Post #390: Dealing with Iran After the Prisoner Exchange

Small Steps Forward

            Just a few months ago, we heard talk about revival of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, this time in the form of an unwritten agreement. One expert commentator, Trita Parsi at the Quincy Institute, wrote that an informal agreement would keep both sides from “pulling the plug from the respirator,” meaning reaching an understanding that prevents collapse. What’s in the supposed agreement? Parsi and Dennis Ross, President Obama’s former special envoy to the Middle East, said Iran would commit to refrain from enriching uranium beyond 60 percent, stop or slow down the stockpiling of enriched uranium at that level, halt attacks by allied militias in Iraq and Syria on U.S. troops and contractors, refrain from providing Russia with ballistic missiles, and expand collaboration with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In return, the United States would refrain from tightening sanctions on Iran, stop seizing oil tankers with Iranian oil, permit Iran to recover some $20 billion from frozen accounts, and refrain from pushing the IAEA or the UN Security Council to adopt punitive measures against Tehran. Both sides would agree to exchange prisoners (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/06/23/iran-nuclear-deal-prevention/).

So far only the prisoner exchange has been agreed upon: five Iranians for five Americans, and release by the US of $6 billion in withheld Iranian oil revenue. The money will be held by a bank in Qatar and can only be used by Iran to pay for basic needs such as medicine. What’s next?

            The most intractable issues remain on the table. Will Iran slow down or stop stockpiling enriched uranium? Can the US deliver on sanctions relief and other punitive measures directed at Iran? Above all, will President Biden be able to overcome hostility to the prisoner deal? The right-wing crowd was quick to shout appeasement of Iran. Mike Pence and John Bolton were especially vocal before the deal. After it, Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas wrote on X: “Joe Biden’s embarrassing appeasement not only makes Iran stronger, it makes America less safe.” They were joined in their criticism by Iranian human rights organizations.

On the Iranian side, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei evidently favors a new deal since it holds out the promise of reduced sanctions at a time when Iran’s economy is nosediving. But Iran has its hawks, too, and they will not be happy about diplomacy with the American Satan. The European parties to the original accord—France, Germany, and Britain—may throw a monkey wrench into any further American deal making. They are upset about Iran’s violations regarding uranium enrichment, missile tests, and supply of drones to Russia, and will probably insist on maintaining sanctions on Iran (https://english.alarabiya.net/News/world/2023/07/02/UK-France-Germany-to-breach-Iran-nuclear-deal-over-drone-supplies-to-Russia-Report).

A Deal Breaker?

            Critics of the supposed unwritten deal will point out that it legitimizes Iran’s enriched uranium store at 60 percent instead of the previous 30 percent, putting Iran that much closer to bomb-level enrichment. Without a new deal, however, Iran will have enough near-weapons grade nuclear material to produce 10 nuclear bombs by the end of this year, according to the director general of the IAEA. And Iran will be increasingly able to protect its weapons facilities from attack as it hardens those sites. Dennis Ross believes that prevention should be US policy, and that Biden should reinforce that view with military moves that show “he is prepared to destroy the 40-year investment Iran has made in building its nuclear infrastructure” at the first sign Iran is making a nuclear bomb.

A threats-based strategy sounds like a deal breaker to me, entirely inconsistent with the kind of agreement that the administration and Iran’s government are said to be working on. However, the pace of diplomacy is devilishly slow, and US officials are discounting prospects of reaching a new deal. “We’re not close to any kind of a deal,” said Secretary Blinken an interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakari in late July. “. . . what we tried to do was to get back into the existing [2015] agreement with some modest modifications. An agreement was on the table. Iran either couldn’t or wouldn’t say yes. . . . We’re now in a place where we’re not talking about a nuclear agreement. . . . Maybe we’ll have an environment where we can get back into a conversation about their nuclear program. Right now, we’re not in it” (https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4114521-blinken-on-reviving-iran-nuclear-deal-were-now-in-a-place-where-were-not-talking-about-a-nuclear-agreement/).

Parenthetically, there’s the curious case of Robert Malley, the administration’s special envoy to the Iran talks. His security clearance was suspended pending an investigation of mishandling of classified material. Jake Sullivan, the national security adviser, offered a vigorous defense of Malley, but Malley’s removal seems to have put a brake on nuclear talks with Iran (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jake-sullivan-national-security-adviser-face-the-nation-transcript-07-16-2023/).

Trust Building Not on the Horizon

So where we are with Iran boils down to being stuck in the mud. US officials are treating the prisoner deal as a one-off arrangement, not one that might lead to further improvement in relations with Iran. As soon as the American prisoners were on their way home, Biden announced new sanctions on Iran. Blinken said diplomacy is the best option, though “that doesn’t mean that the other options aren’t there and if necessary we won’t resort to them.” The usual gratuitous threat. Yet Iran’s President Ebrahim Raisi, considered a hard-liner, said: “This [deal] was purely a humanitarian action … And it can certainly be a step based upon which in the future other humanitarian actions can be taken. It can definitely help in building trust” (https://apnews.com/article/iran-us-prisoner-swap-sanctions-assets-4e1fa477f8e6af45fb764acd259c2f1a). Biden evidently will not take up that cue. Though he deserves credit for taking the political risk attendant upon the release of the five Americans, providing sanctions relief to Iran as part of a new nuclear deal seems a step too far. An Iranian nuclear breakout thus is a step closer.