Do Sanctions Pose an 'Irreversible Knowledge' Problem?

As the deadlock over the future of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) continues, there is growing concern that Iran’s nuclear activities are hollowing out the benefits of the nuclear deal, even if it were to be successfully restored. Western governments believe that Iran’s enrichment activities are allowing Iranian nuclear scientists to gain “irreversible knowledge.” Even if Iran comes back into full compliance with its non-proliferation commitments under the JCPOA, it will have edged closer to becoming a threshold nuclear state.  

Irreversible knowledge is powerful shorthand. A joint statement issued by France, Germany, and the United Kingdom in March 2021 noted that the recent breaches of the JCPOA were “providing Iran with irreversible knowledge gain that it did not possess prior to signing the JCPOA, as well as permanently and significantly enhancing Iran’s enrichment capacity.” In January of this year, Republican lawmakers sent a letter to U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken to urge him to abandon the nuclear talks and increase pressure on Iran, in part because Iran was continuing “to gain irreversible knowledge” as it produced more enriched uranium. In May, Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz warned that “Iran continues to accumulate irreversible knowledge and experience in the development, research, production, and operation of advanced centrifuges.”

Clearly, the concept of irreversible knowledge is well defined among those parties seeking renewed non-proliferation commitments from Iran, as well as those parties seeking to scupper any deal. According to Kelsey Davenport, the Biden administration will remain committed to the nuclear talks so long as the “the non-proliferation benefits of restoring the JCPOA outweigh the irreversible knowledge that Iran has gained.” Crucially, the nuclear deal prevents Iran from gaining further nuclear knowledge—commitments to cease significant enrichment activities and to dismantle advanced centrifuges reflect concrete measures that prevent the kind of nuclear research and production activities consistent with a weapons programme. By preventing additional knowledge gains, the JCPOA restricts Iran’s inherent nuclear capabilities.

In return for its compliance with these restrictions and strict monitoring, Iran receives significant sanctions relief—this is the basic quid-pro-quo of the JCPOA. Iran continues to place significant value on sanctions relief, especially as its economy languishes, but even so, the terms of the agreement are not as fair as they might seem. 

Countries that apply sanctions (sanctionists) regularly use economic coercion to achieve non-proliferation goals. The Biden administration, like its predecessors, believes that the economic pain of sanctions forces uncooperative countries like Iran to the negotiating table, where non-proliferation agreements can be hammered out. Whether Iran entered into the nuclear negotiations because of economic pressure is up for debate. Notwithstanding, non-proliferation experts have heralded sanctions as a critical part of the arms control toolbox.   

But what if the use of sanctions as part of non-proliferation diplomacy introduces another kind of irreversible knowledge problem, one overlooked by Western policymakers? Afterall, non-proliferation agreements impose no restrictions on the ability of sanctionists to further develop their means of economic coercion. Even after a deal like the JCPOA is adopted and implemented, sanctionists can continue to advance their understanding of how to apply and enforce sanctions with devastating effect. This irreversible knowledge is gained in three ways.

First, sanctionists can continue to study the target’s economy even after the implementation of a non-proliferation agreement. Some Iranian critics of the nuclear deal have complained that re-entering the JCPOA will make Iran more vulnerable to sanctions by increasing economic dependence on the West. But the issue is more subtle than that. Whether or not trade increases with Western companies after the lifting of sanctions, Western governments can continue to study the Iranian economy to understand its composition and its vulnerabilities in ways that will aid the design of future sanctions, whether those are broad sectoral measures or specific designations. Indeed, the U.S. continued to apply sanctions on Iran even after the nuclear deal was agreed, designating additional entities on the basis of terrorism or human rights related authorities. Even if these moves did not amount to a direct violation of the JCPOA, they did reflect how the U.S. was continuing to gain knowledge about how to target Iranian individuals and firms even after the deal’s implementation. 

Second, sanctionists can continue to apply sanctions on other countries in ways that advance knowledge about how to make sanctions hurt. Were the JCPOA restored in full today, the United States and Europe would still be applying sanctions on a wide range of countries, most notably Russia. The application of sanctions in Russia, for example, provides practical experience that can inform how future sanctions on Iran might be made more harmful. Were Iran to gain irreversible nuclear knowledge in an analogous manner, Iranian nuclear scientists would be enriching uranium outside their borders, while ceasing the problematic research in Iran. In this way, even if sanctionists were to completely abstain from applying sanctions on Iran after the implementation of the JCPOA, they would still retain the ability to use sanctions in other countries in ways that expand capabilities.

Third, sanctionists can continue to strengthen the institutions responsible for designing and imposing sanctions. Whereas Iran could not install more centrifuges were it to re-join the nuclear deal, the U.S. can continue to increase staff within key offices such as the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control. As a result, the JCPOA actually exacerbates the escalation dominance of the U.S. over Iran. Sanctionists are inherently better prepared for the breakdown—whether wilful or accidental—of any non-proliferation agreement in which sanctions relief has been traded for non-proliferation commitments.

