Biden is expected to address world leaders on Friday at a virtual session of the Munich Security Conference, comments that are sure to be closely watched by Iran and other countries trying to guess their intentions for the nuclear deal.
The State Department said on Thursday that the United States would accept an expected invitation from the European Union to attend a meeting of the parties to the original agreement, including Iran, whose timing was not immediately clear.
In a meeting with reporters, a senior State Department official called the prospect of meeting Iranians face to face “a step” more than an advance.
Overall, developments so far suggest that a complete restoration of the original agreement, officially called the Joint Comprehensive Action Plan (JCPOA), could be a much more confusing and longer-lasting set of negotiations than many observers expected – if it happened across the board. .
“There is a window of opportunity that just won’t last,” warned Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. “The slow pace of deliberations by the United States will jeopardize Biden’s stated goal, which is to restore the agreement and develop the JCPOA.”
But there are “many different views” within the government, said one of the people familiar with the discussions, adding: “I think there is an instinct to get back into business, but that is not a predetermined outcome.”
“I don’t have the feeling that they have a schedule, as they don’t have dates and times” to get back into business, added a Democratic Capitol aide.
How fast to move –
and how big?
An internal management debate about the next steps basically boiled down to this: whether we should seek a return to the original nuclear agreement first or seek a broader agreement from the beginning. A broader agreement could include non-nuclear aspects, such as limits to Iran’s ballistic missile program, and have provisions that last longer than the original agreement or are permanent.
Either way, an option on the table is to have some kind of interim agreement that can build trust on both sides.
The interim agreement would not necessarily look like the original agreement, said people familiar with the discussions. This could involve giving Iran some limited sanctions – such as allowing oil to be sold – in exchange for Tehran stopping some of the actions it has taken since President Donald Trump withdrew from the deal, such as enriching uranium to 20 percent purity.
A senior Biden government official, however, insisted that the debate passed. The agreed target remains to return to the original nuclear deal if Iran fulfills it, the official said. But exactly what steps must be taken to achieve this goal and at what pace it is still a matter of debate and discussion, the official said.
People familiar with the discussions did not know or refused to say who among Biden’s advisers was defending which tactics. Some emphasized that the government, less than a month old, is still filling important positions in the State Department, the White House and elsewhere that are relevant to Iran’s discussion.
Three of the people, however, noted that Brett McGurk, a senior Middle Eastern official on the National Security Council team, is among the most aggressive voices on Iran – and that national security adviser Jake Sullivan sometimes takes a line tougher than many of your colleagues.
Both senior national security officials may be more inclined to aim for a bigger deal immediately, rather than trying to revive the 2015 version, said people familiar with the discussions. That said, Sullivan recently declared that containing Iran’s nuclear program is an “initial critical priority” for the government, signaling that it is eager to resolve the impasse.
Rob Malley, Biden’s special envoy for negotiations with Iran, is known to be yet another supporter of the return to the original nuclear deal. Others who are likely to be on your side include Jeff Prescott, a senior official at the United States Mission to the United Nations. People familiar with the discussions said they were not sure what Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s position was.
A National Security Council spokesman did not comment. A State Department spokesman also made no immediate comment.
Allies and roadblocks in the Senate
Washington’s policy is also a factor, say some analysts.
Senator Bob Menendez, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is one of several Democrats who joined Republicans in opposing the original deal during the Obama years. (Menendez also objected to Trump’s decision to withdraw from the deal without what the New Jersey senator considered a decent support plan to restrict Iran.)
Menendez pressured Biden to take a tough stance and said the president should not give Iran “significant relief from sanctions” before he returns to the negotiating table.
Since Menendez plays a key role in Senate confirmation hearings for Biden’s nominees, there is an extra sensitivity about annoying him when it comes to Iran, said two people familiar with the Biden team’s discussions.
The nuclear deal with Iran is not just America’s
The 2015 JCPOA lifted a series of U.S. and international economic sanctions against Iran in exchange for severe restrictions on the country’s nuclear program led by Islamists.
The deal was international: the United States, China, Russia, Germany, France, Britain and Iran were partners in the negotiation. The United Nations and the European Union have also played important roles.
