Just when North Korea’s Kim Jong-un seems willing to compromise on his nuclear ambitions, Donald Trump appears to be determined to provoke Iran’s Hassan Rouhani into taking up an aggressive nuclear posture. The common factor for him is American pressure.
Five years ago, this column recorded that the world — especially Asia — heaved a sigh of relief because Barack Obama and Mr Rouhani, who had just been elected president of Iran on what he called a platform of “prudence and hope”, appeared to be pulling away from the brink of what had earlier threatened to burgeon into another catastrophic military confrontation. Mr Rouhani promised in an American television interview never to develop atomic weapons. “Under no circumstances would we seek any weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons”, he solemnly announced.
This commitment was reflected in the six-nation nuclear deal between Iran, the US, the UK, Russia, France, China and Germany, which was regarded as the signature foreign policy achievement of the Obama presidency. That itself was enough to make it anathema to his belligerent, aggressive and egotistical successor who has consistently denigrated the deal. Formally called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, it lifted crippling economic sanctions on Iran in return for limitations to its controversial nuclear energy programme, which international powers had earlier feared might be used to develop a nuclear weapon.
Mr Trump has given himself the deadline of May 12 to decide whether he will stand by or abandon the deal. His decision could ignite or prevent another West Asian crisis. “A US withdrawal would have far-reaching consequences”, warns Dr Sanam Vakil, associate fellow at the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London. “It is likely that we would see unnecessary transatlantic tension, a weakening of European leverage in negotiating further with Iran, the wider spread of regional violence and the resumption of Iran’s nuclear programme.”
Nevertheless, Mr Trump called the pact “insane” during the recent state visit to Washington by France’s president, Emmanuel Macron. Mr Macron, however, argued that if the US renews its commitment to the agreement, its European allies would be in a stronger position to pursue a follow-up pact on all outstanding issues, including ballistic missiles and Tehran’s involvement in other regional crises such as the seven-year Syrian civil war.
Mr Trump’s chief complaints are that the agreement doesn’t cover Iran’s ballistic missile programme or regional activities while one of its so-called “sunset clauses” allows for nuclear enrichment programme restrictions to be lifted after 2025. But beyond specifics, he seems to be as violently opposed to the Tehran regime as he was to Mr Kim. Ripping into Iran while standing beside Angela Merkel, the German chancellor who also backs the deal, he said, “We must ensure this murderous regime does not even get close to nuclear weapons.” He added, “Wherever there’s a problem, Iran is right there.”
He claims the deal was too lenient and that Iran has broken parts of it already, including heavy-water limits and access to international inspectors. He called for new sanctions, directed against Iran’s Revolutionary Guard police force, and referred the deal to the US Congress for changes to the American terms.
Contradicting him, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, says there had been “no violations” by Iran and insists that the deal cannot be renegotiated, not even by the US. Like Mr Macron, Chancellor Merkel and the EU, Britain’s prime minister, Theresa May, also agree that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is “the best way of neutralising the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran”.
As on several other issues, the US president is the Western alliance’s odd man out. He must decide by May 12 whether or not to continue waiving sanctions that were lifted under the deal. Under US law, the President has to recertify the agreement every few months.
EU nations continue to strongly support the agreement and have been working with US negotiators to find ways to address Mr Trump’s concerns and complaints, but it seemed increasingly clear during Mr Macron’s visit that the US President would push for some other approach. Regardless of Iranian compliance with all the terms, this being verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mr Trump calls it “the worst deal ever.”
Just as he will not ease sanctions or offer other concessions to North Korea before Pyongyang fully commits to denuclearisation, Mr Trump, who has always been a strong believer in force where weaker nations are concerned, argues in favour of continued pressure on Iran. His antipathy to his predecessor is not the only reason for this tough stand. Mr Trump’s closest allies outside Europe — Israel and the more obscurantist West Asian states led by Saudi Arabia — are both egging him on to take a hard line on Iran.
Shortly after paying his first visit to Saudi Arabia, the new US secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, strongly condemned what he said were Iran’s efforts to destabilise the region. “It supports proxy militias and terrorist groups. It is an arms dealer to the Houthi rebels in Yemen. It supports the murderous Assad regime [in Syria] as well,” he announced. Iran is, of course, the Shia outsider in Sunni West Asia’s heavily religion-laden politics.
This is yet another instance of the paradox of Islamic orthodoxy sharing the same aim as Zionist fanaticism. Israel is the region’s strongest power, and the only one with nuclear weapons. According to the South Carolina Republican senator, Lindsey Graham, who ran an unsuccessful campaign to win the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, and who led a high-powered delegation to Israel in February, “Iran needs to pay a heavier price – they are encircling our Arab allies and the state of Israel.”
Israel’s hawkish defence minister, Avigdor Lieberman, who was also recently in Washington, is full of dire predictions. He has warned that Israeli forces will strike Iran “and every Iranian site in Syria” if Tehran threatens Israel in any way. That would create a situation that the US would find difficult to handle.
This belligerence is to be contrasted with the astute commitment to world peace that characterised relations between Mr Obama and Mr Rouhani. Expressing the hope that yesterday’s enemy would grasp the olive branch he was offering, Mr Rouhani sent back a constructive reply to Mr Obama’s very tactful letter of good wishes for the Rosh Hanshana festival. The then US president is unlikely to have sent such greetings without prior assurance that they would be welcomed in Tehran.
Diplomacy is a minuet in which both presidents took tiny and subtle steps towards each other to consolidate the future. It would be tragic if that legacy were to be destroyed by their successors whose rash actions threaten to start a new nuclear arms race across West Asia.
Sunanda K Datta-Ray is the author of several books and a regular media columnist.
