90 Crucial Days for the JCPOA

In the late hours of Monday, the U.S. government confirmed Iran's compliance with the JCPOA over the past 90 days, prompting many Western media outlets to focus on President Donald Trump's reluctance to take this action, leading to the so-called last-minute confirmation sent to Congress. Reactions to the signing of the confirmation by the U.S. government varied. Mark Fitzpatrick from the International Institute for Strategic Studies believes that this confirmation should have been signed without issue, especially since the International Atomic Energy Agency had verified Iran's actions. He stated, "This all gives me a sense of pessimism, especially when I think about what will happen in another ninety days when the next confirmation needs to be signed. Preparations for a different decision in the next ninety days are underway. I do not know what will happen, but it is not going in a good direction." The uncertainty surrounding the future of the JCPOA is acknowledged even by critics of the agreement, including David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, who has published multiple reports on Iran's nuclear program. He believes Iran has violated the JCPOA over the past two years and adds, "I think those who have doubts about the next ninety days are not mistaken in their instincts. I do not know what the government will do, but what I do know is that they need a plan." One day after the U.S. confirmed Iran's actions for another 90 days, the U.S. State Department, along with the Treasury Department, announced that 18 companies and individuals were added to the sanctions list in connection with actions by Iran deemed destabilizing, including Iran's missile program and support for groups like Hezbollah. These sanctions have faced backlash and criticism from Iran. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and his spokesperson deemed these sanctions unacceptable and ineffective. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani also reacted on Wednesday to the addition of new names to the sanctions list, characterizing the action as a violation by the U.S. and stated that they would stand against it, but added that Iran should not play in the U.S. court and would adhere to its commitments. David Albright states that U.S. sanctions are intended to send a message, adding, "Sanctions are meant to convey a message of dissatisfaction. The government is not satisfied with this confirmation process, but what was raised on Monday was that if you do not want to confirm, then have a plan. You cannot throw a grenade in the middle of the room and then look for shelter and hope everything goes well. The issue is not that some U.S. officials like this agreement and think it is in America's interest; I think very few of them like this agreement or think it is in long-term interests, but they need to have a plan, and this is what they are supposed to do in the coming months." The nuclear agreement, or JCPOA, which was reached over two years ago, includes not only Iran and the U.S. but also Russia, China, and Europeans. Countries that Mark Fitzpatrick in Washington says were trying to ensure the smooth issuance of the second JCPOA confirmation but failed. This disarmament analyst says about these efforts: "Europeans look to Washington and are somewhat confused as to why, when Iran has complied, the confirmation signature is facing issues. I know that some senior European diplomats, for example from Britain, came to Washington in recent weeks to encourage the Trump administration and lawmakers to look at this issue without bias and keep the agreement alive, but the chaotic situation of the confirmation showed that efforts, such as an article written by Boris Johnson, the British Foreign Secretary, in support of the agreement, were read by government staff, but the voices did not reach President Trump or at least did not encourage him." This analysis contradicts what Heather Nauert, the U.S. State Department spokesperson, said. On Tuesday, she told reporters that it is not the case that European allies and other U.S. friends are only concerned with preserving the agreement; they also have concerns about what she called destabilizing actions by Iran, and the U.S. is in discussions with them on this matter. David Albright from the Institute for Science and International Security states that although the U.S. approach differs from that of the Europeans, "the Europeans agree that it is not in their interest for Iran to have a massive nuclear program with numerous centrifuges. This could lead to the construction of nuclear weapons before the agency is aware of it; I think even supporters of the agreement agree that maintaining the status quo is good, but at some point, this situation will change, and that change may not be desirable." Albright believes that after the end of the agreement period, Iran could significantly develop its nuclear program. Therefore, the U.S. should seek to correct some aspects of the JCPOA. However, critics of this approach argue that one of the enduring limiting factors for Iran is the Additional Protocol, which ensures that Iran's nuclear program is always under the supervision and inspection of the agency. The ambiguity surrounding the future of the JCPOA is the dominant image in the outlook for this agreement in the coming months, as representatives of Iran and the P5+1 are set to participate in another meeting of the JCPOA commission in Vienna on Friday. This commission, according to the JCPOA, is responsible for addressing how all parties implement the agreement and also handling complaints from both sides in this regard. The margins of this commission have always provided an opportunity for bilateral meetings between Iranian and American officials, which the Monitor publication reports is expected to take place in Vienna.