Europeans Plan To Keep Ballistic Missile Sanctions On Iran
European diplomats have told Iran they plan to retain EU ballistic missile sanctions set to expire in October under the defunct 2015 Iran nuclear deal.
European diplomats have told Iran they plan to retain EU ballistic missile sanctions set to expire in October under the defunct 2015 Iran nuclear deal.
Four sources cited three reasons for keeping the sanctions: Russia's use of Iranian drones against Ukraine; the possibility Iran might transfer ballistic missiles to Russia; and depriving Iran of the nuclear deal's benefits given Tehran has violated the accord, albeit only after the United States did so first.
Keeping the EU sanctions would reflect Western efforts to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them despite the collapse of the 2015 deal, which then-U.S. President Donald Trump abandoned in 2018.
The crux of that pact, which Iran made with Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States, limited Tehran's nuclear program to make it harder for it to get fissile material for a bomb in return for relief from economic sanctions.
As a result of Trump's withdrawal from the deal and US President Joe Biden's failure to revive it, Iran could make the fissile material for one bomb in 12 days or so, according to US estimates, down from a year when the accord was in force.
With that deal effectively dead, Iran's relations with the West have deteriorated over the last year, leading Washington and its allies to look for ways to de-escalate tensions and, if that happened, for a way to revive some kind of nuclear limits.
Iran denies seeking nuclear weapons, which the West sees as a threat to Israel and Gulf Arab oil exporters.
Possible Iranian Retaliation
"The Iranians have been told quite clearly (of plans to keep the sanctions) and now the question is what, if any, retaliatory steps the Iranians might take and (how) to anticipate that," said a Western diplomat on condition of anonymity.
The EU sanctions are set to expire on Oct. 18 under a UN resolution that enshrined the 2015 nuclear deal.
They "called upon" Iran not to do anything to develop ballistic missiles that could carry nuclear weapons, a phrase urging Iran not to do so but short of a mandatory prohibition.
They also barred anyone from buying, selling or transferring drones and their components capable of flying more than 300 km (186 miles) to or from Iran without prior authorization from the UN Security Council, permission that has not been granted.
Since 2017, Iran has carried out a series of ballistic missile tests and satellite launches despite the resolution and, in May, it launched a missile with a potential 2,000-km range.
European powers are alarmed by the growing defense relationship between Tehran and Moscow, which Western officials say has seen Russia use Iranian drones to strike Ukraine, and the possibility Iran could supply ballistic missiles to Russia.
It was not clear whether the E3, a group comprised of Britain, France and Germany, told Iran of their intent to retain the EU sanctions when their senior officials met Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali Bagheri Kani on June 12 in Abu Dhabi.
EU diplomat Enrique Mora, who co-ordinates talks on the 2015 deal, raised the issue of keeping the EU sanctions when he met Bagheri Kani in Doha on June 21, but the Iranian official refused to discuss the matter, an Iranian official told Reuters on condition of anonymity.
A second Iranian official brushed off the possibility of the sanctions remaining, saying Tehran had advanced its nuclear and missile programs for years despite Western sanctions.
"Maintaining sanctions, in any capacity and form, will not hinder Iran's ongoing advancements," said this Iranian official, also on condition of anonymity. "It serves as a reminder that the West cannot be relied upon and trusted."
Nuclear Deal 'No Longer Exists'
Britain's foreign ministry did not comment on whether the E3 planned to keep the sanctions or had told Iran of any decision.
However, a British foreign ministry spokesperson said the June 12 talks in Abu Dhabi "covered the range of our concerns about Iran's behaviour, including its continued nuclear escalation."
France and Germany's foreign ministries have made similar comments about those talks.
A European diplomat said Mora had started laying the legal groundwork to retain the sanctions, which would have to be approved by all 27 EU members. Two sources said the issue had not yet been discussed among all EU states.
"The lifting of sanctions was based on the principle that 2231 would be respected," this diplomat said, referring to the UN Security Council resolution that enshrined the 2015 deal. "That has not been the case, so there is a discussion with the Iranians to make clear that we won't lift these sanctions."
