hankyoreh

Iranians pass by a roadside installation of a photo of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and a mock missile in Tehran, Iran, Sept. 25. (EPA/Yonhap)

“Ensure that the US won’t back out no matter who becomes president.”

This was the public demand made of the US government in late August by the government of Iran after it received a final nuclear agreement draft from the European Union early that month.

A nuclear deal with Iran known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was signed during the Barack Obama administration in 2015, but ended up a dead letter when the Donald Trump administration backed out in 2018. With its demand, Tehran was asking the current Joe Biden administration to guarantee that this would not happen again.

The nuclear deal that was concluded in Vienna, Austria, in July 2015 centered on strictly limiting Iran’s nuclear program to peaceful purposes and lifting economic sanctions in return.

There are two materials from which nuclear weapons can be made. One is highly enriched uranium, and the other is plutonium. The objective of the deal was to place rigorous and powerful limitations on those two fissile materials.

And in fact, the deal significantly restricted Iran’s ability to enrich uranium and essentially blocked pathways to producing plutonium, placing a lockdown on Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons for a considerable time.

But the Trump administration pulled out of the agreement, claiming the agreement might be OK in the short term but not in the long run.

Under the original deal, Iran would have been released from restrictions on centrifuges (devices used to enrich uranium) in 2025 and from restrictions on uranium enrichment in 2030.

That was the issue that Trump jumped on, arguing that kicking the can down the road would just lead to worse problems.

But the deal was predicated on strict inspections of Iran’s future nuclear activities, too. So long as Iran didn’t expel inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency or withdraw from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, it could not have easily proceeded to develop nuclear weapons.

Furthermore, the nuclear deal included “snapback” provisions that could put sanctions back in place if Iran didn’t comply with the terms. But Trump unilaterally backed out of the agreement, in disregard of all those points.

Iran responded to Trump’s withdrawal from the deal by greatly expanding its capacity for uranium enrichment. The higher the enrichment level, the closer Iran came to the threshold for nuclear armament. The Iran nuclear issue had become a crisis once again.

The ramifications of Trump’s decision weren’t limited to the Iran nuclear issue. Along with being a major oil producer, Iran is one of the largest and most populous states in the Middle East. It’s positioned to have a major impact not only on the global energy market but also on geopolitics in Eurasia.

But since Trump scrapped the nuclear deal and imposed tough sanctions, Iran has leaned closer and closer to China and Russia. That’s an unwelcome development for the Biden administration, which regards China and Russia as “strategic rivals.” That’s also why Biden pledged during his presidential campaign to reinstate the Iran nuclear deal, arguing that the Trump administration’s rash withdrawal had provoked a serious crisis in relationships across the Atlantic and strengthened Iran’s ties with China and Russia.

Resuscitation of the Iran nuclear deal — which has been on life support for the past four years following Trump’s withdrawal — would surely have profound significance and impact. For one thing, the US and Iran aren’t the only parties to the agreement. It also involves the UK, France and Germany, all major members of NATO, and China and Russia, which are engaged in a sharp strategic competition with the US and NATO.

If the Iran nuclear deal could be revived, it would create a rare example of cooperation between the Western powers and the quasi-alliance between China and Russia, which is the key axis of conflict in the world order today. And if Iran could improve relations with the West while also maintaining close ties with China and Russia, it could become a formidable player on the international stage.

Another question of interest is how restoring the Iran nuclear deal would impact the global energy market, which has been rocked by the prolonged war in Ukraine. Until Trump scrapped the nuclear deal, Iran was the world’s fourth-largest oil producer, and it’s fully prepared to immediately resume crude oil exports as soon as sanctions are lifted through the restoration of the nuclear deal.

Experts predict that the return of Iranian exports would bring an additional 1 million-2 million barrels of crude oil to the market every day. Considering that the EU has been seriously damaged by the combination of Western sanctions on Russia and Russia’s weaponization of energy, that’s all the more reason for the EU to seek to reinstate the deal.

But it remains unclear whether the Iran nuclear deal can be salvaged. The key issues in the debate are how to control Iran’s future nuclear activities, whether Iran’s ballistic missile program will be included in the restrictions, whether the US will stop regarding Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, and what should be done about Iran’s support for Hamas and Hezbollah, which the US has designated as terrorist organizations.

We still don’t know what exactly is in the “final text” that the EU drafted about these issues and sent to the US and Iran for review. But the EU said the opinions it had received from the US and Iran were “reasonable,” suggesting that a final deal could be reached in early or mid-September.

But an inextricable feature of the Iran nuclear deal is that the closer the parties get to a final deal, the fiercer the jostling on the sidelines will become.

Israel — which regards Iran as an “existential threat” with which coexistence is impossible — is aggressively lobbying the US to reject the EU’s final text, which it regards as “unacceptable.” Israel’s obstructionism is a major factor given its sway over American politics.

Saudi Arabia, a rival of Iran that has consistently opposed the nuclear deal, is also working to undermine it. The Saudi government is threatening that OPEC might cut crude oil production if the Iran nuclear deal is revived. Lower output from OPEC would offset the benefits the West hopes to receive from the resumption of Iranian crude oil exports.

It’s unclear whether the Biden administration can find the “stronger guarantees” that Iran wants. Some have argued that the Iran nuclear deal should be turned into a treaty to increase its legal force.

But that would lead to two problems. First is the fact that the Republican Party is very unlikely to agree to such a treaty, which would require support from at least two-thirds of the US Senate. Second, even if it were somehow possible to pass such a treaty, it’s impossible to prevent a future US administration from walking away from it.

Two classic examples of that are the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. Both of those treaties were reached under Republican administrations — the Nixon and Reagan administrations, respectively. But those same treaties were scrapped under the Republican administrations of George W. Bush and Donald Trump.

While the prospect of reviving the Iran nuclear agreement remains uncertain, there are definite reasons why it must be done. If the negotiations fall through once more, Iran is likely to accelerate its efforts to acquire a nuclear arsenal. That also increases the risk that Israel will launch a preemptive strike leading to war.

Concluding that the US is no longer trustworthy, Iran will further step up efforts to strengthen relations with China and Russia, with growing ramifications for international geopolitics and the energy market. Worst of all, there will be more pain in store for the people of Iran, who have already suffered from the sanctions imposed following Trump’s unilateral withdrawal from the deal.

The decision is up to the Biden administration, which also has the responsibility to correct the mistake made by the Trump administration. Biden needs to mobilize all the authority available to him as president to rectify the “exceptionalism” often practiced by Americans who only honor agreements with other countries when it serves their interests.

Considering that there are seven parties to the Iran nuclear deal, one option worth serious consideration is including a provision in the deal that would invalidate declarations of withdrawal without the consent of at least four of the parties.

By Cheong Wook-Sik, director of the Hankyoreh Peace Institute and director of the Peace Network

Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]