In this way, the irreversible knowledge gained by sanctionists represents a serious challenge to non-proliferation efforts. Conceptually, as U.S. and European officials increasingly conceive of sanctions as “economic weapons” and describe themselves as “nerd warriors” it is appropriate to apply to sanctions the concept of irreversible knowledge that has so far been only been invoked in the context of Iran’s nuclear programme.

The threat posed by the irreversible knowledge of sanctionists has weighed on Iran’s participation the nuclear negotiations. It is not merely the possibility of Trump’s re-election in 2024 that has cast a shadow over the talks, but also the fact that any administration that might wish to reimpose sanctions on Iran in the future will have a much deeper understanding of Iran’s economic responses to maximum pressure. For example, when the Trump administration sought to drive Iran’s oil exports down to “zero,” they did not expect that Iran would end up maintaining exports above 1 million barrels per day, with oil passing through the UAE and Malaysia, before heading to China. The role of intermediation in sustaining oil exports under sanctions is now a known feature of Iran’s economic resilience strategy. This datapoint can be incorporated into future sanctions design. There are countless other examples of where real and actionable knowledge has been gained by the U.S. and Europe that can be used to hammer Iran’s economy. As demonstrated by the circumstances of Trump’s withdrawal, Iran’s compliance with its commitments under the nuclear deal offers no guarantee that it will avoid the return of sanctions. 

Western negotiators have tried to account for Iran’s fears about another U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA by engaging in a dialogue on possible political or technical guarantees that might serve to make the nuclear deal robust. But the discussion over guarantees is focused on reducing the probability of sanctions “snapback.” No solutions have been offered to try and curtail the impact of snapback. Theoretically, the impact of snapback gets worse as the U.S. and Europe gain more knowledge about how to deploy sanctions for maximum effect. Truly mitigating the risks for Iran means addressing both probability and magnitude.  

Western diplomats will no doubt continue to use sanctions to advance their non-proliferation agenda and the JCPOA is a good deal that ought to be restored. But Iran’s bitter experience under the nuclear deal makes clear that to create more durable and equitable non-proliferation agreements, Western officials must find ways to account for the fact that there is a fundamental asymmetry in the manner in which non-proliferation agreements deal with the issue of irreversible knowledge. Sanctions work by weaponising normal economic interdependencies. This makes it difficult to imagine that the knowledge gains of sanctionists can be curtailed. At best, these knowledge gains must be compensated for, either by limiting the non-proliferation demands made of countries like Iran, for example by granting them more leeway to undertake certain kinds of research, or by devising other more complex mechanisms, such as some kind financial annuity for non-proliferation agreements that kicks-in irrespective of the fault for the deal’s demise. 

For now, the solutions are unclear. But if they are to be found, policymakers and experts committed to global non-proliferation must recognise their one-sided approach to irreversible knowledge within the context of non-proliferation regimes. Under the JCPOA, Iran’s ability to gain nuclear knowledge is constrained, but the U.S. and Europe can continue to hone their sanctions. This asymmetry is emblematic of a significant flaw in all agreements that trade sanctions relief benefits for nuclear restrictions and monitoring commitments.

Photo: state.gov

How Biden Can Stop Iran’s Conservatives From Undermining the Nuclear Deal

By Saheb Sadeghi

U.S. President-elect Joe Biden has so far spoken sparingly on Iran, including an op-ed on the CNN website and in an interview with the New York Times. As part of a step-by-step strategy, he has said that he would return to the nuclear deal as the first step and then address other concerns about Iran’s regional influence and missile capabilities. But how will the Iranian government react to the United States’ demand that the regional issues and the missile capabilities should be part of the negotiation?

There are two different approaches in Iran to handling comprehensive negotiations with the United States.

There is broad consensus within the Iranian establishment that Iran will not make any concessions regarding its deterrence and defense strategy.

Iran has traditionally used a deterrent strategy to strengthen its national security and defend its territorial integrity in recent years. This strategy has two prongs. The first is strengthening and supporting regional allies and militant movements in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and elsewhere; the second is enhancing its missile capabilities and building and testing short- and long-range missiles, as well as ballistic missiles.

This strategy has expanded since the U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which brought hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops into the region just a few miles from Iran’s eastern and western borders, dramatically increasing the risk of an imminent military strike on Iranian territory. Tehran has pointed to security threats in its vicinity and the fact that it is not a member of any regional military coalitions as the reasons it needs to develop missile capabilities and expand its influence in the Islamic countries in the Middle Eastern region.

Despite this general consensus on deterrence strategy, the Iranian government’s approach to Biden’s call for comprehensive negotiations can be divided into two camps.

The first group is made up of conservatives, who recently gained an absolute majority earlier this year in parliamentary elections and are expected to win the next presidential election. The conservatives strongly reject any talks with the United States on non-nuclear issues and their position has been further strengthened by the assassinations of the commander Gen. Qassem Suleimani in early 2020 and more recently the prominent nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh.

