Encouragement to Return to the JCPOA is the Same Strategy of the Islamic Republic

51 groups and organizations in the United States, claiming to represent millions of people in the country, called on the U.S. Congress on the first of Esfand to pave the way for America's return to the JCPOA. The organization "J Street," a liberal non-profit group known as a supporter of Israel and peace in Washington, is among the signatories of this statement. Logan Bayraf, J Street's communications director, told Radio Farda: "The statement signed by many organizations clearly states that the future president must act to return the U.S. to the JCPOA and commit to a diplomatic path regarding Iran's nuclear issue and other regional behaviors of Iran, instead of distancing ourselves from our allies around the world and placing ourselves on a path that could potentially lead to war." This statement from the 51 organizations comes after the Democratic National Committee also passed an internal resolution on the same subject. Although the resolution emphasizes that a diplomatic path must be pursued with a return to the JCPOA, it also states that the U.S. must work with the other 4+1 countries to find solutions to other challenges regarding Iran's behavior, including human rights issues and political prisoners, as well as dual nationals. Radio Farda has interviewed two analysts to gather their insights on this atmosphere, the future of the JCPOA, and the future of U.S. relations. In the diplomatic and media arena, Mark Dubowitz is a well-known figure in Washington, recognized as a staunch critic of the nuclear agreement with Iran and the behavior of the Islamic Republic. He is the executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and the director of Iran programs, sanctions, and disarmament at this institution. Mr. Dubowitz has advised several U.S. administrations and lawmakers in his field of study for years and has testified more than twenty times as a witness in U.S. congressional sessions. Mr. Dubowitz, you are certainly aware of the recent efforts to return the U.S. to the nuclear agreement. What is your opinion as a critic of this agreement regarding these efforts? I believe that the decision to return to the JCPOA by a Democratic president, and encouraging this issue, is truly in line with the strategy of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This strategy is to use a path of patience to reach nuclear weapons and missiles capable of carrying them, and it does this by utilizing the JCPOA and the limitations that gradually fade away over time. In the analyses presented these days in defense of America's return to the JCPOA, the defense is accompanied by suggestions on how to do this and that the agreement should be improved or extended in some way. What is your opinion on this? I think Secretary of State [Mike] Pompeo has a similar view. That we should reach a comprehensive agreement with Iran that encompasses all aspects of Iran's malign behavior, such as weapons issues, support for terrorism, hostage-taking, and other illegal behaviors. I am generally in favor of a comprehensive agreement that corrects all the fundamental flaws of the JCPOA and expands that agreement to include other dangerous and destructive actions by Iran. However, there is some difference in how these approaches are carried out. One says let’s go to the negotiating table and say we will return to the agreement but negotiate about extending limitations or other issues. The second approach believes that Tehran must take certain steps first before we enter into discussions. I think the current U.S. government's policy is that this dialogue with Iran about all these issues can start at any moment. As a result, it seems there are no preconditions for negotiation. My feeling is that the president would be very happy to sit down with Hassan Rouhani or whoever the regime sends for negotiation. But the reality is that returning to the JCPOA in its current form benefits Iran's strategy of patience, allowing it to move towards producing nuclear weapons. The reality is that when a new president comes in, the arms purchase restrictions will be lifted, the limitations on missiles will only last a few more years, and we will only be a few years away from Iran being able to significantly expand its nuclear program and have advanced centrifuges for building nuclear weapons. Therefore, it is delusional to think that we can return to this JCPOA, and it is certainly delusional to think we can extract these very important concessions from the regime to stop nuclear weapons production without a maximum pressure campaign. In your response, you mentioned various points. In the first part of your answer, you referred to twelve conditions. Do you believe that the U.S. can sit at the negotiating table with Iran without meeting those demands? Yes, definitely. Those twelve items are not preconditions; they are requests to indicate what a comprehensive agreement should look like. I believe the government and the president have repeatedly stated that they are ready to sit down with this regime and discuss those twelve demands and negotiate to achieve a comprehensive agreement based on those twelve demands. That proposal exists, and it is Iran that has not accepted that negotiation. They