You may have read that President Trump declined to certify Iran as adhering to the JCPOA guidelines. But what about that statement he issued? Elena Chachko of Lawfare examines the two concrete action items:
First, the new designations (and any new non-nuclear sanctions, for that matter) are technically in line with the JCPOA. The JCPOA only covers nuclear obligations and sanctions. Yesterday’s designations, like previous non-nuclear Iran sanctions that the U.S. has imposed post-JCPOA (see, for example, below and here), are based on involvement in terrorism, meddling in Syria, and involvement in proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (including missile technology) – all activities that fall outside the scope of the nuclear deal. …
Second, yesterday’s IRGC designation does not set a precedent, contrary to the impression Trump’s statement and some news reports may have created. Trump said that “[t]he execution of our strategy begins with the long-overdue step of imposing tough sanctions on Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.” In fact, the IRGC has been on OFAC’s Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) list for quite a while under multiple sanctions programs. As OFAC’s press release notes, the IRGC was previously designated in 2007 pursuant to E.O. 13382 for supporting Iran’s ballistic missile and nuclear programs; in 2011 pursuant to E.O. 13553 for its role in human rights violations; and in 2012 pursuant to E.O. 13606 for similar reasons. All three executive orders are not among the orders the Obama administration revoked as part of the implementation of the JCPOA (see pp. 3, 37-40 of the implementation day guidance).
Or, per Trump’s modus operandi, he’s full of bluster and thunder, but like any farting cow, it doesn’t mean as much as he’d like you to think. But what about Congress?
The main legislative effort currently under way seems to be the Corker-Cotton plan, titled “Fixing the Iran Deal.” (Of course, the JCPOA can’t actually be unilaterally “fixed.”) The plan includes automatic “snapback” of U.S. sanctions if Iran goes under a one-year “breakout” capability, that is, the ability to manufacture a nuclear weapon. It also contemplates restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program that would ignore the JCPOA’s “sunset” provisions as they apply to U.S. sanctions. The document does not say anything about amending INARA as Trump suggested, nor does it mention any specific elements that would combat “the full spectrum of Iran’s nefarious activities.” It does say that the proposed legislation “would not conflict with the JCPOA upon passage.”
In light of this, it is difficult to say at this point whether the product of this legislative effort, if successful, would necessarily contradict any of the commitments the U.S. undertook under the JCPOA. For example, if the restrictions contemplated by the Corker-Cotton plan would only address specific nuclear weaponization activities and missile development, they would arguably be in line with the JCPOA. As previously mentioned, the JCPOA does not cover ballistic missile development and related sanctions, and Tehran reaffirmed in the agreement “that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons”, in accordance with its obligations under the NPT (see paras. iii-iv of the Preamble and General Provisions section of the JCPOA). In any event, the scope of the Corker-Cotton initiative, at least based on the document Senator Corker’s office released, appears to be more modest than what Trump seemed to suggest in his statement.
I begin to wonder – just kidding, I’ve been thinking this for quite a while – this is all about blunting Obama’s achievements and not about fixing some critical mistake in the JCPOA that only the GOP can see. Much like the panic over the ACA in the area of healthcare, the GOP’s intransigence during the Obama years over working on the Iranian problem has come back to bite them on their ass. In a disturbing trend, they’re returning to their mad skills in marketing to cover up the fact that they don’t appear to have anything at all to offer, even as they dominate the political landscape.
Excuse me: they have bitter partisanship to offer, much to the detriment of the country. It’ll be interesting to see how their marketing holds up. As we saw in the intra-party battle, er, GOP primary, over AG Jeff Session’s old Senate seat, the marketing and tactics have become quite savage. Will they, at some point, be rejected by the voters?
On the conservative side, Washington Beacon Editor Matthew Continetti is confounded at the behavior of the Congressional GOP (from National Review):
What is striking is that, with the exception of Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, none of the Republicans and Democrats who opposed the nuclear deal two years ago with such vehemence have gone out of their way to prepare the ground and make the national security case for the president’s decision.
Now, the Democrats I can understand. They are just playing to type. To say a kind word for Trump’s attempt to improve the deal would violate the secular commandment to resist his very being. The Republican silence, by contrast, is far more maddening.