In their view, these assassinations were an attempt by Iran’s enemies to paralyze Iran’s deterrence, and now is the time to revive this deterrence, rather than negotiate. Reflecting this view, Saeed Jalili, a senior member of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) and the former nuclear negotiator during the presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, harshly criticized President Hassan Rouhani for discussing the missile issue with French President Emmanuel Macron in a telephone conversation. (He called for the refusal of such talks on the part of Rouhani, declaring that non-nuclear talks are prohibited and unacceptable.)

Conservatives believe that just as the West sought to limit Iran’s nuclear capabilities in past nuclear talks with the country, any negotiations on missile and regional issues would inflict a crushing blow to Iran’s national security. The hardline speaker of the parliament, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, recently said, “Negotiations with the United States are absolutely harmful and forbidden.” During Ahmadinejad’s presidency, when conservatives were in power, the world witnessed six years of fruitless negotiations between Iran and the West from 2008 to 2014, and this trend could repeat itself if the conservatives win the next presidential election.

The other group is made up of pragmatists and moderates who, despite emphasizing the need to strengthen Iran’s deterrence strategy, do not see non-nuclear negotiations as a threat to Iran’s national interests. Even so, they will not accept that the implementation of the nuclear agreement should be conditional on regional and missile negotiations.

In their view, if Biden’s foreign policy team focuses on the alleged need for so-called Middle East security and arms control talks instead of insisting on countering Iran’s regional influence and the need for limiting and disarming its missiles, it will be possible to reach an agreement between Iran and the West with the cooperation of countries in the region.

To them, when “countering Iran’s regional influence and its missiles,” is on the U.S. agenda, it means an aggressive approach toward Iran that does not consider the country’s legitimate security concerns. Such an approach will not be effective as the Iranians have shown with their resilience in the face of unprecedented U.S. sanctions, resulting from outgoing President Donald Trump’s maximum-pressure campaign.

The pragmatists believe that Iran’s missile policy is entirely defensive and deterrent in nature; Tehran has already stated that its missiles’ range will not exceed 2,000 kilometers (1,240 miles) while some Arab states in the region such Saudi Arabia have purchased missiles with a range of 5,000 kilometers (3,100 miles).

The pragmatists believe that in potential future region-wide negotiations, if pressure is put on Iran to limit its missile capabilities, Iran could rightfully bring up the issues of Saudi Arabia’s missiles, Israel’s nuclear warheads, and modern arms purchases by the Persian Gulf states as a justification for its insistence on keeping its own missile capabilities. The purchase of F-35 fighter jets by the UAE and Israeli nuclear weapons could be on the agenda of the possible future talks, which will give Iran the upper hand in those negotiations.

In such a situation, the United States and regional actors must decide whether to move toward a broader arms-control process in the Middle East or to recognize Iran’s right to have a missile capability. The pragmatists think that there should not be any fear of negotiation; instead, they argue that the opportunity of negotiations should be used to consolidate Iran’s regional and defense achievements. They see Biden’s victory as an opportunity to resolve Iran’s regional and international problems and see his approach to solving the Middle East’s problems as balanced in contrast to Trump’s.

This pragmatists’ view is even more relevant given Biden’s talk about reconsidering the U.S. position on Saudi Arabia. During his presidential campaign, he vowed to reassess the U.S. relationship with the Saudis and put an end to U.S. support for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen.

The pragmatists argue that former President Barack Obama was moving in that direction, and now Biden could step into Obama’s shoes and continue along that unfinished path. In an interview with the Atlantic in May 2015, Obama emphasized that an approach that rewards Arab allies while presenting Iran as the source of all regional problems would mean continuing sectarian strife in the region. Obama stressed that Saudi Arabia had to learn to share the Middle East region with its sworn enemy, Iran.

Biden’s pick for national security advisor, Jake Sullivan, said in a lengthy interview with The Center for Strategic and International Studies that the Biden administration will stop Trump’s maximum pressure campaign against Iran and would not hold the nuclear deal hostage for regional and missile talks, but by returning to deal it would put pressure on regional actors—including Iran and Saudi Arabia—to undertake regional talks. He also said that the United States will hand over these negotiations to regional countries and will not take the lead. Such a position aligns with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif’s recent statement reiterating Iran’s readiness to hold talks with countries in the region on security and stability in the Middle East.

Even China’s foreign minister has recently called for Middle East security talks. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov recently reiterated Putin’s proposal for talks between the U.N. Security Council permanent members and Iran to establish a collective security order in the Persian Gulf.

Iran’s readiness to use the influence it enjoys over the Houthis to end the Yemeni war—which Biden has insisted on and which lies at the core of Saudi Arabia’s national interests and security—seems to be a golden starting point. Iran can persuade its Yemeni allies to sign a peace agreement with Saudi Arabia.

