Biden will address world leaders on Friday during a virtual session of the security conference in Munich, with remarks that Iran as well as other countries will be closely monitored to try to explain its intentions with 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 parties to the original agreement, including Iran, the timing of which is not immediately clear.
In a briefing with reporters, a senior State Department official called the prospect of meeting the Iranians face-to-face more than a breakthrough.
Overall, developments so far suggest that a complete restoration of the original agreement, officially called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), could be a much more messy and lengthy negotiation than many observers had expected – if it happens during all.
“There is an opportunity that simply will not last,” warned Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. “The slow acceleration of the United States will jeopardize Biden’s stated goal, namely the restoration of the agreement and the continuation of the JCPOA.”
But there are ‘many different views’ in the administration, one of the people familiar with the discussions said, adding:’ I think there is an instinct to return to the agreement, but it is not a predetermined one. outcome. ‘
“I have no idea they have a timeline, as if they do not have dates and times” to resume the deal, a Capitol Hill Democratic assistant added.
How fast to move –
and how big?
One debate on the internal administration over the following steps has largely come down to this: whether you want to return to the original nuclear agreement first or seek a broader agreement from the outset. A broader agreement could potentially include non-core aspects, such as restrictions on Iran’s ballistic missile program, and contain provisions that are longer or more permanent than the original agreement.
Either way, one option on the table is to have some kind of interim agreement that can build trust on both sides.
According to the people familiar with the discussions, the interim agreement will not necessarily look like the original agreement. This could mean Iran giving some limited sanction relief – such as allowing oil sales – in exchange for Tehran halting some of the moves it has made since President Donald Trump withdrew from the deal, such as uranium to enrich 20 percent pure.
However, a senior Biden official insisted the debate was successful. The agreed goal remains to return to the original nuclear deal if Iran complies with it, the official said. But exactly what steps need to be taken to achieve the goal and at what pace there is still a matter of debate and discussion, the official said.
The people familiar with the discussions did not know or did not want to say who among Biden’s assistants was arguing for what tactics. Some have stressed that the government, even not even a month old, continues to hold important positions in the foreign affairs department, the White House and beyond, relevant to the discussion in Iran.
However, three of the people noted that Brett McGurk, a senior Middle East official on National Security Council staff, was among the more hawkish voices on Iran – and that National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan sometimes took a more difficult line. than many of his colleagues.
Both of these senior national security officials may be more likely to immediately strive for a bigger deal, rather than reviving the 2015 version, people familiar with the discussions said. That said, Sullivan recently stated that advancing Iran’s nuclear program is a ‘critical early priority’ of the government, indicating an eagerness to dissolve the judiciary.
Rob Malley, Biden’s special envoy for the Iran talks, is known to be more in favor of a return to the original nuclear deal. Others likely to be on his side include Jeff Prescott, a top official in the U.S. mission to the United Nations. The people familiar with the discussions said they were not entirely sure where Foreign Minister Antony Blinken stood.
A spokesman for the National Security Council did not comment. A Foreign Ministry spokesman also did not immediately comment.
Allies and roadblocks in the Senate
According to analysts, politics in Washington is also a factor.
Senator Bob Menendez, chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, is one of several Democrats who joined the Republicans against the original agreement during the Obama years. (Menendez also opposed Trump’s decision to step down from the agreement without what the New Jersey senator saw as a decent plan to restrict Iran.)
Menendez urged Biden to take a hard line, saying the president should not give Iran “significant sanctions relief” before returning to the negotiating table.
Because Menendez plays a key role in the Senate Biden nominee confirmation hearings, there is extra sensitivity about making him angry when it comes to Iran, two of the people familiar with the Biden team’s discussions said.
The nuclear deal with Iran is not America alone
The 2015 JCPOA lifted a variety of US and international economic sanctions against Iran in exchange for severe restrictions on the Islamic State’s nuclear program.
The agreement was international: the United States, China, Russia, Germany, France, Britain and Iran were partners in the negotiations. The United Nations and the European Union also played key roles.
