It was supposed to be one of the most important initiatives of the previous decade that to some extent relieved anxiety in the wider Middle East region, as it reduced the risk of tensions escalating to the point of using nuclear weapons. It was supposed to have the unbroken support of the European Union, which had reacted particularly negatively to Donald Trump’s decision to unilaterally withdraw the US, in addition to the support initially given by Russia and China. Supposedly, the Democrats’ return to power meant they would make good on their own pre-election pledge to reinstate the deal. And yet, all indications are that he is currently preparing to sacrifice himself in the name of the larger geopolitical rivalry surrounding the war in Ukraine.
The reason for the deal on the Iran nuclear program, the deal that if reinstated would lead to the lifting of sanctions against Iran in exchange for tighter control of Iran’s nuclear facilities and mainly monitoring that the rate of uranium enrichment remains at a low level and thus Iran cannot soon acquire sufficiently enriched fissile material for a nuclear weapon.
No deal means that Iran will continue to suffer sanctions that will exacerbate the social problem at home and at the same time it will be able to continue to increase the rate of uranium enrichment it is doing and thus come ever closer to the possibility of being able to acquire a nuclear weapon.
The progress of the negotiations and the attitude of the West
The negotiation was complex from the start. Let’s not forget that the US and Iran were not talking directly. Initially there were two problems. On the one hand, Iran first wanted to complete the process of electing a new president in order to start the negotiation. On the other hand, the US has had wide swings in how far it has proposed a return to the previous agreement. Europe, China and Russia appeared to be more positive about the possibility of a deal.
The negotiation had several snags but appeared to be overcoming several obstacles even as the war in Ukraine began. But while it appeared towards the end of 2022 that most of the real obstacles had been overcome, there was a shift by both the US and the EU, especially once the great cycle of social protest inside Iran began after the death of Makhsa Amini. in the hands of the “morality police”.
Then a parallel rhetoric began to take shape, first from the EU, which argued that there should be a pressure on Iran around the issue of human rights, that is, the possibility of sanctions around this issue. Although this was not presented as competitive in that at the same time negotiations were typically taking place to lift sanctions it was clear that a different landscape was emerging.
In addition, Iran was increasingly viewed as an ally of Russia, since in addition to the political support Iran had provided to Russian positions, Russia was supplying Iranian drones that have proven particularly effective on the battlefields of Ukraine.
Why was the agreement on Iran’s nuclear program shelved?
One of the countries that was opposed to the agreement from the beginning and whose opposition also played a role in the ongoing American vacillations was Israel. In fact, Israeli politicians such as former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett have argued that it was the diplomatic and not only Israel’s initiatives and interventions that actually pushed the US to decide that there would be no agreement.
In fact, the Israelis have argued that it was his own information about Russia’s supply of Iranian drones that convinced the US that it could not have a deal with a country that supplied Russia with weapons used against the Ukrainians.
Israeli media have reported that US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has already informed his Israeli counterpart Eli Cohen that the deal on Iran’s nuclear program is essentially dead.
But European diplomats have also argued that the West currently has a joint pressure stance on Iran, with the Ukraine issue playing a role and the issue of human rights in Iran weighing even more heavily on countries such as Germany.
It is interesting that in most relevant reports European diplomats admit that in terms of the agreement itself the meetings with the Iranians were difficult but honest, but at the same time they state that the problem now is the supply of drones to Russia.
The big question is why the push for an agreement is being abandoned
This has to do with a number of reasons. More specifically:
1. Both the US and the EU see the world in terms of deep dividing lines. To the extent that Iran joins the opposing camp in their eyes, it is to be expected that the deal would also be sacrificed. That is, Iran is treated as a potentially hostile power and it is taken for granted that it must be pressured to stop providing arms to Russia.
2. It has to do with the way that the possibility of “regime change” or even pressure for very big changes in Iran returns to the thinking of Western diplomacy. It is the assessment that the government in Tehran is deeply weakened, has chosen an authoritarian path that further alienates it from the Iranian people, and therefore needs even more pressure and sanctions to bring about meaningful change. Of course, this assessment is not supplemented by whether there is a possibility of another political situation in Iran, nor does it consider whether the existing discontent and protest in Iran is of a scale and scope that would lead to upheaval.
3. Regarding the policy mainly proposed by Israel. Israeli governments have for years opposed the deal because they believed that lifting sanctions would further strengthen Tehran’s ability to upgrade its position in the region and continue to bolster movements in the wider region that Israel sees as threats. As for the nuclear program itself, Israel appears to believe that it can be dealt with by targeted strikes on facilities and scientists.
However, the problem is that abandoning the agreement is likely to lead to the opposite result. To the extent that the dynamics of discontent in Iran, despite its extent, do not appear to be able to lead to the overthrow of a regime that retains social supports, it is possible that the whole development will lead to an even greater shift of Iran towards the processes of “Eurasia”. integration, i.e. an economic shift to the east, closer cooperation with Russia and China and possibly an escalation of the nuclear program itself.
