How do France, Germany, and the United Kingdom intend to react to the Iran policy that President Donald Trump announced on October 13? The leaders of these states put out a statement late on October 13 that is ambiguous. The relevant passage reads:

"At the same time as we work to preserve the JCPoA, we share concerns about Iran’s ballistic missile programme and regional activities that also affect our European security interests. We stand ready to take further appropriate measures to address these issues in close cooperation with the US…. We look to Iran to engage in constructive dialogue to stop de-stabilising actions and work towards negotiated solutions."
The government of President Hassan ››read more

U.S. President Donald J. Trump’s October 13 decision not to certify Iran’s compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JC POA) based on his assessment that the agreement’s costs outweigh its benefits will not, in and of itself, abrogate the deal. But it seriously, unnecessarily and recklessly undermines it. At best, it injects a level of uncertainty and unpredictability in a region that already has a surfeit of both. At worst, it is the opening salvo in a potential tit-for-tat that ultimately could unravel the deal, resuscitate the specter of military confrontation and significantly compromise any prospect of a diplomatic settlement of the far more acute and perilous North Korean nuclear crisis. ››read more

Thursday we identified a permanent fiscal crisis as one of the quadruple witching forces arising in October 2017 which will shatter the global financial bubble. Today the Donald is on the cusp of making the crisis dramatically worse by decertifying the Iranian nuke deal, thereby reinforcing another false narrative that enables the $1 trillion Warfare State to continue bleeding the nation’s fiscal solvency.

In a word, the whole notion that Iran is a national security threat and state sponsor of terrorism is just as bogus as the Russian meddling story or the claim that the chain of events resulting from the coup d’ etat fostered by Washington on the streets of Kiev in February 2014 is evidence of Russian expansionism and aggression. ››read more

Put it into perspective: In the year since the deal has been in effect, the IAEA has conducted 402 inspections of Iranian sites, including 25 “snap” inspections. That’s 402 more inspections—and the gathering of a lot more intelligence information—than would have occurred without the nuclear deal. “So far,” the agency’s director general, Yukiya Amano, said in a statement on Friday, “the IAEA has had access to all locations it needed to visit.” How then did Trump justify decertifying Iranian compliance? By referring to an obscure, and ambiguously phrased, clause in the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. The main clause of this act requires the president to certify every 90 days that Iran is in compliance with the deal. But it also requires the president to certify that the lifting of sanctions is “appropriate and proportionate” to disarmament measures taken by Iran. ››read more

Europe’s leaders must decide now whether they will seek to placate President Trump by doing more than parrot US claims that an “evil” and “malign” Iran is the greatest source of instability and mischief in the Middle East. They will come under pressure to take action not only from the United States but also domestically. Media and lobbies hostile to Iran exist in Europe as well as in the United States. ››read more

German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel (Democratic Socialist Party: SPD) warned this week that if Trump pulls out of the Iran deal, it would provoke an immediate danger of another Middle East war. He also warned that Germany and the European Union would side with Russia and China on this issue against the United States of America. In an interview with Deutschland, Gabriel warned, “A termination of the Iran deal would turn the Middle East into a hot crisis zone.” If Iran were to turn, on the collapse of the deal, to trying to develop a nuclear weapon, it would create “the immediate danger of a new war.” He said that Israel would see such a step as a severe danger. ››read more

European officials have been resisting calls from the Trump administration for the Iran nuclear deal to be scrapped. Federica Mogherini, the European Union’s diplomatic chief, has stated that Iran’s compliance with the terms of the deal has been verified several times. It is broadly expected that Trump will decertify Iran’s compliance with the nuclear deal and the fate of the deal — and further sanctions against Iran — will be left in the hands of the United States Congress. While congress has not indicated that they will not kill the deal outright, despite a Republican-dominated congress, it is believed that they plan to use the decertification to impose sanctions on other areas. ››read more