Hit during the presidency of Barack Obama, his supporters hailed him for drastically reducing Iran’s nuclear program, but his opponents consider him very weak and generous in terms of the sanctions he offered Iran in return.
After protesting against the deal for years, Trump formally withdrew in May 2018. The former president argued that the deal was too narrow because it dealt only with Iran’s nuclear program and not with other evil actions by Tehran, which is an opponent the USA for four decades. Trump also said he did not like the fact that some of the agreement’s provisions would expire.
In the months and years after withdrawing the United States from the JCPOA, Trump not only reimposed the nuclear sanctions that had been lifted in the 2015 agreement, but also added new ones targeting a number of Iranian entities.
The reinforced sanctions regime will complicate any return to the agreement, especially considering that many of the sanctions would penalize institutions in other countries – including US allies in Europe – that want to do business in Iran.
Iran technically remained part of the agreement, which is still functional to a limited degree. But since the United States moved away from that, Tehran has taken several steps that have put it out of compliance and closer to building a bomb. The measures, analysts say, are part of a campaign aimed at pushing the United States back to the negotiating table, while pressing European leaders to find ways to alleviate the substantial economic pain that sanctions are causing Iran.
Tehran brinksmanship and bluster
Iran has recently warned that starting next week it will take steps to reduce the improved access it gives international inspectors who monitor its nuclear program under what is commonly called an “additional protocol”. However, Iran will continue to allow inspectors to access its facilities in accordance with the basic agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency.
In a joint statement released on Thursday, Blinken and his colleagues from France, Germany and Britain, urged Iran not to proceed with the crackdown on inspections. The three urged Iran “to consider the consequences of such a serious action, particularly at this time of renewed diplomatic opportunity”.
Many Biden advisers are hesitant to appear to be capitulating to Iranian pressure by making moves related to the deal to coincide with next week’s deadline for the additional protocol, according to people familiar with the discussions.
The joint statement also stated that “Secretary Blinken reiterated that, as President Biden said, if Iran strictly resumes its commitments under the JCPOA, the United States will do the same and is prepared to engage in discussions with Iran. in that sense end. “
Can Europe change the calendar?
The European Union’s expected invitation to the United States to join the original participants in the agreement will likely lead to the first discussions – at least in a publicly recognized manner – between the Biden government and Iran. Analysts anticipate that the meeting will take place in March, with it was already a provisionally planned meeting of the joint commission that oversees the implementation of the nuclear agreement.
Separately, the Biden government told the UN Security Council on Thursday that it was rescinding a Trump administration claim last year that all UN sanctions have been reimposed on Iran, according to a Reuters report. Trump’s advisers made that statement, insisting that the United States could still trigger a “retrogression” of sanctions, despite leaving the nuclear deal, an allegation rejected by most members of the Security Council.
Terminating Trump’s claim could appease Iran to some extent. But, generally speaking, people familiar with the Biden government’s discussions said he did little – at least publicly – to give Tehran hope that the resumption of the deal and the end of sanctions will come soon.
Even the rhetoric of the United States so far, of several podiums and of Biden himself, has emphasized that Iran is breaking the agreement, instead of recognizing that the United States has started violating the terms.
Malley spent his short period as an envoy reaching the other parts of the 2015 agreement, including Russia and China, but not Iran itself, according to people familiar with the discussions.
Malley also maintained contact with representatives from Israel and Arab countries, people familiar with the discussions said. The Israelis and some important Arab partners from the United States opposed the 2015 agreement and asked Washington to consult them or even give them a seat at the table in future negotiations with Iran.
Some advocates of a quick return to the 2015 agreement argue that time is of the essence, in part because the Iranian presidential elections are scheduled for June. Iranian politicians who are likely to win are those who are even more anti-American than those who negotiated the deal.
Still, those who argue against any rapid US return to the deal point out that no matter who wins the Iranian elections, the economic pain the country is suffering from sanctions and the coronavirus pandemic will force a return to the negotiating table.
“Iran is in a desperate financial and political situation at the moment,” said Gabriel Noronha, a former State Department official. “We have no reason to give in to the pressure, especially to return to a business that is about to expire.”