Danger Lurking for Nuclear Agreement

Donald Trump does not intend to cancel the nuclear agreement with Iran at the beginning of his presidency, but his insistence on renegotiating for more guarantees may jeopardize this important agreement that has curbed Iran's potential access to nuclear weapons. Bradley Klapper, an analyst for the Associated Press, describes the situation as follows: Republican representatives in the U.S. legislatures, whose position has been strengthened in the recent elections, are already thinking about plans to assess Iran's compliance with its commitments. Donald Trump, as a presidential candidate, made various comments about this agreement, calling it 'shameful' and 'the worst deal ever signed,' exaggerating the concessions made by the U.S. and heavily criticizing the limited timeline of the agreement in reducing Iran's uranium enrichment. He stated that he does not intend to cancel the agreement but wants to start new negotiations, and unlike the diplomats of Barack Obama's administration, he is prepared to cut off negotiations if a satisfactory agreement is not reached. However, Trump's plans in this regard are ambiguous, and starting another negotiation will be very difficult. Iran will have no incentive to renew discussions on an agreement it is satisfied with; and none of the five other countries that participated in these difficult and intensive negotiations for two years and ultimately ended a decade of Iran's nuclear crisis have shown a willingness to renegotiate so far. As Ayatollah Khamenei, the leader of Iran, has said, if the U.S. government tears up this agreement, 'we will burn it.' Iranian President Hassan Rouhani recently stated that no country can unilaterally change an agreement it has signed, referring to the UN Security Council resolution endorsing the international community's nuclear agreement with Iran. According to this agreement, which has been in effect since January of this year, in exchange for limiting Iran's nuclear activities, most international sanctions that had severely pressured its economy were lifted. Despite ongoing tensions between Iran and the U.S., especially in the Middle East and Iran's role in crises such as Syria and Yemen, this agreement has generally been respected. Both sides benefit from this agreement; Iran does not want economic pressure from the international community led by the U.S., and in return, Washington prefers to contain the risk of Iran's nuclear activities escalating. However, this agreement rests on fragile foundations. In both the Iranian government and the U.S., hardline factions opposed to this agreement are looking for an excuse to cancel it. In such an atmosphere, it is unclear what Trump's conditions for renegotiation will be. Mark Toner, a spokesperson for the U.S. State Department, said the day after Trump's victory: 'This agreement is only valid as long as both sides affirm it.' Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers are considering potential actions. One of their proposals is likely to sanction those sectors of Iran's industries and economic activities that support ballistic missile production, especially those that were exempt from sanctions under the nuclear agreement. Another of their proposals is to exert pressure on the Revolutionary Guard, particularly to limit its activities in Syria and support for terrorism. In response, Iran could exceed the established limits for its nuclear activities under the pretext of such actions, and this may be exactly what the U.S. Republicans are seeking. The International Atomic Energy Agency has reported several minor violations of Iran's commitments, including the storage of heavy water that could be used for plutonium production. However, there have been no penalties. Additionally, Iran has violated the eight-year ban on developing ballistic weapons, which is part of the nuclear agreement, and as a result, the U.S. has imposed limited sanctions against it. The Obama administration was effectively paralyzed in dealing with these issues because it accepted that the U.S. could not impose new sanctions related to Iran's nuclear activities under the nuclear agreement. For example, in response to the firing of missiles by Yemen's Houthi Shiites towards U.S. ships, Washington did not take any direct punitive action against Iran; and Iran's presence in recent battles in Aleppo, which the U.S. views as war crimes, did not provoke a strong reaction from Washington; and whenever Iranian officials complained about the slow or limited implementation of the agreement, especially in economic areas, senior U.S. officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry, have tried to encourage banks to do business with Iran. Mark Dubowitz, an expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a proponent of sanctions against Iran, says that during Trump's presidency, 'all of these unilateral concessions to Iran will stop, and no excuses will be accepted.'