However, there are serious barriers to regional and missile negotiations, the resolution of which will depend on the approach of the Biden foreign policy team. The atmosphere of mistrust between Iran and the United States, influenced by Trump’s maximum-pressure campaign and the assassinations of Suleimani and Fakhrizadeh, is the primary obstacle.

The second obstacle is the short period that Rouhani is still in office. With Biden taking office on Jan. 20, 2021, the two countries have only five months before Iran’s upcoming presidential election to revive the nuclear deal and work on other issues.

If the Biden administration’s plans to revive the JCPOA and lift sanctions do not go ahead as predicted, the two sides will be in serious trouble in early February, when the deadline included in a bill pushed by hardliners as an intentional spoiler and recently passed in the Iranian parliament expires.

Iran’s parliament has given European countries and the United States two months to lift sanctions. The Rouhani administration has expressed its opposition to the bill, describing it harmful to diplomatic efforts. However, because it has become law, they cannot prevent it from being enforced. Zarif has said the government will be forced to implement the law, according to which Iran will abandon almost all its nuclear obligations.

If such a law is implemented, it is possible that the JCPOA—which has survived four years of Trump administration’s immense pressure—would die in the first month of Biden’s presidency. Biden could lift the sanctions that were suspended by the nuclear deal with several executive orders, and then, as Rouhani recently announced, Iran will return to its nuclear obligations.

Saheb Sadeghi is a columnist and foreign-policy analyst on Iran and the Middle East. Follow him at @sahebsadeghi.

Photo: Wikicommons

Europe Can Preserve the Iran Nuclear Deal Until November

By Ellie Geranmayeh and Elisa Catalano Ewers

The United States just lost the showdown at the United Nations Security Council over extending the terms of the arms embargo against Iran. The U.S. government was left embarrassingly isolated, winning just one other vote for its proposed resolution (from the Dominican Republic), while Russia and China voted against and 11 other nations abstained.

But the Trump administration is not deterred: In response to the vote, President Donald Trump threatened that “we’ll be doing a snapback”—a reference to reimposing sanctions suspended under the 2015 nuclear deal from which the United States withdrew in 2018.

The dance around the arms embargo has always been a prelude to the bigger goal: burning down the remaining bridges that could lead back to the 2015 deal.

The Trump administration now seeks to snap back international sanctions using a measure built into the very nuclear agreement the Trump White House withdrew from two years ago. This latest gambit by the Trump administration is unsurprisingly contested by other world powers.

On the one hand, Russia and China are making a technical, legal argument against the U.S. move, namely that the United States forfeited its right to impose snapback sanctions once it exited the nuclear deal. This is based on Security Council Resolution 2231 that enshrined the nuclear agreement, which clearly outlines that only a participant state to the nuclear deal can resort to snapback. This is a legal position that even former U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton—an opponent of the nuclear deal and under whose watch Trump left the agreement—has recently endorsed.

In the end, however, this is more a political fight than a legal one. The political case—which seems to be most favored by European countries—is that the United States lacks the legitimacy to resort to snapback since it is primarily motivated by a desire to sabotage the multilateral agreement after spending the last two years undermining its foundations. 

The main actor that will decide the fate of the nuclear deal after snapback sanctions is Iran itself. Iran has already acted in response to the U.S. maximum pressure campaign, from increasing enrichment levels and exceeding other caps placed on its nuclear program, to attacking U.S. forces based in Iraq and threatening to exit the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

But the calculations of decision-makers in Tehran will be influenced by the political and practical realities that follow snapback sanctions. And here, the response from the remaining parties to the nuclear deal—France, the United Kingdom, Germany, China, and Russia—will be critical. These countries remain committed to keeping the deal on life support—at least until the U.S. presidential election in November.

Seizing on its failure to extend the arms embargo, the United States now claims it can start the clock on a 30-day notification period, after which U.N. sanctions removed against Iran by the nuclear deal are reinstated. This notification will be timed deliberately to end before October—when the arms embargo is set to expire, and also when Russia takes over presidency of the U.N. Security Council: a time when Washington could face more procedural hurdles.

What is likely to follow snapback is a messy scene at the U.N. in which council members will broadly fall into three groups. First, the United States will seek to build support for its case—primarily through political and economic pressure—so that by the end of the 30-day notice period some U.N. member states agree to implement sanctions. The Trump administration will likely use the threat of U.S. secondary sanctions, as it has done successfully over the last 18 months, if governments don’t move to enforce snapback sanctions.

Even if most governments around the world disagree that the United States has any authority to impose snapback sanctions, some countries may be forced to side with Washington given the threat that the United States could turn its economic pressure against them.

The second group will be led by China and Russia, both of which have already started to push back. Not only will this group refuse to implement the U.N. sanctions that the U.S. government claims should be reimposed, but they likely will throw obstacles into the mix, such as blocking the reinstitution of appropriate U.N. committees that will oversee the implementation of such sanctions. This group may also see it as advantageous to seek a determination by the International Court of Justice on the legal question over the U.S. claim.