think they can endure until the end of Trump's presidency and that a softer Democratic administration will come to power in 2021 that will have fewer expectations and even extract more concessions from it. But today, if we look at this issue, it has been the U.S. that has left an agreement. What do you think Iran's motivation to return to the negotiating table could be? I emphasize again that Secretary of State Pompeo has clearly stated that if there is a comprehensive agreement that addresses those twelve demands, the United States will put many concessions on the table, including establishing diplomatic relations with Tehran and leading an international effort for several hundred billion dollars in investment in Iran, which would ultimately give the Iranian people the opportunity to realize their dreams and aspirations. This is on the table. A big concession for a big concession. And it is this regime that stands in the way of a prosperous and free Iran, and hopefully one day a democratic one. Returning to the JCPOA, you mentioned the end of limitations. Of course, Iran must also, for example, ratify the Additional Protocol in Parliament, or the Agency must ultimately provide its comprehensive summary regarding Iran. No, see, many of the limitations will be lifted regardless of Iran's behavior. There are limitations that will sunset based on the JCPOA, and Iran will be able to increase its enrichment capability. It can install advanced centrifuges. It can access conventional weapons from anywhere it wants after the prohibitions are lifted. And after the missile limitations are lifted, it can develop long-range missile capabilities, including intercontinental missiles capable of carrying weapons that can threaten the U.S. And this was the dangerous point of the JCPOA from the beginning, which gives Iran the opportunity to ultimately reach a point where its distance from weapon production is almost zero. And all of this is made possible by that strategy of patience that I explained. Let’s return to the main point of this discussion, which is the ongoing effort for the next U.S. administration to decide to return to the JCPOA. If there is no way to return to the JCPOA, let’s imagine that either Mr. Trump or someone else is in the next administration in the White House. There are no limitations on Iran's nuclear program, and the U.S. and Iran are not talking to each other. What conditions will this create? This is exactly why the current administration has put forward those twelve demands and has repeatedly stated that it is ready to negotiate for a comprehensive agreement with Iran. The JCPOA itself does not close off Iran's paths to obtaining weapons. In fact, it paves the way with that sunset provision as well. As a result, whoever is president in 2021 will face the hard reality that the JCPOA does not prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, and it is only a comprehensive agreement that closes off Iran's paths to obtaining weapons and addresses a large number of Iran's malign behaviors, and this is the correct diplomatic solution. But at the same time, this administration or the next one must have leverage, and without it, Iran will not come to the negotiating table, and that is what we are witnessing today, that with the maximum pressure campaign, severe pressure is being exerted on the regime, and it is placed in a position where it must choose whether it wants to have nuclear weapons or economic and political stability and must face this hard decision. Those who have begun efforts again today say that such an effort sends Iran the message not to leave the JCPOA, which they believe would lead to a worse scenario. That Iran might suddenly continue enrichment at higher percentages or significantly increase its capabilities is more dangerous, and the effort to encourage a return to the JCPOA makes Iran's leadership more hopeful that they will not move towards this dangerous scenario. What is your response to this approach? I believe it is more dangerous to allow Iran to use the JCPOA and utilize these paths of patience to move towards nuclear weapons because what it does is develop its program, install more advanced centrifuges, develop its long-range missiles, and use the JCPOA to build its economy and create a fortress around itself against future economic pressure. Iran pursues this path of patience and knows well that at some point it will be difficult for any administration in America to prevent this program. And it is important that we address this issue today rather than in five or ten years, which would have more dangerous consequences. But Mr. Dubowitz, Iran says it is not seeking to produce nuclear weapons. Yes, they have said this for years, but they had a massive weapons program. As a result, they have lied and cheated the international community. I am sure there is no one in the Democratic Party who thinks Iran has been honest in this regard, and that is exactly why there is a diplomatic process and the JCPOA. If we thought Iran was committed in this regard, there would be no reason for any of this. In my opinion, this deceitful behavior of Iran, the regime's deceitful behavior in trying to build weapons, is exactly why Democrats and Republicans are trying to find a way forward to prevent this from happening.