With the world riveted on the ghastly Russian invasion of
Ukraine, the negotiators trying to resurrect the 2015 Iran nuclear deal have
been working away in Vienna. Reports over the past two weeks indicate that the
final issues are quietly being resolved. Iran’s team has flown back and forth
to Tehran to get guidance and to brief the politicians on the technical issues,
and the US is signaling cautious optimism that they are in the final phase.
اضافة اعلان
Reinstating the agreement would extend the timeline of a
potential Iranian rush to make an atomic bomb to six to 12 months. As it
stands, the demise of the original deal means Iran could have enough highly
enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in just three months, having accumulated
stocks of the material and impeded inspections by the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA).
Most likely the outcome will be a return to the terms of the
2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreement, not more, not less.
That means the original calendar with its various timelines would remain in
place; restrictions on various Iranian activities would expire at staggered
deadlines, from 10 to 25 years from the original implementation. That may
disappoint some who hoped for a “longer, stronger” deal that would add new
provisions and extend the timelines. For others, the erosion of the constraints
on Iran caused by president Donald Trump’s withdrawal in 2018 has put priority
on simply restoring the 2015 agreement, despite its shortcomings. Even some of
those who lobbied against the deal in 2015 concede that it provided more
security by slowing down Iran’s activities, and that Trump’s bluster that
“maximum pressure” would somehow produce better results, proved to be a
failure.
But the war in Ukraine could affect the diplomacy in several
ways. Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Saturday that Russia
wants to see what accommodations can be made on the new sanctions imposed on
Moscow, so that Russia and Iran can resume trade and military-technical
cooperation that would again be permitted under the restored agreement. Other
parties to the Iran talks resist linking the two issues, and expect Russia to
support the diplomatic process on its own terms, not as leverage to lessen the
impact of the Ukraine sanctions. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken insisted
on Sunday that the sanctions on Russia “have nothing to do with the Iran
deal”.
Iran could be motivated to complete the process because it
would be able to resume its oil trade, currently sanctioned because Iran
stopped complying with its obligations under the nuclear deal. Iran might see
political as well as economic benefit in filling some of the gap in the global
oil market caused by the new sanctions on Russia. It would be an important sign
of Iran’s return to normality as a trading partner and energy provider, even
while it is still subjected to limits on its nuclear activities. But such
changes would not have immediate effect. It would take some time for Iran to
roll back its stocks of enriched uranium, by transferring them to Russia or
other partners. Expanding its oil production by one million barrels a day would
also take several months, according to energy experts.
A third effect from the Russian war on Ukraine is the role
of Israel. Prime Minister Naftali Bennett is trying to position Israel as a
mediator or at least an interlocutor, given its strong ties with all the
affected parties. His recent visit to Moscow was coordinated with Washington,
and Israel may see the Ukraine crisis as an opportunity to burnish its
credentials as a middle power with diplomatic clout. Israel’s political leaders
remain highly critical of the Iran deal, insisting that it is not tough enough,
but many of the country’s respected former national security officials have
made it clear that Israeli security was better served with the agreement in
effect, and regret the aggressive way Israel lobbied Washington under Trump to
pull out of the deal. Bennett’s bark may be worse than his bite: he will
continue to speak against the deal, but in ways that signal that Israel will
accept the outcome of the process.
It is still unclear if domestic politics in Washington or,
to a lesser degree, in Tehran, will present further obstacles to the
restoration of the agreement. President Barack Obama managed to keep Congress
from blocking the agreement through a complicated consultation mechanism. Some
members of Congress may call for a new congressional review, but most experts
believe that, in the absence of any new features, the deal would not trigger
the same process as in 2015, and that, in any case, it would be difficult to
block its implementation.
Iran’s new leaders, who took office last summer, do not seem
concerned about a demand for a formal approval process in their Majles. In
2015, the rulers were able to orchestrate a cursory parliamentary debate, with
no risk of an unfavorable outcome.
The possible return to the JCPOA would be a positive step
for international and regional security. On Sunday, the IAEA and Iran announced
progress on restoring cooperation. Gulf Arab countries, which objected to the
JCPOA for not addressing other problems with Iran’s regional positions, are
also open to dialogue with Tehran over issues of deep disagreement. These
gradual steps are welcome news at a time when the norms of international
security are under such acute stress.
The writer is director of the international security program
at the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University in
Virginia. She is a former vice chair of the US’ National Intelligence Council.
©: Syndication Bureau, www.syndicationbureau.com
Read more Opinion and Analysis
.jpg)
.jpg)
