US, Qatar Reportedly Discuss Talks To Revive Iran Nuclear Deal

The decision came at a time when Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva was planning his trip to Washington to meet President Joe Biden, sources told Reuters.

On January 13, Brazil granted permission for the IRIS Makran & IRIS Dena ships to dock in Rio's port during January 23-30, according to a post in the official government gazette.

That window has been scrapped, with the ships now authorized to dock between February 26 and March 3, the Brazil's foreign ministry said.

In the meantime, Iranian state media was presenting the scheduled docking of the two ships as a sign of Islamic Republic’s power and influence in America’s backyard.

A US official with direct knowledge of the situation said the prospect of Iranian warships in Rio ahead of Lula's meeting with Biden on Friday "was something unpleasant we wanted to avoid."

"There were a lot of behind-the-scenes conversations about this at many different levels," the official said, adding it was good news that the dates would no longer coincide.

A Brazilian military source confirmed that the federal government, via the foreign ministry, had shifted the dates and blocked the Iranian ships from docking.

"It's true that there was a veto (from the government)," said the source, speaking on condition of anonymity. "The Iranian ships could not come during this period."

Diplomacy with Iran was one of the policies of Lula's previous presidential mandate, and he has declared neutrality in the Ukraine conflict.

Condemning violations of human rights and state-sponsored terrorism by the Iranian Government, the bipartisan group of Representatives submitted a resolution on Tuesday, which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. The motion was introduced by California's Republican lawmaker Tom McClintock and is cosponsored by 165 other representatives. 

The resolution “calls on relevant United States Government agencies to work with European allies, including those in the Balkans where Iran has expanded its presence, to hold Iran accountable for breaching diplomatic privileges, and to call on nations to prevent the malign activities of the Iranian regime’s diplomatic missions, with the goal of closing them down and expelling its agents." 

It also emphasizes that Washington “stands with the people of Iran who are legitimately defending their rights for freedom against repression, and condemns the brutal killing of Iranian protesters by the Iranian regime; and recognizes the rights of the Iranian people and their struggle to establish a democratic, secular, and nonnuclear Republic of Iran.”

The resolution mentions the popular antigovernment protests in 2017, which resulted in at least 25 deaths and 4,000 arrests, and the protests in November 2019, when about 1,500 people were killed during less than two weeks of unrest, as well as the current wave of protests ignited by the death of Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old Kurdish Iranian woman who was arrested in mid-September 2022 by the morality police that enforce the regime’s mandatory dress code laws. 

Noting that women and youth have led the 2022 protests in Iran to demand social freedom and political change, the resolution describes the uprising as “rooted in the more than four decades of organized resistance against the Iranian dictatorship.” The ongoing unrest have been most recently led by women who have endured torture, sexual and gender-based violence, and death. 

It also mentions executions and death sentences in recent months and calls for measures to force the government to cease such repression.

In the 116th Congress, the House of Representatives passed House Resolution 752, "Supporting the rights of the people of Iran to free expression, condemning the Iranian regime for its crackdown on legitimate protests, and for other purposes,” it adds, urging the Administration to work to convene emergency sessions of the United Nations Security Council and to work with United States partners and allies to condemn the ongoing human rights violations perpetrated by the Iranian regime and establish a mechanism by which the United Nations Security Council can monitor such violations. 

The resolution also mentions efforts by the international community against the crackdown on dissent in Iran, saying that on November 24, 2022, the United Nations Human Rights Council established a fact-finding mission to conduct an independent investigation into the ongoing deadly violence related to the protests in Iran that began on September 16, 2022. It also mentioned the resolution adopted by United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) on December 14, 2022, to expel Iran from the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) for the remainder of its 4-year term ending in 2026. 

Enumerating other actions by the US against the human rights violations by the clerical regime, the House resolution referred to the Department of State’s 2021 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, released on April 13, 2022, which cites that “Iran’s government and its agents reportedly committed arbitrary or unlawful killings, most commonly executions for crimes not meeting the international legal standard of ‘most serious crimes’ or for crimes committed by juvenile offenders, as well as executions after trials without due process.”

