Priorities – International: Iran

Treaties, in theory, require Senate ratification to be truly binding, but many treaties never reach that legislative body. Instead, the President authorizes a treaty to be negotiated (sometimes with direct involvement by the President), approves the result and then instructs governmental agencies and diplomats to implement its dictates whether or not that treaty is submitted to the Senate. Treaties that contain financial commitments either require Congressional approval or approval for the specific funding in question. 

Aside from the general notion that President Biden has a lot of bridge-mending and treaty reaffirmation on his agenda, he is also operating under a new perception of a general and perhaps irreversible decline in American political and economic power and influence. Add the probable complexity of a GOP-controlled Senate hell-bent on gridlock. For nations that had once trusted America at its word, they have become acutely aware that it does not take much, just the election of a president who disagrees with the substance of past promises, for the United States to renege. That’s a tough place to be in for any leader trying to step back into a policy of international engagement and cooperation.

We may assume that even though it has only been a few days since the United States officially implemented its earlier termination of its commitment to the Paris climate accord, restoring that status will be an easy button for the new President. Not so simple, however, are the nuclear threats from North Korea, which both has a nuclear arsenal and the capacity to deliver those weapons even to targets on American soil, and Iran, which has been suffering from additional US sanctions since Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the six-party UN Iran-nuclear-containment accord two and a half years ago. After 40 years of never-ending US-Iran mutual brinksmanship and constant animas, nothing remotely had brought Iran to the negotiating table until the accord.

Korea will evolve, but pressure to restore a treaty to halt further development of an Iranian nuclear weapons capacity will be almost immediate. In ending US participation in the Iran accord, Trump responded primarily to Israeli pressure, supported heavily by his evangelical base. Israel believed the accord accomplished little. Military intelligence had informed Trump that Iran had not breached its obligations when Trump announced US withdrawal. Many in this country believed that once the US pulled out and reimposed as well as expanded sanctions, Tehran would slowly come begging for relief and give both the United States and Israel exactly what they wanted. They were wrong again; Iran dug in its heels despite the pain. 

“[After] President Donald Trump announced the U.S withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, Tehran has resumed its enrichment of uranium, restarted research and development on advanced centrifuges, and expanded its stockpile of nuclear fuel, cutting in half the time it would need to produce enough weapons-grade fuel to build a nuclear bomb… ‘Iran is manifestly closer to being able to produce a nuclear weapon than they were two years ago,’ said Richard Nephew, who participated in negotiations on the landmark nuclear deal in 2015 [on behalf of the Obama administration].

“While there is no evidence Tehran is preparing a dash for a nuclear weapon, the Iranian advances raise questions about the success of the [Trump] White House’s so-called ‘maximum pressure’ campaign, which is aimed at forcing Iran through the imposition of ever more stringent sanctions to accept greater constraints on its political and military support for regional militias and the development of its ballistic missile program.

“The effort—which has severely damaged Iran’s economy—has yet to temper Iran’s nuclear ambitions, instead prompting Tehran to resume nuclear activities prohibited by the nuclear pact, which is formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA. It has also eroded Washington’s credibility even among many of its traditional allies and placed increasing strains on America’s diplomatic partnerships.” ForeignPolicy.com, May 8th. The rift between the United States widened when a US drone strike in Iraq took out a hallowed Iranian general: “Iran announced it would no longer abide by the [entire] JCPOA after the U.S. assassination of top commander Major General Qassem Soleimani in Iraq in January.” Newsweek, November 6th.

Israel’s current Netanyahu regime, profoundly pro-Trump, was obviously displeased at the outcome of our election. They were aware that Biden intended to try to restore that JCPOA in one version or another. “According to The Jerusalem Post, Settlements Minister Tzachi Hanegbi told Army Radio Wednesday [11/4] that Biden's position could result in war, firing the starting gun for anti-Iran deal pressure from Israel.

“‘Biden has said openly for a long time that he will go back to the nuclear agreement,’ Hanegbi said of the Iran deal… ‘I see that as something that will lead to a confrontation between Israel and Iran.’… Biden is a pro-Israel candidate, and dismissed calls from the progressive wing of his party to re-evaluate America's relationship with its long-time ally… Democratic critics of Israel argue that Netanyahu has overseen a raft of human rights abuses; pushed ahead with settlements on Palestinian land considered illegal by the United Nations and most of the international community; and annexed occupied foreign land, with the threat to do the same in parts of the West Bank.

“But Biden has vowed an ‘unshakeable’ commitment to Israeli security. His administration is likely to try and rebuild bridges with Palestinian representatives burned by Trump, but Biden is not expected to chart a radically different path on Israel regardless of concerns about Netanyahu's conduct and politics… Though Hanegbi told Army Radio he is not generally concerned about a Biden administration, the former vice president's willingness to re-engage with Iran is a problem for him, Netanyahu and much of Israel… He said the JCPOA was ‘mistaken—and that's an understatement... If Biden stays with that policy, there will, in the end, be a violent confrontation between Israel and Iran,’ he warned…

“Biden will have to get Tehran to comply again, but has also suggested he would try and curb Iran's ballistic missile program and its use of regional proxies… Experts are skeptical he will succeed. And he has a small window—in June the Iranian presidency will change hands, and most expect a hardline conservative to take power.” Newsweek. In 2015, Israel also had suggested that the original JCPOA would result in a war between Israel and Iran, which did not happen. Meanwhile, Russia has taken advantage of this impasse and is considering selling arms (new jets, defensive radar/missile systems akin to what they gave to Syria, etc.) to Iran. 

But perhaps that small window has opened a bit more, depending on what the word “compensate” really means in this context, as reported by the November 8th Associated Press: “Iran's president called on President-elect Joe Biden to ‘compensate for past mistakes’ and return the U.S. to Tehran's 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, a state-run news agency reported Sunday [11/8]… Hassan Rouhani's comments mark the highest-level response from Iran to Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris clinching the Nov. 3 election.

“‘Now, an opportunity has come up for the next U.S. administration to compensate for past mistakes and return to the path of complying with international agreements through respect of international norms,’ the state-run IRNA news agency quoted him as saying.” President-elect Biden obviously has a lot on his plate, but these treaty opportunities come with their own timelines and stress points. Outside of a military solution, which could easily get out of hand (as our wars in the Islamic world have proven repeatedly), a treaty with Iran, even if flawed, is the only truly viable path.

I’m Peter Dekom, and diplomacy by force often produces more resistance than compliance with the desired goals… unless the pressing party is prepared to go to war.