The Trump Administration Should Credibly Deny Regime Change in Iran

51 groups and organizations in the United States, claiming to represent millions of people, 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 pursuing 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 putting 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 issue. Although the resolution emphasizes that a diplomatic path should be pursued with the return to the JCPOA, it also states that the U.S., along with the other 4+1 countries, must find solutions to other challenges regarding Iran's behavior, including human rights issues and political prisoners, as well as dual nationals. 'Encouraging a return to the JCPOA is the same strategy of the Islamic Republic.' Radio Farda has spoken with two analysts to gather their insights on this environment, the future of the JCPOA, and the future of U.S. relations. One of these analysts, Robert Einhorn, is a senior analyst at the Brookings Institution and a well-known expert in disarmament in the U.S. capital. Before joining Brookings in 2013, he served in the U.S. State Department, including as a special advisor to Hillary Clinton on disarmament, playing a key role in shaping U.S. policies at that time regarding Iran's nuclear program, sanctions, and negotiations. Mr. Einhorn is among the analysts who believe the agreement should be maintained, but he also has some revisions regarding its shortcomings. Mr. Einhorn, how realistic are the efforts of the Democratic groups and the Democratic Committee? Currently, it is not realistic, and it is clear that the Trump administration will not accept this advice to return to the JCPOA. I can imagine that such a recommendation could be plausible with another administration. Do you think these efforts have emerged with the election cycle and are unrelated to the current situation? I do not judge it that way. Although the suggestion to return to the JCPOA, especially as soon as possible, is not realistic, I think such efforts reflect issues beyond politics. In my opinion, these efforts show the genuine desire of its supporters to return to the JCPOA and also reflect that the Trump administration's decision to withdraw from the JCPOA was a mistake. Therefore, I do not consider this effort to be solely related to election-related policies. And if we assume that a Democratic candidate wants to emphasize this issue in their campaign, or if the next president is a Democrat, does this issue have maximum popularity in this party? I think it is clear that Democrats support the JCPOA much more than Republicans and the Trump administration. However, my personal opinion is that it is not wise to return directly to the JCPOA. In my view, the next U.S. administration should make it clear to Iran that it is ready to discuss an updated nuclear agreement and is prepared to be more realistic than the Trump administration. However, in two years, or in 2021 when a new administration may come to power, multiple expiration dates in the JCPOA will arrive, one of which is in 2023 when some restrictions on the research and development of advanced centrifuges will be lifted. Therefore, instead of returning to an agreement that will soon become ineffective, a new administration should sit down with Iran and other involved countries to reach an agreement that I call a 'revised nuclear agreement,' and I hope they can achieve a mechanism that is very similar to the JCPOA but addresses its shortcomings, including, for example, the expiration of key nuclear restrictions. You mentioned several issues, including the expiration of some restrictions over specific time frames. Of course, Iran also has commitments during these periods that it must fulfill, including that it must have the Additional Protocol approved by the Islamic Consultative Assembly or must wait for the International Atomic Energy Agency's overall conclusion about its nuclear program, which must be considered in this process. Yes. In new negotiations, both sides will pursue goals, and Iran will also logically pursue its objectives. If the United States seeks stronger and longer-term restrictions, Iran will also logically present its requests. Among these, for example, one can refer to efforts to lift more sanctions. Mr. Einhorn, do you think if the U.S. returns to the negotiating table, it should negotiate simultaneously about Iran's missile program, unlike the previous period? It can attempt to do so, but nuclear and missile issues are relatively different subjects; regarding Iran's nuclear issue, it is subject to international commitments not to pursue nuclear weapons and to accept the Agency's safeguards. This is not the case for missiles, and Iran defines its missile program in terms of its national security. As a result, this is a more difficult issue; however, I think it would be better for Iran to accept some limitations on its missile program. Whether these limitations should be pursued in another negotiation or within the framework of nuclear dialogue is a subject that should be examined in the future. Do you think Iran has enough motivation to return to the negotiating table on this issue? I think Iran has many motivations to return to the negotiating table, such as the economic damages it has faced due to the re-imposition of U.S. sanctions. I believe Iran has a strong motivation to reach a new agreement to alleviate these economic problems. Since these sanctions were imposed by the Trump administration, and the economic situation is declining rapidly, do you not think such negotiations could be possible during the current U.S. administration? I think it would be good if the Trump administration made changes to its approach. Especially regarding the issue of regime change, it should credibly deny it. However, Mr. Einhorn, the U.S. government says it is not seeking regime change. Yes, that is what they say, but their behavior, some of their proposals, and some previous approaches of their politicians indicate that regime change is at least in the back of their minds.