John Tierman: Macron's Very Important Trip, One of the Last Efforts to Save the JCPOA

Diplomatic movements across the Atlantic have intensified to reform the JCPOA on one hand and to preserve it on the other. In the remaining days until the deadline set by the President of the United States, the leaders of France and Germany are heading to Washington, while consultations are ongoing in other parts of the world regarding this matter. One aspect of these consultations is the impact of any decision by Donald Trump on the future of Washington's relations with its European allies. In this context, Radio Farda sought the opinion of John Tierman, Executive Director of the Center for International Studies at MIT. Mr. Tierman, who assesses the chances of continuing the JCPOA as low, discusses the impact of the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA on its relations with European allies. He states that the protocol for U.S.-Soviet negotiations in the 1960s was that superpowers should not include issues related to human rights, trade, or European security in these negotiations. This was because starting negotiations on nuclear issues is inherently difficult. This was an approach that the Obama administration adopted in relation to Iran to achieve this agreement, which I believe was extraordinary. As a result, they did not negotiate about Syria, Yemen, and ballistic missiles, but this does not mean they cannot negotiate now. Discussions can take place in this regard, although it seems that the Iranian leader is very opposed to this dialogue. However, I believe that if Trump withdraws from the JCPOA, the chances of such discussions will be completely eliminated, and I hope Macron and others clarify that if the agreement is exited, there will be no opportunity to address other aggressive behaviors of Iran in the region, and everyone in the region will be affected. One sign we should look for is in the next two days when the French President comes here, and we should see what he says because he has stated that there is no alternative to the JCPOA. Therefore, Macron's trip is very important as it will be one of the last efforts to save the agreement before the deadline arrives. The Europeans have made efforts to address Trump's demands for renegotiating the JCPOA, but I believe this has been a fruitless effort just to calm the U.S. President. It is very difficult to say whether this alliance will lead to the preservation of the agreement or whether the consequences of the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA will damage this relationship. I believe that the erosion of trust, especially in Europe towards the Trump administration, will suffer another blow in the aftermath of NATO or Korea events. Do you think the JCPOA is as important to Europeans as, for example, their cooperation with NATO? European countries, especially the three powers of Britain, France, and Germany, and the entire Union somewhat rely on the U.S. regarding NATO. It is difficult to predict what action will lead Europe to decide to take reciprocal action in its cooperation with the U.S. This is a question that currently has no answer. Perhaps we will witness a form of militarism regarding Russia and Moscow's interventions in European countries like Britain. But it is really hard to imagine what else Europe can do other than wait for Trump's presidency to end. The U.S. President says that his criticisms of the JCPOA are not just about nuclear issues and has spoken about, for example, ballistic missiles or Iran's role in the region, which the White House has described as destructive and destabilizing. Do you think the Europeans might find a way to satisfy Mr. Trump so that he does not withdraw from the JCPOA? I doubt this will happen. The reason is that these issues existed before Trump's presidency and raised concerns for the U.S. during the Obama era as well. For this reason, I believe Obama made a mistake by supporting Saudi Arabia in the Yemen war so that the Saudis would not try harder to counter the nuclear agreement. Concerns about Syria have also led many observers from both the left and right to condemn Iran and Russia for their roles in this war and support for Assad. Republicans have focused their criticism of the nuclear agreement on the fact that this agreement does not include provisions regarding security in the region, and Trump has said that discussions should also have taken place about Syria and other issues. I think this is a bit of a misunderstanding of disarmament and arms control issues and relates back to when the U.S. was negotiating with the former Soviet Union in the 1960s. The protocol of those negotiations was that superpowers should not include issues related to human rights, trade, or European security in these negotiations. This was also because starting negotiations on nuclear issues is inherently difficult. This was an approach that the Obama administration adopted in relation to Iran to achieve this agreement, which I believe was extraordinary. As a result, they did not negotiate about Syria, Yemen, and ballistic missiles, but this does not mean they cannot negotiate now. Discussions can take place in this regard, although it seems that the Iranian leader is very opposed to this dialogue. However, I believe that if Trump withdraws from the JCPOA, the chances of such discussions will be completely eliminated, and I hope Macron and others clarify that if the agreement is exited, there will be no opportunity to address other aggressive behaviors of Iran in the region, and everyone in the region will be affected.