His supporters testified during the Barack Obama presidency that they had dramatically curtailed Iran’s nuclear program, but his opponents saw it as too weak and too generous in terms of the sanction relief it offered Iran in return.
After years of plotting against the deal, Trump formally withdrew in May 2018. The former president argued that the deal was too narrow because it was only about Iran’s nuclear program and not about other malicious actions by Tehran, which has been a US opponent for four years. Trump also said he did not like some provisions of the agreement to lapse.
In the months and years since the US was removed from the JCPOA, Trump not only reintroduced the nuclear-related sanctions lifted under the 2015 agreement, but also added new ones aimed at a variety of Iranian entities.
The tightened sanctions regime will complicate every return to the agreement, especially as many of the sanctions will punish institutions from other countries – including US allies in Europe – that want to do business in Iran.
Iran has technically remained a party to the agreement, which is still functional to a limited extent. But since the US stepped away from it, Tehran has taken several steps to place it out of compliance and closer to building a bomb. According to analysts, the actions were part of a campaign aimed at pushing America back to the negotiating table, while also putting European leaders under pressure to find ways to alleviate the significant economic pain the sanctions are causing Iran.
Brinksmanship and bluster of Tehran
Recently, Iran warned that it would take steps from next week to reduce the improved access it provides to international inspectors monitoring its nuclear program under what is commonly referred to as the ‘additional protocol’. However, Iran will continue to allow inspectors to gain access to its facilities under its basic agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency.
In a joint statement released Thursday, Blinken and his French, German and British counterparts called on Iran not to continue its efforts. The three urged Iran “to consider the consequences of such serious action, especially in this time of renewed diplomatic opportunity.”
Many people at Biden are reluctant to appear to be capitulating under Iranian pressure by taking transaction-related steps to coincide with the deadline for the supplementary protocol next week, according to people familiar with the discussions.
The joint statement also stated that “Secretary Blinken reiterates that, as President Biden said, if Iran were to strictly meet its obligations under the JCPOA again, the United States would do the same and be prepared to enter into talks with Iran. . ”
Can Europe move the grid?
The expected European Union invitation for the United States to rejoin the original participants in the agreement is likely to lead to initial talks – at least in a publicly recognized way – between the Biden and Iranian governments. Analysts expect the meeting to take place in March at a preliminary planned meeting of the joint commission overseeing the implementation of the nuclear deal.
Separately, the Biden administration told the UN Security Council on Thursday that it was withdrawing a demand from the Trump administration last year that all UN sanctions be re-imposed on Iran, according to a Reuters report. Trump’s aides made the statement by insisting that the US could still cause a “setback” from the sanctions, despite leaving the nuclear deal, a claim that was rejected by most members of the Security Council.
The repeal of the Trump claim could calm Iran to some extent. But broadly, people familiar with the Biden administration’s discussions have said they have done little – at least in public – to give Tehran hope that a resumption of the agreement, and an end to sanctions, will be forthcoming. likely will be.
Even American rhetoric so far, from various podiums and Biden himself, has stressed that Iran is not complying with the agreement, rather than acknowledging that the United States has only begun breaking the terms.
Malley has spent his short time so far as an envoy to the other parties to the 2015 agreement, including Russia and China, but not to Iran itself, according to people familiar with the talks.
Malley also had contact with representatives of Israel as well as Arab countries, people familiar with the discussions said. The Israelis and some key Arab partners of the United States opposed the 2015 agreement and asked Washington to consult with them or even sit down at the table on future negotiations with Iran.
Some proponents of a speedy return to the 2015 agreement argue that time is of the essence, in part because Iran’s presidential election is scheduled for June. The Iranian politicians who are likely to triumph are those who are even more anti-American than those who negotiated the agreement.
However, those who argue against a quick return of the US to the agreement point out that no matter who wins the Iranian election, the economic pain the country is suffering from sanctions, and the coronavirus pandemic will force a return to the negotiating table.
“Iran is currently in desperate financial and political distress,” said Gabriel Noronha, a former State Department official. “We have no reason to rely on the pressure, especially not to return to an agreement that is already well on its way to expiration.”