conversations in September and October, I think the conversations heading into November will be exciting and engaging,” the official said. “There’s not any sense that there's some kind of fundamental rift in the relationship, I think, at this point.”

The meeting came at the start of Biden’s second overseas trip as president. Both leaders will attend a Group of 20 Summit in Rome and, later, a major UN climate summit in Glasgow.

If Hezbollah not, who else is responsible for Beirut port explosion?

A new report by Rai Al-Youm about the investigations into Beirut port explosion reveals that a bank account based in a Gulf capital and its main branch in Switzerland financed the ship and personalities affiliated with the future introduced nitrates without Hariri’s knowledge. 

The results of the port’s investigations will not be published as it is part of the black box of the war in Syria.

The investigation into the last year’s explosion in Beirut port is still kept secret and the Lebanese judicial authorities have been keen not to publish anything about this investigation. The investigation is supposed to answer the questions that preoccupied Lebanese public opinion since the first day of Beirut’s shaking and destruction.

There are two important questions, 1) who brought the ammonium nitrate to the port of Beirut? Who owned the ship? 

Since the explosion, the Secretary General of Hezbollah Hassan Nasrallah has demanded the judicial investigator in three letters to publish the results of the technical investigation to the Lebanese public opinion. He has said to the judge, “If you do not want to publish the investigation to the public opinion, at least gather the families of the port victims and tell them how their sons were martyred.” 

 But those demands from Hassan Nasrallah did not resonate and the investigation results were kept secret. The current investigative judge Tariq Al-Bitar, as the former judge Fadi Sawan preceded him, followed up the part related to job negligence in the explosion without details of what preceded the shipment.

The first part, Job neglect, required a request to listen and investigate several parliamentarians, military commanders and general managers that caused split in Lebanon, accusing the judge of discretion in summoning and politicization. Still, the judge concentrated on ministers who held the position in the period between the ship’s arrival and the explosion.

He also chose the former Prime Minister Hassan Diab without summoning previous prime ministers who successively held the position during the presence of nitrates inside the port. These are questions and observations made by political parties and legal figures that Judge Bitar did not answer until now.

According to Rai Al-Youm sources, the investigation answers these questions regarding who brought the ship to Lebanon and for whom? The authorities talk about part of the investigations with broad headings without going into details.

The sources report that the shipment was paid for from a bank account based in an Arabian state in the Persian Gulf, with the main branch in Switzerland. The shipment was brought in by some figures in the Future Movement, without the knowledge of Saad Hariri.

The sources suggested that the nitrates were stored in the port and were due to transport into Syrian territory to benefit terrorist groups stationed on the Syrian-Lebanese border. At that time, some of the materials remained neglected in ward No. 12 in the port.

It appears that the ship, its owners, and the shipment route were included within the “black box” of the war in Syria, which was forbidden with strict international and regional support, not to disclose or publish facts of the Syrian conflict. Including the parties involved in it, how weapons and terrorists transferred, and their financing for that. 

 According to Rai Al-Youm, there is not a single evidence against Hezbollah in the investigations and that the accountability framework will be limited to those directly responsible for negligence. Information indicates that the judge was heading to close the file and issue the indictment, but the prosecution insisted on listening to former President Michel Suleiman, and former Prime Minister Tammam Salam, before giving the decision.

The investigation into the port explosion will likely reach a clear conclusion for public opinion and legal accountability, unlike other files that remain pending without conclusions.

 

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.