US, France adopt tough stance against Iran - GulfToday

US, France adopt tough stance against Iran

Iran

Iran is facing renewed pressure from the international community on its nuclear programme.

There is growing pressure from the United States and European powers like France, Germany and the United Kingdom that Iran has to seriously curtail its nuclear programme, and that it should stop ‘destabilising activities’ in the Middle East like the use of drones and missiles by Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen. US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin has been tough and President John Biden is willing to bring the United States back into negotiations with Iran. Former president Donald Trump had pulled out the US from the nuclear deal of 2015 in 2018. Austin, who was attending the Manama dialogue in Bahrain, said, “The United States remains committed to preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. And we remain committed to a diplomatic outcome of the nuclear issue. But if Iran isn’t willing to engage seriously, then we will look at all of the options necessary to keep United States secure.” Meanwhile, France Foreign Minister Jean-Ives Les Drian warned Iran not to come up with a “sham” negotiating stance if it wants the revived talks about the agreement that the US and other powers had reached with Iran in 2015. He described the Iranian demand that the sanctions imposed by the US and European countries since 2017 be eased as an unrealistic demand. Referring to the revived talks and the need to move forward from where the talks ended in June, he told in an interview to Le Monde, “If this discussion is a sham, then we have to consider the JCPoA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA) empty.” The statements of Austin and Les Drian add a fresh sense of urgency for Iran to seriously consider the terms of engagement.

The question arises is whether Iran can restrain itself from asserting itself in the affairs of the region because it sends out the disturbing signal to the Gulf Arab states that Tehran wants to wield influence in the region and cooperate with elements that are opposing the Arab governments of the day. Apart from the Houthi rebels in Yemen, some states do not want Tehran to lend support to the Shia group Hezbollah in Lebanon and to pro-Iranian Shia partisans in Iraq. Tehran might feel that it is the legitimate national interest to support Shia groups in the region. But by doing so, Iran is disturbing the political equilibrium in the region, and it has not certainly enhanced the prestige and power of Iran in the region. If its bid to assert its influence in the region is counterproductive, it makes sense for the government in Tehran to cooperate with the Arab governments. If the rulers in Iran are keen to keep out the American influence in the region, then the goal can be achieved by forging solidarity with the Arab governments, and Iran should take on the task of defending the region’s interests through show of military strength if necessary.

Sometime back there was such a move to forge close links between Iran and Saudi Arabia, but it did not gain momentum. Iran should be moving closer to its Arab neighbours if it wants to gain influence in the region. Iranian analysts are likely to argue that the US and other Western powers would not back a united Iran-Arab bloc because that would hurt their (the US and the European) interests. The diplomatic success of Tehran can only be gauged by the confidence and trust they gain of the Arab states in the region. Israel has adopted the positive approach of establishing closer links with the Arab states, and Israel would want to keep Iran out because of the perceived hostility between Tehran and Tel Aviv. Iran will have much to think about these issues.

Related articles

Majority of US voters support the deal with Iran

US presidential candidate Joe Biden promised to return to the 2015 agreement limiting Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for lifting sanctions. Instead, President Biden sticks to the dangerous and destructive policy dictated by Donald Trump who withdrew from the deal in 2018 and slapped 1,500 punitive sanctions on Iran.

Biden hesitates although 54 per cent of registered US voters support a deal while only 20 per cent oppose; among Biden’s Democrats the number is 70 per cent backers and six per cent opponents; among independents 50 per cent support and 30 per cent do not; and 41 per cent of Republicans are in favour against 35 who are not.

Since Biden’s own positive rating is currently a low 41 per cent against 56 per cent negative rating, it would seem it would behove him to re-enter the deal. The main obstacle is Tehran’s insistence that the US must lift Trump’s designation of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard (IRG) as a “foreign terrorist organisation,” making the IRG the world’s sole national army to join a host of armed non-state actors.

The text, a somewhat amended version of the original document, has been ready for months and awaits finalisation. Why then is Biden procrastinating and prevaricating? He faces stiff opposition from domestic anti-Iran lobbyists and legislators and Israel where the government rejects the deal. In both countries military and intelligence experts are, however, in favour. They hold, correctly, that Tehran has made great strides in developing both nuclear expertise and output since Trump pulled out, prompting Iran to gradually reduce its adherence in retaliation.