White House ProtestIran’s recent rise, especially its expanding sphere of influence in Iraq and Syria, has gone a long way to curtail US influence. Russia’s direct military intervention in Syria and the quick melting of the US, Saudi and Turkey-backed rebel groups have also substantially undercut US dominance. But it is Iran’s expanding regional influence that worries the US most, as it perceives that the deal allows Iran to thrive economically and use it as a tool to flex its muscle across the region. The recent defeat of US-trained and paid anti-Assad rebel fighters in Syria and the reluctant withdrawal from al-Tanf, a small strategic town situated at a triangular area on western Iraq, eastern Syria and southern Jordan was a humiliating defeat for the Trump administration. Iran and Russia-backed Syrian army and Hezbollah fighters are controlling al-Tanf now. ››read more

Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, has called on Europe to defy US sanctions if the Trump administration torpedoes the international nuclear agreement with Tehran.

Zarif warned that if Europe followed Washington’s lead, the deal would collapse and Iran would emerge with more advanced nuclear technology than before the agreement was reached in Vienna in 2015. However, he insisted that technology would not be used to make weapons, in line with Tehran’s obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). ››read more

After the deal was made, Iran had elections, and the moderate president, Hassan Rouhani, was re-elected, despite opposition from hardliners. And the U.S. response is to provoke. Now, why is this happening? Because two U.S. allies—Israel and Saudi Arabia—are luring our ignorant president into this kind of vehemence. This is Israeli and Saudi policy, Saudis because of the Sunni-Shia conflict and battle for regional power, Israel because of its own narrow concerns. And all the United States is doing, Trump is doing, is being lured into this and making the U.S. unsafe and making the world unsafe. It’s shocking.

››read more

This is precisely what Dubowitz and a well-funded cadre of neocons and their allies in Washington and beyond want. They don’t want a “better deal” (which can’t be achieved anyway). In fact, they don’t want a deal with Iran at all. Their goal, ultimately, is regime change in Tehran. Some Iran hawks — like John Bolton for instance — are very vocal about this aim and openly call for war to remove the Iranian regime from power. Dubowitz, however, is more subtle in his advocacy, perhaps understanding that publicly pushing another costly war in the Middle East isn’t necessarily the best way to win mainstream support these days.
That strategy has helped Dubowitz publish op-eds in prominent media outlets, testify on Capitol Hill, and, as was the case this week at the Atlantic Council, establish credible relationships with key reporters covering this issue. In addition to this particular incident, comments and analysis opposing the Iran deal show up regularly in the mainstream press. ››read more

According to officials briefed on Trump’s thinking, he wants to use that threat as leverage to enact sanctions that would isolate Iran’s economy as much as it was seven or eight years ago. To get there, the U.S. would need European allies to participate. That’s a big gamble considering those countries are talking about protecting their own companies if the U.S. reimposes sanctions. “I have no doubt that if this scenario materializes, which it’s not clear it will, the European Union will act to protect the legitimate interests of our companies with all the means at our disposal,” David O’Sullivan, EU ambassador to the U.S., said on Sept. 25. That could end up isolating the U.S. rather than Iran, which has promised to stick to the accord if the U.S. withdraws. “The Trump administration has not explained how this policy will work better, what this strategy will actually achieve, and how Washington is going to implement it,” says Kelsey Davenport, director for nonproliferation at the Arms Control Association.
››read more

Javad Zarif"If Washington decides to pull out of the deal, Iran has the option of withdrawal and other options," al Jazeera TV wrote on its Twitter feed, quoting Mohammad Javad Zarif.
"Washington will be in a better position if it remains committed to the deal," the network quoted Zarif as saying. Al Jazeera deleted an earlier tweet citing Zarif as saying that if Washington withdrew from the deal Iran would do so too, rather than just having the option to do so, after an Iranian official said Zarif had been misquoted. Trump is considering whether the accord serves U.S. security interests. He faces a mid-October deadline for certifying that Iran is complying with the pact. ››read more