“On October 25, 2021, the United Nations Special Rapporteur (UNSR) on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Javaid Rehman, told the United Nations General Assembly that almost all executions in the country constituted an arbitrary deprivation of life, noting the extensive, vague and arbitrary grounds in Iran for imposing the death sentence, which quickly can turn this punishment into a political tool,” read the resolution. 

The resolution also condemns the Iranian regime’s arbitrary and brutal suppression of “ethnic and religious minorities, including Iranian Kurds, Baluchis, Arabs, Christians, Jews, Baha’is, Zoroastrians, and even Sunni Muslims,” noting that it deprived them of their basic human rights, and has in many cases executed them. 

Following about five months of constant antigovernment protests and several rounds of global sanctions, the situation has changed for Iran since negotiations to restore the JCPOA broke down in September. The Biden administration and its European allies have put the talks on the backburner and even President Joe Biden said in early November that “JCPOA is dead.” But what is the alternative for a world fraught with the threat of a nuclear Iran? Many US officials – democrats in particular – believe the Islamic Republic is bad but a nuclear Islamic Republic is even worse. 

The head of the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, has suggested an alternative agreement to the landmark accord 2015 JCPOA could break the deadlock in talks between Tehran and world powers.

Warning against adopting a defeatist approach to the signatories’ halfhearted efforts to revive the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action at Chatham House in London on Tuesday, Rafael Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said the coming weeks and months would be crucial in determining the direction the talks take.

“There has been a modification that should have been reported. You cannot go back and right this wrong. The thing is that, of course, with this modification, the facility has new capabilities so we have to inspect more,” he said referring to Fordow nuclear plant, which IAEA says requires increased inspections.

“Europe has been a very strong advocate of JCPOA... Of course, the geostrategic factors are weighing because it's not so far away and the Middle East consideration that we were mentioning is very important. I think in the case of Europe, it is very important that they continue to support us in trying to find a viable way forward — JCPOA or no JCPOA," he said. 

“What we need to make sure is that we have the necessary elements to make sure that there is no proliferation, that this [nuclear] program does not cross a line. And that might be through something like the JCPOA or something else. On this I’m neutral,” he said, suggesting that he would be supporting any viable alternative to the deal. “It is the gap that worries me at this point in time because we are losing the visibility and the program continues to work. This is why I need to go to Tehran. We need to talk and we need to do it soon.”

In his State of the Union Address on Tuesday, Biden did not mention Iran; not acknowledging the Iranians demonstrating for an end to the Islamic Republic, neither mentioning the nuclear program, perhaps because the JCPOA policy has failed, and Washington has no idea for a new policy. An article in The Hill on Tuesday called on Biden to pressure US allies “to help them find the nerve and resolve to hold the regime accountable” and “to deploy the measures necessary to shake the Iranian regime.” “Efforts to isolate and punish the regime have been too slow, too weak and too disjointed to stop the carnage,” read the article. 

In an opinion piece on Tuesday, Republican representative for Texas Pat Fallon denounced Biden’s Iran strategy that has been centered on reviving the nuclear deal “that enriches a murderous regime” calling it “a strategic folly.” “It is high time for an alternative strategy that takes advantage of the regime’s domestic vulnerabilities to advance US interests and to help quench the thirst of freedom for the Iranian people,” he said. “The Islamic Republic has cast a murderous shadow across the Middle East, and beyond, for decades. Even more recently, thousands of rockets with Iranian origins have rained down on Israeli civilians, with over 100,000 more waiting in Hezbollah’s arsenal. Fanning the flames of civil wars in Syria and Yemen, Iran has established a ring of fire around US partners in the Middle East. Today, the same Iranian weapons used in the Middle East directly threaten European security,” Fallon wrote. 

Iranian Australia-based academic Alam Saleh believes that the alternative for a deal with Iran is war and an atomic Iran. He told Etemad daily in Tehran that any agreement is better than no agreement, although even in case of reaching a deal, major Western companies might hesitate to enter the Iranian market as investment would be a risky proposition. "Neither Iran, nor the United States have a plan B that would replace an agreement. An all-out war is the only thing that can replace an agreement and a war is most likely to lead to the emergence of a nuclear Iran." 