Instead of being limited to 3.67 uranium enrichment Iran has 43 kilograms of 60 per cent enriched uranium: this is a few steps away from the 90 per cent needed for a bomb. Instead of having a 300 kilogram stockpile of 3.67 enriched uranium, Iran has a stock 18 times larger of uranium enriched above the 3.67 per cent level permitted. Instead of carrying out enrichment with old, approved centrifuges, Iran has employed advanced centrifuges.

Instead of abiding by the stringent monitoring regime put in place by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran has been slipping surveillance. Until Iran began to breach the regulatory regime, it was the toughest on earth.

Nevertheless, Iran has pledged to revert to the deal once the US re-enters and to halt enrichment above 3.67 per cent, export all but 300 kilogrammes of the permitted 3.67 per cent of material in its stockpile, revert to old centrifuges which have been warehoused, and re-engage fully with the IAEA monitoring effort.

Opponents of the deal argue its “sunset clauses” will expire by 2031, thereby ending restrictions on Iran’s nuclear activities. This may be addressed in the new deal.

However, they also contend it fails to curb in Iran’s ballistic missile programme and sup- port for Lebanon’s Hizbollah, Yemeni Houthi rebels, Iraqi Shia militias and the Syrian government.

Since these issues are outside the purview of the 2015 deal, Iran rightly rejects including them in its successor. Tehran has also made it clear that they can be discussed directly with the US once Biden re-joins the deal and sanctions are lifted.

After months of trying to get the external issues incorporated into the nuclear deal, the Biden administration conceded that this is impossible.

On April 29th this year, Secretary of State Antony Blinken told lawmakers that the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign had failed and “produced a more dangerous nuclear programme” while Iran stepped up involvement in regional affairs. These post-Ukraine war remarks suggested that the Biden administration was ready to return to the deal.

However, the administration continues to blow hot at one moment and cold another. Last week Washington may have blown up the deal. At the 35-member IAEA board of governors meeting in Vienna the US — along with acolytes Britain, France, and Germany — secured the adoption of a resolution critical of Iran over its inability or refusal to account for traces of nuclear material at three undeclared sites found by IAEA monitors in 2019 and 2020.

The resolution, which received 30 votes in favour — with Iran and Russia voting against and India, China and Libya abstaining — urges Iran to co-operate “without delay” with inspectors after IAEA director Rafael Grossi reported he had not received a “technically credible” explanation for the presence of particles.

Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran spokesman Behrouz Kamalvandi pointed out that uranium “contamination” was possible “in a country as vast as Iran.” He also suggested “human sabotage” by Israel which is blamed for repeated attacks on Iranian nuclear sites and assassinations of Iranian scientists.

Iranian officials are suspicious due to the fact that former Israeli Prime Minister Bin- yamin Netanyahu instigated visits by IAEA inspectors to one of the three contaminate sites at the village of Turquzabad near Tehran. IAEA monitors took soil samples and concluded that there were “traces of radioactive material” at the location which may have been used for storage as there were no signs of processing. How did Netanyahu know there were samples at this site?

Although the IAEA still has more than 40 cameras which will continue to operate at Iran’s enrichment facilities, Grossi stated Tehran’s action mounted to a “serious challenge.” He warned that in three or four weeks the agency would be unable to provide “continuity of knowledge” about Iran’s activities. “This could be a fatal blow” to negotiations over the nuclear deal, he stated.

He also warned that Iran is “just a few weeks” away from having enough enriched uranium to build a nuclear bomb. However, Iran halted work on weaponisation in 2003 and supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has repeatedly stated that Iran will not manufacture nuclear weapons as they are prohibited by Islam.

Kelsey Davenport of the “independent” Washington-based Arms Control Association told the BBC that in ten days or less Iran could transform its current stock of 60 per cent enriched uranium into the 90 per cent required for weapons. She said, however, that manufacturing bombs would require one or two years.

If Biden continues dithering the deal could die, further destabilising an already unstable region.

Michael Jansen, Political Correspondent

12 Jun 2022