The third grouping will be led by the France, Britain, and Germany, who remain united in the belief that the deal should be preserved to the greatest extent possible. In a statement in June, the three governments already emphasized that they would not support unilateral snapback by the United States. But it is unclear if this will translate into active opposition—and their approach will certainly not include the obstructionist moves that Russia and China may make.

This bloc will look to stall decisions to take the steps necessary to implement the U.N. sanctions. This is a delicate undertaking, as European countries are not in the habit of blatantly ignoring the binding framework of some of the U.N.’s directives, and will want to balance their actions against the risk of eroding the security council’s credibility further. But they will also take advantage of whatever procedural avenues are in place to delay full enforcement of the sanctions, buying time to urge Iranian restraint in response to the U.S. moves.

Countries such as India, South Korea, and Japan are likely to favor this approach. These governments may even go so far as to send a significant political signal to Iran and back a joint statement by most of the security council members vowing not to recognize unilateral U.S. snapback sanctions.

As part of this approach, the 27 member states of the European Union could embark on a prolonged consultation process over how and if to implement snapback sanctions. The separate EU-level sanctions targeting Iran’s nuclear program are unlikely to be reimposed so long as Iran takes a measured approach to its nuclear activities.

Reimposing EU sanctions against Iran will entail a series of steps, the first of which requires France, Britain, and Germany, together with the EU High Representative, to make a recommendation to the EU Council. The return of EU sanctions would then require unanimity among member states, a goal which will take time to achieve in a context where Washington is largely viewed as sabotaging the nuclear deal.

In this process, the EU should seek to preserve as much space as possible to salvage the deal and avoid the reimposition of nuclear-focused sanctions against Iran—at least until the outcome of the U.S. election is clear. The U.K., in the run-up to Brexit, may well lean toward a similar position rather than tying itself too closely to an administration in Washington that may be on its way out.

Until now, the remaining parties to the nuclear deal have managed to preserve the deal’s architecture despite its hollowing out. The aim has been to stumble along until the U.S. election to see if a new opening is possible to resuscitate the agreement with a possible Biden administration in January.

While a Trump win could spell the end of the deal and further dim the prospects of diplomacy between the United States and Iran, the two sides could come to a new understanding over Iran’s nuclear program at some point during the second term that is premised on the original deal. Judging by the pace of the Trump administration’s nuclear diplomacy with North Korea, this will be a Herculean process with no certain outcome.

In Tehran, there will be some sort of immediate response to the snapback—most likely involving further expansion of its nuclear activities. However, Iran may decide to extend its strategic patience a few weeks longer until the U.S. election. A legal battle by Russia and China against snapback, combined with non-implementation of U.N. sanctions by a large number of countries and continued hints from the Biden camp that Washington would re-enter the nuclear deal could provide the Rouhani administration with enough face-saving to stall the most extreme responses available to Iran.

But with Iranian elections coming in the first half of 2021, there will be great domestic pressure from more hardline forces to take assertive action, particularly on the nuclear program, to give Iran more leverage in any future talks with Washington.

If Iran takes more extreme steps on its nuclear activities, such as a major increase in its enrichment levels or reducing access to international monitors, it will make it nearly impossible for the Britain and the EU to remain committed to the deal in the short term. There are also factors outside Iranian and U.S. control that could have an impact, such as a potential uptick in Israeli attacks against Iranian nuclear targets.

Over the course of the Trump administration, Europe and Iran have managed to avert the collapse of the nuclear deal. Having come so far, and just 11 weeks away from the U.S. election, they will need to work hard to prevent the total collapse of the agreement. Even if Biden—who has vowed to re-enter the deal if Iran returns to compliance—is elected, the remaining parties will need to continue the hard slog to preserve it until January.

Those opposed to the nuclear deal with Iran may see the last two months of a Trump administration as a window to pursue a scorched-earth policy toward Iran’s nuclear program. That leaves Britain and Europe with the job of holding what remains of the deal together, for as long as they can.

Ellie Geranmayeh is a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations. Follow her at  @EllieGeranmayeh.

Elisa Catalano Ewers is an adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security and a former U.S. State Department and National Security Council official.

Photo: IRNA

Will Iran Follow North Korea’s Path and Ditch the NPT?

By Mahsa Rouhi

Washington’s “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran has recently pushed each side into a series of escalatory moves and countermoves. Since U.S. President Donald Trump took office, his administration has hoped that Iran would eventually relent and make concessions on its nuclear program, missile development, and regional activities, but it seems increasingly likely that Iran may instead decide that its best path forward is to follow North Korea’s example and withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), long considered the global cornerstone for preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. (Three years after pulling out in 2003, North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon.)

