Trump moves to rein in Iran’s designs
Collapse of nuclear deal will, however, allow Tehran to pursue its atomic ambitions without any restrictions
Afew days prior to his speech on October 14, United States President Donald Trump said he would spring a surprise on Iran and his administration would tighten its approach towards Tehran, especially on the nuclear deal and the Revolutionary Guard Corps.
He threatened a new phase of escalation, holding out the possibility of terminating the 2015 Iran nuclear deal and putting the Revolutionary Guards on the list of terrorist organisations.
In his speech, Trump promptly turn up the heat on Iran but some of the proposals failed to match the expectations. Trump has not certified the report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) about Iran’s commitment to the terms of the agreement — which he had already approved twice. IAEA issues its report every three months on Iran’s nuclear deal.
Trump referred the IAEA report to the Congress to decide whether Iran complies with the terms of the deal and instructed the Department of Justice to impose sanctions on the Revolutionary Guards. The IAEA has documented Iran’s violation of the deal for the second time stating that Tehran has exceeded the limit of 130 metric tonnes of heavy water on two occasions. The report also referred to Iran’s refusal to allow the inspection of some military sites.
Trump’s speech sparked concern in Europe and in Iran because of its repercussions on political, military and economic equilibrium in the region and beyond. The Trump administration’s prescriptions have changed the atmosphere in Europe regarding Tehran since Trump took office. The Trump administration’s threats can help serve wider goals, or at least prevent the Iranian regime from creating another crisis.
Over the past several months, Europe has shown signs of willingness to counter the Iranian regime’s support for terrorism and to amend the nuclear deal. This followed serious discussions and contacts between European and American experts on how to strengthen and increase pressure on Iran and to discuss the situation after the expiry of the deal.
The timeframe of the nuclear deal is a source concern in the absence of any evidence that Iran has become less dangerous. A more effective strategy is needed to contain Tehran. The issue raises questions about how this deal could have been reached without any friendly gestures towards Iran on nuclear issues. The signatory countries could have turned a blind eye towards Tehran’s manipulation and destabilisation moves in the region and causing harm to the security of their allies.
Unlike the Iran nuclear deal, the Paris Climate Change accord, the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Unesco policy were never subjected to attacks from the US administration. However, Washington has withdrawn from these conventions, but has yet to walk away from the Iran deal.
It is obvious that Trump truly wants to tear up the agreement, but he is under pressure from his advisers, especially the Secretary of Defence, James Mattis, and his European allies. This may have persuaded Trump from withdrawing the US from the nuclear deal temporarily, giving more time to ease the objections of his European allies. It seems that Trump wants to engage the Europeans in a new round of negotiations on Iran’s ballistic missile programme or to persuade them to revise some terms of the nuclear agreement or adding new terms.
Lasting repercussions
A US withdrawal from the nuclear deal will lead to its collapse, and it will grant Iran the opportunity to resume nuclear activities without restriction. This may leave the US and its allies with two choices: To accept Iran as a nuclear power, as in the case of India and Pakistan; or resorting to force to prevent it. The second option may lead to an outbreak of war that may spread to other countries — a war that could spin out of control with lasting repercussions.
Former US president Barack Obama gave priority to addressing the threat of Daesh (the selfproclaimed Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) terrorists, while Trump believes in the need to counter Tehran’s designs in the region as part of a counter-terrorism strategy. Within this context, the US works towards upgrading its military presence in the region and patrolling the waterways to ensure safe shipments of oil to Europe and East Asia. Washington also works to strengthen the defences of its allies in the region and weaken the chances of Iran to interfere in the domestic affairs of fragile states by helping them to recover.
The US commemoration of the 34th anniversary of the killings of a large number of its marines in the 1983 bombing in Beirut comes as an important reminder of its moves against Iran. US Vice-President Mike Pence, honouring the memory of 241 US service members killed in the blast, accused Tehran and its military arm Hezbollah of masterminding the bombing and vowed: “We will drive the cancer of terrorism from the face of the Earth.” That’s like putting Iran on notice.