Iran deal: a bird in hand ...
IT IS generally agreed that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. President Trump, however, does not see it that way.
It has been a busy week in Washington as first French President Emmanuel Macron and then German Chancellor Angela Merkel dropped in to try to persuade Trump not to pull out of the 2015 deal that prevented Iran from developing nuclear weapons for the next 10 years. They failed.
The response of America’s three most important allies – France, Britain and Germany – has been to break decisively with the United States on the issue. A nuclear-armed Iran would certainly pose no threat to any of the six countries that signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the 2015 deal that put Iran’s nuclear weapons programme on hold. The US, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China all have far more nuclear weapons than Iran would ever possess (or, in Germany’s case, belongs to an alliance that does). Deterrence still works.
So why did they all bother? Probably because they prefer an Israeli monopoly on nuclear weapons in the Middle East. They don’t all love Israel, but if more countries in the region had nukes, the Middle East’s endless wars might one day lead to a local nuclear exchange.
SANCTIONS
So there was general support on the United Nations Security Council for stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons, and UN economic sanctions were placed on Iran from 2006 onwards. US sanctions were far older, but the deal that was signed in 2015 ended all UN sanctions and the most severe US sanctions, which targeted Iranian banks and oil exports.
Unfortunately for Iran, the country remained largely excluded from the world banking system because banks feared the reimposition of the sanctions, and so much of the economic relief Iran expected from the end of sanctions never arrived. There is therefore growing hostility in Iran to the JCPOA deal, but why is it even stronger in the White House?
Trump talks about Iran “cheating” on the deal. (International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors have certified 11 times since 2016 that Iran is meeting its obligations.)
He calls the deal “insane” and the “worst ever”, complaining that it imposed only a 10-year ban on Iran’s suspect nuclear activities, did not stop the country from testing ballistic missiles, and did not stop Iran from interfering in other countries.
These are birds in the bush, and they were never within reach. It took two years of negotiation just to get a deal for 10 years of restrictions on the Iranian nuclear programme in return for an end to UN economic sanctions. There was no way that Iran was going to place its foreign, military and energy policies under UN supervision forever. The deal accepted by Obama in 2015 was realistic; Trump’s preferred substitute is pure fantasy.
What really drives Trump’s hatred of the deal, in all likelihood, is simply the fact that it was one of Obama’s major successes. It fits a pattern: Trump’s cancellation of the trans-Pacific trade deal, the US withdrawal from the climate pact, the largely unsuccessful assault on healthcare.
So Trump will repudiate the Iran deal on May 12, or maybe a little later. It will probably then die because Iranians’ pride will not let them stay in a deal whose benefits, in terms of access to world trade, have evaporated. And in Pyongyang, Kim Jong-un will draw his conclusions about the reliability of the US as a negotiating partner.
‘What really drives Trump’s hatred of the deal, in all likelihood, is simply the fact that it was one of Obama’s major successes. ‘