The mainstream view in Iran until recently was that withdrawing from the NPT would bring further diplomatic isolation, lead to increased sanctions, and court a U.S. military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Therefore, it would be counterproductive to Tehran’s larger aspirations of regional leadership and reintegration into the international community. But recent events have caused Tehran to reevaluate those ambitions, as they seem increasingly far-fetched. In the past year, the prospect of withdrawing from the NPT has transformed from a fringe idea among hard-liners in Iran into a real policy option that resonates with a surprisingly large spectrum of Iranian society.

Iran still maintains that it does not seek nuclear weapons, but as the International Atomic Energy Agency revealed on March 3, Iran has nearly tripled its stockpile of low-enriched uranium to 1,021 kilograms (1.1 tons) since November 2019. This amount, if further enriched, would be enough for a nuclear bomb, if Iran decided to cross the line.

It hasn’t helped that diplomatic relations between Iran and the other parties to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal have rapidly deteriorated. Since May 2019 Iran has scaled back on its commitments, and on Jan. 5, it announced it would no longer abide by the operational restrictions on the low-enriched uranium stockpile, enrichment capacity, percentage of enrichment, amount of enriched material, and research and development.

In response, three of the remaining parties to the accord—France, Germany, and the United Kingdom (known as the E3)—triggered the deal’s dispute resolution mechanism. Iran takes issue with this, arguing that it already triggered the mechanism itself after the United States pulled out of the deal in 2018. The E3 and the European Union disagree and have been trying, with middling success, to persuade Russia and China to side with them on the matter.

This measure—if all steps are exhausted—could ultimately refer Iranian noncompliance to the U.N. Security Council and trigger the snapback of U.N. sanctions within weeks. However, as long as no party declares that Iran has not taken steps to resolve the dispute, it can remain bottled up indefinitely in the Joint Commission, the body charged with overseeing the accord. Since Iran has not taken further provocative steps, such as enriching to 20 percent, the other parties seem content to kick the can down the road.

This is for the best. Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, has stated that if U.N. Security Council sanctions are reimposed, Iran may exit not merely the nuclear deal but also the NPT.

It is not just the prospect of U.N. economic sanctions that upsets Iranians, but the notion of again falling under provisions of Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, which allows the Security Council to take military and nonmilitary action to “restore international peace and security.”

The idea of withdrawing from the NPT is not new, but is now being discussed widely in moderate circles, including by the speaker of the parliament, Ali Larijani. This turn in strategic thinking is due to the ramping up of U.S. sanctions, particularly on oil sales and what Iran sees as the failure of other parties to provide sanctions relief promised under the deal. Under these circumstances, Iranians increasingly believe they have nothing to gain from the deal and little more to lose by going rogue—since their country is already being treated as an outcast. The heightened tensions with Washington and the increasing possibility of conflict add to Iranians’ sense that the cards are stacked against them no matter what

To the Iranian government, U.S. pressure could potentially become an existential threat to its survival.

Iran’s strategy since 2003 can best be described as nuclear hedging: The country has been developing nuclear capabilities in order to maintain the option of building a weapon in the future should it decide to do so, while also downplaying and sidestepping international opposition in order to build negotiating leverage. However, the heavy toll from Trump’s efforts since 2018 to deprive Iran of oil revenues appears to be changing Iran’s cost-benefit calculus.

Its economy shrank by 9.5 percent last year and is projected to remain flat in the coming year. Foreign investment has declined and oil exports have dropped dramatically. Iran’s currency, the rial, has deeply depreciated and inflation has risen dramatically, increasing the cost of living for ordinary people in Iran. Economic turmoil, in turn, has created a tense domestic situation: In November 2019, nationwide protests over the sudden increase in gasoline prices put new pressure on the government. The devastating impact of COVID-19, which has hit Iran particularly hard, exacerbates the gloom.

To the Iranian government, U.S. pressure could potentially become an existential threat to its survival. The government therefore needs a game-changer. Feeling driven into a corner, Iran could consider withdrawing from the NPT as the only option left to ensure self-preservation. In a sense, they are falling for the same fatalistic logic applied by hawks in Israel and the United States who argue that since a conflict with Iran is inevitable in the future, it is best to weaken their adversary and face any conflict now rather than later. Many of the political elite feel that they should take the gamble now rather than after a few years with more limited oil revenue.

If Iran does decide to withdraw, it would not necessarily imply a decision to build nuclear weapons. It considers that rejoining the NPT will be a valuable bargaining chip. In addition, it could openly accelerate its enrichment program for the purpose of building leverage for future negotiations. However, advocates of withdrawal point out that Iran is already suffering many of the same international consequences as North Korea—sanctions, pariah status—without any of the benefits.

Tehran is suffering now from problems that Pyongyang only encountered after withdrawing from the NPT. So why not build a bomb for the sake of regime security and regional prestige?

After all, Iran complied with the nuclear deal for three years, only to ultimately be threatened with new rounds of sanctions.