EU Spokesperson Nabila Massrali said the JCPOA sets out in some detail the commitments of different participants on the so-called Transition Day which was still several months away (Oct. 18).
"We will provide further information on EU related aspects in due course," she said in response to detailed questions by Reuters.
Under the 2015 nuclear agreement, any party could trigger the "snapback" or return of all sanctions that it removed. Most US sanctions were restored after Trump left the deal.
However, three sources said the E3 did not wish to do this chiefly because it would undercut a threat conveyed in a letter from their foreign ministers to Iran last year that they would trigger "snapback" if Iran enriched uranium to weapons-grade.
Iran has enriched uranium to 60% purity and the UN nuclear watchdog has found traces enriched to 83.7%, short of the 90% seen as weapons grade. The 2015 deal capped enrichment at 3.67%.
Henry Rome, an analyst with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said an EU decision to retain the sanctions would be the first significant instance of the E3 not abiding by the terms of the nuclear deal.
"It doesn't replace the UN provisions but it would ensure, at least within the powers of European governments, that they are not condoning this type of Iranian behavior," Rome said. "And it does reflect that the Security Council resolution is enshrining a deal that no longer exists in any realistic form."
(Exclusive report by Reuters)
Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-TX) along with Congressmen Brad Schneider (D-IL), Doug Lamborn (R-CO), Jared Golden (D-ME), Joe Wilson (R-SC), Brad Sherman (D-CA), Rich McCormick (R-GA), and Kathy Manning (D-NC) introduced the resolution on Tuesday, June 27.
A flurry of media reports in recent weeks indicated that the Biden administration has been holding indirect and possibly direct talks with the Islamic Republic of Iran to hammer out an interim, limited nuclear deal that would offer financial rewards in exchange for some limits on Iran’s uranium enrichment.
Many members of Congress are concerned that the administration intends to reach an unwritten agreement with Tehran to avoid Congressional review. A 2015 law requires any deal with Iran that would result in sanctions reduction to be presented to Congress.
“In the face of unprecedented nuclear provocations from the Iranian regime, it is vital the United States make clear that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable,” said McCaul in an announcement about the bipartisan resolution.
“I am proud to lead this bipartisan resolution declaring with no ambiguity that Iran must not be able to obtain a nuclear weapon, and that the United States is willing to use all means necessary to prevent a nuclear Iran. Nothing is off the table.”
The resolution also says that the US should “recognize and support the freedom of action of partners and allies, including Israel to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”
Past and present Israeli governments have repeatedly threatened to launch a military attack against Iran if they see the imminent danger of nuclear weapons. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said that his government will not recognize any international agreements, if it concludes that Israel faces the danger of a nuclear Iran.
A bipartisan group of 26 US senators last week asked President Joe Biden in a letter not to rush into a bad agreement.
Rep. McCaul had sent a letter to the President June 15 saying, “I am disturbed by recent revelations that the Administration has re-engaged in ‘proximity talks’ with the Iranian regime, and that the results of these discussions have included the apparent greenlighting of sizable payments to Iran.”
He was referring to the White House allowing Iraq to release more than $2.7 billion in Iran’s frozen funds earlier this month.
McCaul urged Biden to respect the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 (INARA), which was enacted during the finalization of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015 to allow Congress to oversee dealings with Tehran. The Obama administration decided not to make the JCPOA nuclear deal a treaty, given opposition in Congress at the time and agreed to INARA to neutralize opposition among lawmakers.
The administration has denied it has reached any new deals with Iran, including an interim unwritten agreement, but many media sources and Israeli politicians have indicated that some sort of an agreement has been discussed.
Those levels, which would be at least 24 times the limit allowed under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), cause grave concern and Tenney has said “this would be too little, too late, and that snapback should be triggered immediately in response to Iran’s persistent non-compliance with its commitments”.
Her statement comes at a time when the Biden administration is growing closer to an interim agreement with Iran as the October deadline to the expiration of sanctions draws nearer.