Given the status of Iran’s domestic and foreign politics, mired with rising inflation and public uproar, the Islamic Republic may give up some of its demands and sit at the negotiation table with a more cooperative spirit this time around.

“There are three countries we have excluded: Russia, Iran, North Korea,” said German diplomat Christoph Heusgen, who is the chairman of the conference, in an interview published Wednesday.

“We don't want the Munich Security Conference to serve as a podium for Russian propaganda,” Heusgen added.

Russia’s opposition, including chess champion Garry Kasparov and exiled former oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky are invited to the event instead of delegates from the Russian government.

The names of the Iranian participants have not been announced.

“After violations of international law and the brutal attack of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and police against their own population, we no longer have any standing invitations for Iran,” Christoph Heusgen, the chairman of the conference, told Global Insider.

Although the last round of the conference was held before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov did not participate and German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock criticized Moscow’s non-participation in the event.

French President Emmanuel Macron, President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, and Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty (NATO) Jens Stoltenberg are among the participants of this conference, which slated to be held from February 17 to 19.

According to Etemad, a reformist newspaper, although President Joe Biden had lashed out at his predecessor Donald Trump during the presidential election campaign in 2020 for pulling out of the JCPOA, two years after taking office not only Biden and Iran have not returned to the 2015 deal, but every day they start a new countdown to pronounce the deal's demise.

Meanwhile, Etemad added that the West is now looking for an agreement that covers both the Iranian nuclear program and the war in Ukraine that threatens Europe's security. Furthermore, according to Etemad, an agreement with Iran will not necessarily put an end to Iran's international isolation.

This comes while, EU foreign policy Chief Josep Borrel reiterated his view on Monday that a nuclear deal is the only solution that can stop Iran's ambitious nuclear program. He also told the Wall Street Journal that those who criticize him for insisting on the revival of the JCPOA have not fully realized the dangers of a nuclear Iran.

According to Etemad, it was precisely this threat that turned Iran's nuclear program into a security matter and as a result the West pushed all-out sanctions on Tehran more than a decade ago. Furthermore, nearly all those involved in nuclear talks hoped that resolving the impasse over the nuclear issue would engage Iran in a dialogue with the West that could lead to its return to the international community as a "normal" state.

There is now serious opposition to a deal both in Iran and abroad, particularly in Washington. Some hardliners in Iran have the wrong idea about the negotiation with the West. They believe that Iran's economy has become immune to the impact of sanctions. Some of them still imagine a hard winter for Europe and Europe's need for Iranian energy although Iran is certainly more seriously affected by a gas shortage this winter.

Etemad also quoted a former Iranian diplomat as saying, "There are currently no grounds for the talks to go further as Iran has been accused of violations of human rights and cooperation with Russia in the war against Ukraine."

Some like Alam Saleh, an Iranian academic in Australia believe that the alternative for a deal with Iran is war and an atomic Iran. He told Etemad that any agreement is better than no agreement, although even in case of reaching an deal, major Western companies might hesitate to enter the Iranian market as investment would be a risky proposition.

Saleh also said that "neither Iran, nor the United States have a plan B that would replace an agreement. An all-out war is the only thing that can replace an agreement and a war is most likely to lead to the emergence of a nuclear Iran." He added that "the United States knows Iran can obtain nuclear weapons with or without an agreement or a war. For that reason, although Washington left the JCPOA in 2018, both Iran and the United States took their next steps cautiously to ensure that the JCPOA framework remains intact."

Saleh said, "Iran may say that it is not following a nuclear weapons program. But this is not important. What is important is that the US and other Western countries believe that Iran can find access to nuclear weapons if it wishes so."

An un-named diplomat told Etemad that some might think the JCPOA has no benefit for Iran, but they should realize that with no JCPOA, the trigger mechanism will be activated and all UN resolutions against Tehran will return. This makes the death of the JCPOA more dangerous for Iran than any other scenario."