Some hard-line voices in Tehran argue that a nuclear weapon capability would boost Iran’s regional status like never before and might also guarantee the regime’s survival, as the risk of toppling a nuclear government in an already destabilized region would be too high for the West. In short, they conclude, a nuclear-armed Iran would have an upper hand in the international community.

However, Iran is aware of the risks of following North Korea’s path. Despite its nuclear escalation, North Korea has not been able to negotiate tangible sanctions relief. Leaving the NPT would likely unite the international community—including China and Russia—against Iran, and could provoke the United States, Israel, and at least one of the Gulf states, or a combination of these powers, to launch military strikes against its nuclear facilities.

Such an attack, which would be hard to keep from expanding to a large-scale war, would destroy Iran’s nuclear enrichment capabilities in the near term, but would almost guarantee that Iran would continue to build nuclear weapons in clandestine facilities.

However, if faced with renewed military threats from the United States, and if the E3 continues to prove unable to defuse mounting economic pressure and potential U.N. sanctions, Iran is likely to take this step.

The government in Tehran is under immense internal pressure from hard-line factions and from the public.

In the summer of 2021, a new, most likely hard-line, president will take office. If Iran has not obtained significant sanctions relief by then, it is possible that the new president will seek to achieve for Iran the status his compatriots yearn for—likely through negotiations, with the open question being whether this will occur before or after Iran has built a nuclear weapon.

With the future of the nuclear deal in doubt, it is essential for the Europeans, China, and Russia to take firm action on sanctions relief, as well as diplomatic and economic reintegration. Such actions and assurances would de-escalate the situation, decrease the possibility of military attack and slow down Iran’s policy shift

The severity of COVID-19 in Iran gives the remaining parties to the deal a strong reason to provide sanctions relief and assistance in humanitarian fields such as sending medical supplies. Doing so would also show good faith and signal to Iranians the benefits of remaining part of the international community. It can also set a more positive foundation for diplomacy and encourage restraint on Iran’s part not to cross a red line on its nuclear activities.

It is vital that Iran continue its compliance with the International Atomic Energy Agency and remain party to NPT, in order to keep the door open for future agreements and prevent the worst-case scenarios of war or a nuclear-armed Iran.

Mahsa Rouhi is a research fellow with the nonproliferation and nuclear policy program at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Follow her at @MahsaRouhi.

Photo:IRNA

Putting Iranian People Before Non-Proliferation

This article was originally published on LobeLog.

With such a vibrant economy and society, it is hard to be anything but optimistic about Iran in the long term, even in the recent dark days. Iran’s challenges have always been about prospects in the short term, lurching as it has between domestic and foreign crises. Concerns about the short term have shaped the thinking of foreign stakeholders, who have held off on investments or engagements because of fears of political or economic turmoil. Similar doubts have also crowded the thinking of Iranians themselves, who respond to turmoil by making self-serving decisions, which often prove costly for society down the line. In this way, Iran’s circumstances have been about opportunities delayed, about a widening gulf between short-term pain and the promise of long-term prosperity.

As they look back at the 2015 nuclear deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA), many Iranians see that its promise was wrapped up in the expectation that such a “grand bargain” would help Iran bridge the gulf between the circumstances of today and the prosperity of tomorrow. Iran, by both making and receiving careful concessions in the course of multilateral negotiations with the world powers had in effect brought forward the time horizon for its own bright future.

Today, the gulf is widening again. In a rare instance of transparency, Trump administration officials openly refer to their Iran policy as an “economic war.” Sanctions are no longer being used as tools of coercive diplomacy, but of economic destruction. Worse still, the operative logic of the most recent sanctions is to create a “sanctions wall.” For the first time, the United States is applying sanctions for the express purpose of making previous sanctions more difficult to lift. This was declared intention of designating the Revolutionary Guards a foreign terrorist organization.

The recent decision to revoke the oil waivers—which does nothing more than remove what proponents of the “significant reduction exemptions” had themselves described as a “humanitarian channel” in which oil revenues flowed into escrow accounts—will place unprecedented economic pressure on Iran, just as intended. The effects of such mounting pressure have been plain to see.

In the last few days, I have spoken to several friends and colleagues in Iran. With each call, the individuals on the other end of the line feel so much farther away than they did even just a few weeks ago. On Tuesday, I was discussing the ramifications of the oil waiver issue with an Iranian journalist. He asked me what Iran’s government could do in response. I instantly felt the responsibility to offer an answer, a ray of hope. But my answer was so obviously unconvincing, with even my Persian falling short as I tried to formulate the pitiful sentences, that I felt embarrassed. Not because of the answer itself, but because suddenly the fiction of shared experiences was made clear.

For the last few years, those of us who deal with Iranian interlocutors on a regular basis could find some joy and motivation in the idea that our lived experiences were converging. More outsiders could engage Iran and more Iranians could engage the wider world. But the reality of political and economic isolation is just that—a deep and pervading separation that makes it clear that although all sides were poised to share the dividends of the JCPOA, only one side will truly bear the costs of its collapse.