“The briefings I have received indicate that Iran is adhering to its JCPOA obligations,” Gen. Joseph Dunford wrote in answers to questions in advance of his hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, using an acronym for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. And Dunford warned that U.S. action to pull out of the deal would have unfortunate ripple effects. He said that if the U.S. were to withdrawal without first finding Iran in material breach of the deal, allies would likely question other American treaty obligations. And North Korea, for its part, would have little incentive to enter into talks over its own nuclear program if Washington were to tear up an agreement that, by all accounts, Iran is adhering to. “It makes sense to me that our holding up agreements that we have signed, unless there’s a material breach, would have an impact on others’ willingness to sign agreements,” Dunford said. ››read more

This has not been a good week for President Trump’s Iran policy. As the president has indicated, he plans in mid-October to decertify Iranian compliance with the nuclear deal, or the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), negotiated and signed in 2015, which rolled back Iran’s nuclear program, placed severe restrictions on it for the foreseeable future, and imposed the world’s most intrusive inspections regime on what remained.

Leaving aside for now the various and profoundly negative ramifications of Trump’s stated intention to declare Iran in violation of the agreement, the most immediate problem for the president has always been that Iran is, in fact, not in violation of the deal. As attested to by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and all other signatories to the agreement – including Germany, France, the United Kingdom, China, and Russia – Iran is fully compliant with its obligations under the JCPOA. ››read more

Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani, has said his country would respond “decisively and resolutely” if the US walks away from the nuclear deal agreed with other countries in 2015.

Rouhani said Iran would feel it had a “free hand” if the US broke the agreement by re-imposing sanctions. He said one of the options would be an expansion of work on uranium enrichment, strictly limited under the agreement, but he insisted Iran would never seek to build nuclear warheads.

The Iranian president said his country’s response would be heavily influenced by the manner in which European countries reacted to any US abrogation of the accord. ››read more

Ahead of President Trump's speech to the U.N. General Assembly this week, more than 70 top European officials signed a statement urging the United States to re-certify that Iran is in compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal. The agreement, reached between Iran and six world powers, allows Iran to enrich uranium for use in energy production, but seeks to limit its ability to develop nuclear weapons. In exchange for allowing international inspections, Iran saw some sanctions lifted. The International Atomic Energy Agency, which monitors the deal, said last month that Iran was continuing to satisfy its obligations. ››read more

Giuliani and RajaviThe president’s circle also includes several prominent US lobbyists for a violent Iranian opposition group, Mujahideen e-Khalq (MeK), including Rudy Giuliani, John Bolton and Elaine Chao, Trump’s transportation secretary. Another driving motive appears to be a desire to undo as much of Obama’s presidential legacy as possible, at home and abroad. “President Trump himself appears motivated to oppose reflexively nearly all of President Obama’s major agreements,” Nicholas Burns, a former undersecretary of state for political affairs. “That is a major mistake in judgement on his part.” The desire to obliterate Obama’s mark on history may be something else that Trump and Netanyahu share. The Israeli leader had an acrimonious relationship with Obama, who successfully fended off Netanyahu’s bid to derail the Iran deal in the US Congress two years ago.
››read more

Europe would view the U.S. as a dysfunctional and archaic state whose sworn president can easily lie and deceive a nation about an other country’s compliance with an international agreement—in complete disregard for all available facts, objective assessments and official reports issued by competent national and international organizations – without facing as much as a small obstacle, let alone perjury charges or impeachment. ››read more

Nikki HaleyWhen facts and logic fail them, opponents of the JCPOA resurrect the myth of a “better deal.” Having failed to stop Obama’s original negotiation, they now claim decertifying the deal is the first step to persuading Iran and the other members of JCPOA to agree to major revisions or new restrictions. As I’ve written before, this is a vain, even laughable, hope. Contrary to unreliable sources like Bloomberg reporter Eli Lake, the other signatories remain strongly committed to the agreement and want it to remain intact, even if they would also like Iran to modify some of its other behavior in other ways. More importantly, this view incorrectly assumes the United States has unlimited leverage over Iran, and that getting tough now will magically produce a better deal. That take-it-or-leave-it approach was tried from 2000 to 2012, however, while Iran went from having zero centrifuges to more than 12,000. It was only when the United States showed a willingness to accommodate some of Iran’s “red lines” that it actually got them to reverse course. That same logic remains true today. ››read more