“Signaling to the Islamic Republic of Iran that it should only face consequences for its reckless nuclear extortion if it reaches the dangerous threshold of 90 percent weapons-grade nuclear enrichment is deeply concerning,” said Tenney.
“Iran is already enriching uranium at 24 times the limit allowed by the JCPOA – the time for action is now, not after Iran blows past the critical benchmark of achieving weapons-grade enriched uranium.”
Tenney recently led a bipartisan letter with Representative Josh Gottheimer encouraging the leaders of the United Kingdom, France, and Germany (E3) to initiate snapback sanctions on Iran under United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 2231.
“Threatening snapback only after Iran reaches the 90 percent threshold also creates a new and dangerous standard that Iranian enrichment up to 89.9 percent is somehow acceptable. Let me be clear: it is absolutely not acceptable. We need to stop moving the goalposts and start increasing the pressure. The time for snapback is now,” she said.
Her calls are being echoed across the spectrum. Presidential candidate, Senator Tim Scott, has also urged bipartisan action to intervene in the Biden moves to placate Iran.
“The Obama administration tried to bypass Congress in negotiating the deeply flawed JCPOA. We responded by passing bipartisan legislation to require them to submit any nuclear deal with Iran to Congress for review,” he said.
“Now the Biden Administration is using the same playbook. I joined my colleagues in introducing a backstop to require any deal that lifts sanctions on Iran be submitted to Congress. Now is not the time to weaken our stance against the Iranian regime.”
There is growing concern the Biden Administration will use unwritten informal agreements to circumvent the requirement for congressional review under US law. This week, Senators Jim Risch, ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Bill Hagerty, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, led colleagues in reintroducing the Iran Sanctions Relief Review Act (ISRRA), a bill to ensure that the president submits any sanctions relief relating to Iran for congressional review.
The legislation would provide a backstop if the Executive Branch attempts to evade the legal requirements for congressional review of any agreement related to Iran’s nuclear program contained in the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (Public Law 114-17).
“As the Biden Administration contemplates another enormous cash windfall to the Iranian regime in exchange for dubious non-proliferation promises, it is vitally important that Congress has a voice in any sanctions relief,” said Risch.
He stressed Iran’s ongoing support for Russia in its war on Ukraine, incidents which have led to deaths of US citizens and plots against former US officials, and the brutal suppression of protests since September, as reasons the regime is dangerous. “Congress has an obligation to ensure that sanctions relief does not fund these appalling activities,” he said.
Hagerty, one of 33 senators pushing for greater controls over the president in dealings with Iran, said checks and balances on any deal for sanctions relief, are a must. Warning of the consequences, he said: “As Iran’s terror-sponsoring regime continues to pursue nuclear weapons to harm Americans and our regional partners and allies, it is critical to provide insurance if President Biden keeps trying to run around Congress and relieve sanctions on Iran.”
In their letter released by the Jewish Insider on Monday, 249 lawmakers, including 133 Democrats and 116 Republicans, expressed concerns over the regime’s ability to enrich uranium to the weapons-grade level in a matter of days.
They cited a March report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) about particles of uranium enriched to the 83.7% level, just below the 90% level generally considered to be needed to produce nuclear weapons, and remarks by Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Colin Kahl about Iran being able to enrich enough weapons-grade uranium for a bomb in as little as 12 days.
“The United States must increase its efforts to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons capability and to communicate to Iran, without any ambiguity, that any further progress in its nuclear program will result in severe consequences,” the letter reads.
Calling for coordination with US allies “to implement the snapback mechanism embedded in UN Security Council Resolution 2231 should Iran advance its uranium enrichment past the 90% weapons-grade threshold," they said such a coordination "would send a powerful message of our unified commitment to deterring Iran’s nuclear program” as well as the message that Iran “would not be able to reap the benefits of international sanctions relief if it operates outside of its nuclear commitments.
They also voiced worries beyond Iran’s nuclear program, mentioning Tehran’s ever-closer ties with Russia and China, quoting US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley as calling the China-Iran-Russia relationship a problem for the US “for many years to come.” “This strengthened alliance bolsters the Iranian regime's confidence and may make them more likely to challenge US allies and interests,” read the letter.
Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) told Iran International’s Arash Alaei that “President Biden has made very clear that we cannot allow Iran... to have nuclear weapons.”
With the JCPOA, "at least we had better eyes, combined with Russia and China, on Iran's activities. We need to do all we can to prevent (Iran from getting nukes). This is a very dangerous part of the world," he added.
Following reports that the Biden administration is working on an unwritten agreement with the Islamic Republic, US lawmakers at the House and the Senate have moved to further restrict the White House in its dealings with Iran, or at least force the administration to keep the Congress on the loop.
Last week, the Foreign Affairs Committee of the US House of Representatives unanimously passed a resolution to make some punitive measures against Iran permanent. The bipartisan bill called Solidifying Iran Sanctions Act of 2023, has the potential to make the 1996 sanctions against Iran – or several other measures -- permanent by deleting the 'sunset clause' in any action against the Islamic Republic, a provision that provides an expiry date for a measure.
Former Iranian diplomat and scholar Kourosh Ahmadi wrote in an article last week that “If the 2015 nuclear deal [JCPOA] has lost its non-proliferation value…the objective should be improving it” instead of aiming for an interim and limited deal “that cannot last more than one or two years.”
Ahmadi called a possible interim deal a temporary fix that cannot overcome the chronic instability that disrupts and hinders Iran’s economic progress. Do we want just to patch things up for a short period of time, he asked, or put the country on the road to progress.
Referring to media reports about “a new wave of negotiations between Iran and the United States over an “understanding” or “a verbal agreement,” Etemad Online website pointed out in an analysis that Iranian officials have not provided any information about such an agreement, although they have confirmed that negotiations have taken place in Muscat, New York and Doha. US officials have also made minimal statements about the talks to swap prisoners and release Iran’s assets in Iraq but ruled out any talks over the JCPOA.
According to Etemad Online, it appears that Iran and the United States have reached an understanding about “stabilizing the current situation” and about some kind of “political cease-fire.” This will prevent crises at the points of contact, such as in Syria and the Persian Gulf. Etemad added that Iran on the other hand might be aiming for a détente with the United States alongside the rapprochement with Saudi Arabia, which can give Tehran access to its hard currency funds frozen abroad.
Etemad Online also opined that restored relations with Saudi Arabia can help Tehran achieve an agreement or an understanding with Washington. Based on the new deal Iran might agree not to enrich Uranium beyond 60 percent and stop installing new modern centrifuges while also promising to boost its cooperation with the IAEA, Etemad Online said, based on reports in Western media.
Also on the agenda of the negotiations are Iran’s cooperation with Russia in the war against Ukraine and the attacks on the US forces by Iran’s proxy groups in Iraq and Syria. The United States, on the other hand, will promise not to intensify the sanctions and instead, release more of Iran’s frozen assets abroad and facilitate Iran’s oil sales.
According to Nameh News website, Kambiz Mehdizadeh, an aide and son-in-law of former President Hassan Rouhani wrote in a tweet about the possibility of talks between Iran and the US: “An interim agreement or whatever you might call it is like a painkiller pill that can alleviate the symptoms of a cold. It can stop a runny nose, but it cannot help us to bring in foreign investments or help us purchase aircraft.”
On social media, Afifeh Abdi, an Iranian journalist and a foreign policy researcher, wrote in a June 22 tweet: “The ongoing negotiations over the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) are being furthered not because of the skill of Iran’s current negotiating team, but because of the strong US motivation to buy time and to keep Iran away from Russia and China. For the United States, these negotiations mean giving small concessions for strategic achievements!” Ms. Abdi added: “But what can Iran do? Iran has limited choices.”
In a comment under the post, a Twitter user wrote: “When Iran refuses to bring about essential economic reforms because its officials benefit from the ongoing corruption, and refuses to grant social liberties to the people, then the officials run the country on a day-to-day basis and try to get hold of hard currency to temporarily control the markets. Later, the United States will break its promises and the exchange rates will jump like a spring.”