Power and the People

Iran’s halting push for nuclear and ballistic missile technology has generally been understood in the context of a regional-security dilemma. Facing huge asymmetries in military power, Iran has sought to develop the means for its own defense.

But it is unclear if the security dilemma is a salient formulation in a period in which a historic non-proliferation agreement has become something of a political curse for its Iranian stewards and a source of abject disappointment for the voters who brought those political leaders to office.

In many respects, the political prospects for the JCPOA were always going to be judged by a simple formula—would Iran appear more powerful with the agreement or without it? In this sense, the state visits, foreign investment, cultural exchanges, and other dividends of diplomacy were meant to provide a spectacle of power, a font of pride, that would displace those grainy images of centrifuges in their neat rows or the footage of missiles emblazoned with political slogans.

The dividends of diplomacy never really materialized. Today, appearing “powerless” is the ultimate political liability for the Iranian state and its leadership. Iran has been made to look weak as trading partners make risible efforts to protect commercial ties in the face of U.S. pressure. The Rouhani government has been made to look weak, out-maneuvered by a shambolic Trump administration. Most troubling, the Iranian people feel powerless as their standard of living is eroded by forces outside of their control, even the forces of Mother Nature herself.

These circumstances give new meaning to the notion of “power hungry.” It is not Iran’s elites who are power hungry. They enjoy ample power. It is the Iranian people who crave power. There seems to be a belief among some in Washington that this hunger—perhaps even literal hunger—will drive the Iranian people to seize power from the elites.

But I foresee a different scenario. Recent surveys have shown a marked increase in the number of Iranians seeking “retaliation” in the face of U.S. violations of the JCPOA. There is genuine anger and frustration among large swaths of the public, directed both at the United States and at the Iranian establishment.

These emotions cannot remain undirected—and Iran’s imperfect democracy offers the channel. Routine elections present Iranian politicians the opportunity to respond to this hunger for power by co-opting it. Just as the disempowered in Eastern Europe, Latin America, Southeast Asia, and the United States have voted for politicians who obsess over expressions of power, so too might Iranians choose to displace their own powerlessness by investing their political capital in a “strongman.”

In such a scenario, the decision to revitalize or expand the nuclear and ballistic missile programs is no longer about calibrating regional security or asserting sovereignty against the West. The centrifuges and missiles themselves become symbols of power, a kind of spectacle around which people can rally. At some level, this is the basic rally-around-the-flag effect that many have been warning about. But this effect has yet to be turned into the sine qua non of domestic politics in Iran. Even under former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, there remained a fundamental technocratic orientation of the government.

Rethinking Non-Proliferation

For this reason, non-proliferation must be re-conceived as a political project in the post-JCPOA era. Within the context of the JCPOA, the empowerment of the Iranian people was always seen as a secondary outcome of the agreement’s non-proliferation achievements. In a striking illustration, the Trump administration has been messaging its intention to “support the Iranian people” more vociferously, if disingenuously, than the Obama administration and other parties to the JCPOA ever did.

On one hand it is encouraging to see Democratic Party candidates seek to break with the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” policy and throw their support behind a multilateral agreement. And yet it is discouraging to see these candidates articulate their intentions towards Iran exclusively within the paradigm of the JCPOA and its ability to curtail Iran’s nuclear program. This fixation on non-proliferation overlooks the fact that in the course of the coming political season in Iran, the JCPOA will likely become too toxic to serve as the crux of a reoriented US policy on Iran, even if the policy of diplomatic engagement with the West remains viable and even if Iran technically remains in compliance.

What if Democrats pointed to their readiness for a deeper reckoning with the failure of the JCPOA? Would it not be so much more meaningful for a Democratic candidate to declare, “We let the Iranian people down when we reimposed sanctions on them while their government was still in compliance with the JCPOA. Our mission should be to restore trust so that Iranians can count on America to honor its obligations.”

Earlier this week, President Hassan Rouhani gave an important speech in which he underlined that he is a “man of negotiation” but emphasized that negotiations are impossible until the United States essentially shows Iran due respect. As American proponents of engagement with Iran look to the future, they must recognize that the failure of the JCPOA was not encompassed in the decision of the Trump administration to withdraw, but rather in the set of cascading institutional failures that allowed the administration to drastically shift the nature of U.S. policy towards Iran, as well as towards the remaining parties of the JCPOA, without paying any real political cost. The Democrats, and all who care about the integrity of American foreign policy, must reckon with these failures. A willingness to do so is far more important than reentering a moribund deal as a matter of political reflex.

Until American policymakers can conceive of relations with Iran as something more than a set of tactical accommodations designed to address threat perceptions, they are unlikely to solve the question of Iranian proliferation decisively. Proponents of engagement must make sure that they are building a bridge to help Iranians cross from short-term turmoil to the long-term prosperity they have been regrettably denied. Non-proliferation is just one pillar of this bridge.

Photo: Depositphoto