28 Mar 2024
Sputnik - A group of US senators has initiated a bill which would allow the president to renew economic restrictions against Iran a maneuver experts warn could kill the landmark Iranian nuclear deal reached in 2015. Senior Iran expert Dr. Ali Vaez warns that such a scenario may ultimately result in a military conflict breaking out between Iran and the US.





Having come tothe realization that the Trump administration isn't likely tounilaterally terminate the Iran nuclear deal, a group ofUS lawmakers led byRepublican Senator Bob Corker is looking forways toencourage the president torenew anti-Iranian sanctions, which are set toexpire underthe deal. Corker introduced a bill, titled 'Countering Iran's Destabilizing Activities Act' tothe US Senate Foreign Relations Committee late last month, and has already found bipartisan support amongmany Republican and Democratic lawmakers.

Speaking toRadio Sputnik aboutthe Senate initiative, Dr. Ali Vaez, senior Iran analyst atthe International Crisis Group, a Brussels-based NGO promoting conflict prevention, explained that the initiative was not unexpected inlight ofUS officials' record ofsharp rhetoric towardTehran.

"I think the main reason is political, and it goes back tothe fact that President Trump, duringthe campaign season, made a lot ofpromises aboutbeing tough onIran, and now he has tobe seen asdelivering onthat promise," Vaez said.
"The reality," the analyst noted, "is that President Trump has realized that tearing upthe nuclear deal [outright] will isolate the United States and would backfire onUS interests," withthe other parties tothe agreement, including the Europeans, Russia, China, and Iran itself generally satisfied withits provisions.


Therefore, Vaez said, "the opponents ofthe deal inWashington have now switched toPlan B: instead ofkilling the deal witha gunshot, tokill it witha thousand paper cuts. The way that they would do this is througha constant stream ofsanctions, based onnon-nuclear pretexts sanctioning Iran because ofits regional policies, or its missile program, or because ofits domestic policies, or its human rights record. That could result ina deep erosion ofthe nuclear deal ina matter ofmonths or years."


"Sanctions," the expert recalled, "are obviously always the lowest-hanging fruit, and especially sanctions onIran, onwhich there is usually bipartisan agreement inCongress. So that's now the option that's coming tothe fore."
At the same time, Dr. Vaez stressed that if the proposed legislation were topass inits current form, "it would be a violation ofthe [nuclear] deal. There are some sections ofthe legislation, likeSection 8, forexample, which add new conditions tothe agreement unilaterally."


Specifically, "Section 8 requires the US president tocertify that some ofthe people that are supposed tobe delisted [from sanctions] based onthe calendar ofthe nuclear deal aboutseven years fromnow will only be delisted if the president can certify that they have not been engaged insupport ofterrorism and Iran's ballistic missile program; otherwise the sanctions onthese individuals and entities cannot be lifted; that's a unilateral decision bythe United States tochange one ofits own commitments underthe nuclear deal."

"Not only would this amount toa violation ofthe deal it would set a precedent that could start a process that could eventually unravel the deal," Vaez warned.
"The main point here is: if the legislation passes the way it is, the Iranians will probably go tothe Joint Commission [which includes Iran, Russia, China, France, Germany, the UK, the representative ofthe EU and the US] and ask them torecognize that the US has breached the nuclear deal. That could start a process which could eventually unravel the agreement."


At the same time, the expert stressed that "the Iranians also understand that part ofthis game fromthe American perspective is topush them tobe the first totake actions which would be a clear-cut violation ofthe deal. If Tehran forexample was not togive access toIAEA inspectors, or decide torevive their nuclear program, that would allow opponents ofthe nuclear deal inWashington toeither impose more sanctions, or move towardkilling this nuclear deal [altogether]. For that reason, I think the Iranians will try tobe seen asthe reasonable party. But this is a game that could be played only inthe short run. In the long run, it will be much more difficult tosustain the deal undercurrent circumstances."


Furthermore, Vaez warned that the collapse ofthe nuclear deal would greatly increase the danger ofopen conflict breaking outbetween the two countries. "Without any doubt, if the nuclear agreement starts eroding, we will see tensions rising. If the nuclear deal collapses entirely, then we will be back inthe same spiral ofescalation that we experienced inthe past," meaning Iran considering the revival oftheir nuclear program onthe one hand, and threats ofwar fromthe United States and Israel onthe other.


"With more tensions, there are also other possibilities forconfrontation. There is so much friction betweenIran and the United States these days inthe Persian Gulf, inYemen." The expert recalled that the channels ofcommunications which existed betweenthe two countries duringthe previous administration no longer exist.
"Therefore, there is enough room formisunderstandings and miscalculations that could easily spiral outof control and result inconflict," Vaez stressed.


Asked how other parties might react toprevent things fromgetting outof control, the expert noted that "for now, leaders and other members ofthe other P5+1 have come outstrongly insupport ofthe deal; they have all warned leaders inthe United States againsttaking steps that could undermine the nuclear deal. But rhetoric goes only so far. I think atsome stage there will be a need even forsome actions which, inaddition todiscouraging US policy makers fromundermining the deal, could deter them from [actually] taking those steps."


Ultimately, Vaez noted that the Europeans, Russia and China should make clear toWashington that they would not comply toUS unilateral sanctions not approved bythe Joint commission. "I think that's important atsome stage tobe clearly communicated toUS policymakers that unless there is a real justification real reasons fornew sanctions, the rest ofthe international community will not simply fall inline because the US Congress has decided tosanction Iran."



https://theiranproject.com/vdcgt39xzak9nz4.5jra.html
Your Name
Your Email Address