This is the party that invited Bibi Netanyahu to criticize the deal in an address to a joint session of Congress. This is the party whose 2016 platform reads, “A Republican president will not be bound by” the deal and “We must retain all options in dealing with a situation that gravely threatens our security, our interests, and the survival of our friends.” This is the party that nominated and elected a president who said his “number one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran.”
Yet the headlines preceding today’s remarks have been almost entirely shaped by the deal’s supporters, by the echo chamber that promoted and distorted the aims and conditions of the agreement to begin with. These were but some of the stories in Thursday’s edition of the Times of Israel: “Barak urges Trump not to decertify Iran nuke deal,” “Netanyahu at odds with security team over Iran deal,” “With Trump set to decertify Iran deal, experts tell Congress to stick to accord,” “Jewish Democrats who opposed Iran nuke deal now urge Trump to keep it.” You have to look hard for a piece detailing Iranian noncompliance, explaining the process of decertification and its relation to the overarching agreement, or quoting defenders of the president and his policy.
Perhaps the GOP in Congress knows what Continetti doesn’t wish to admit: the deal is working, and his objections are insubstantial in the final analysis.
The Editors of National Review also addressed the issue, and there very first paragraph caught my eye:
We have opposed the Iran deal from the beginning. Building on the North Korean model of negotiations, Tehran engaged in a years-long dialogue with the West over the question of whether it would have a nuclear program, all the while developing its nuclear program. The upshot of the agreement was that we accepted Iran’s becoming a threshold nuclear power and showered it with sanctions relief — including, literally, a plane-full of cash — for the privilege.
Since the deal left the rest of Iran’s objectionable and threatening behavior untouched, the regime was free to invest proceeds from its economic windfall into its ballistic-missile program and its agenda of military expansion across the region. The Obama administration hoped that the agreement would moderate Iran’s behavior, but, predictably, it has emboldened it. Giving more resources to a terror state has never reduced terror. Couple these failings with a weak inspection regime and key sunset clauses, and the deal is nearly as historically bad as President Trump says in his characteristically over-the-top style.
Why did it catch my eye? Because it shares with Continetti a certain intellectual dishonest style. Continetti attempts to use the rhetoric of the critics of the GOP in the ‘echo chamber’ remark, yet it’s remarkably clear that many third party observers with relevant expertise felt that the JCPOA is a good deal, including the professionals responsible for our national safety in the military.
The Editors go a little further in the deceit column with their comment about “… a plane-full of cash …”, which has been thoroughly documented to be Iranian cash that had been given to the United States for weapons systems which we did not deliver; it had been frozen for decades, but finally released per a settlement, as WaPo has documented yet again.
But far more interesting is the sleight of hand they practice in the second paragraph. Once you understand that the monies are unconnected to the JCPOA, it becomes paper-thin. But disregarding that, one must realize that we simply cannot practice the failed Japanese strategy of Kantai Kessen, wherein the World War II Japanese naval strategists attempted to end the war with the United States in one decisive battle. Their fixation on arranging such a battle ultimately led to their failure in the war (among many other factors, such as their lack of resources). This is what the National Review editors are calling for in this paragraph – an agreement that would neuter Iran.
But Iran would never sign such an agreement.
I think that President Obama realized that and prioritized the most important goals of such an agreement and went after the nuclear capability, instead. The JCPOA doesn’t treat missile technology? It also doesn’t forbid sanctions on that account. In point of fact, the JCPOA covers nuclear weapons development, which was its purpose, and by the account of the experts, it’s doing well. That leaves us with the option of pursuing the activities in all those other objectionable areas, now doesn’t it?
But the Editors of National Review don’t want to admit that President Obama’s entire strategy appears to be quite strong, and in fact I suspect is related to the successful strategies which allowed us to survive, and ultimately win, the Cold War.
So the question becomes whether or not Trump is repudiating a strategy with a history of success. Is he fearful that Iran is more stable than the United States? Does he not believe in the ability of democracy to not only defeat the theocracy, but to do it peacefully?
Or is he being manipulated by home-grown theocrats, eager for war?
