Up a creek without a paddle

A Wilson Center panel yesterday considered recent developments with Iran, particularly Trump’s groundbreaking decision to exit the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA, aka Iran nuclear deal).  With the Wilson Center’s Aaron David Miller as moderator, panel members Michael Singh of the Washington Institute, Tamara Coffman Wittes of the Brookings Institution, Robert Litwak of the Wilson Center, and Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations discussed the JCPOA, the American departure from it, and future prospects.

Singh argued that Trump’s decision had both political and substantive roots. The President decided to use a problematic model of “maximum pressure” to create a new Iran deal.  Where there was once convergence with foreign allies and partners on the way forward with Iran, with diplomatic efforts creating a multilateral sanctions campaign, there is now  divergence, which makes Trump’s strategy of “maximum pressure” harder to implement.

Next steps, Singh believes, should include:

1. Heal the rift with European allies and reach a US-E3 agreement, at least an agreed roadmap on the way forward.

2. Nest the withdrawal from the JCPOA in a more comprehensive Iran strategy, as sanctions alone are not enough.

There is no real Administration strategy on Iran, Singh suggested. It talks tough but is reluctant to get dragged into the Middle East.  Iran is a revisionist state and the only way to confront it is with commitment to the Middle East and the use of every policy tool.

Wittes understands Trump’s JCPOA decision as based on a desire to fulfill campaign promises and cater to domestic policy and interests. But it was reckless. Iranian influence, opportunities, and gains since 2011 have expanded as they compete with Sunni states and Israel for power.  This unfortunately comes at a time of US pullback from the Middle East, which troubles US allies concerned more about Iran’s regional behavior than nuclear weapons, and a turn of foreign policy focus towards Asia. Wittes does not see how a new US-Iran agreement can happen.  She does believe, however, that in the current Israel-Iran standoff, both sides are sending careful and calibrated messages as neither side seeks escalation, although it could still happen.

Litwak thinks the exit from the  JCPOA is a departure from the US grand strategy of exerting power via international institutions.  The US, not Iran, is being seen as the foreign policy issue and outlier state. America First is turning into America Alone. The JCPOA had a transactional, not transformational, basis as it sought to constrain Iran’s nuclear program, which has existed for over 40 years.  Without the JCPOA, it is harder to address other Iran issues. The re-imposition of US sanctions could lead to a trade war with Europe should it take a defiant stance.  It also strengthens Iranian hardliners and opens the door for Iran to leave the deal and restart its nuclear program.  The exit from JCPOA could make it more difficult to negotiate a nuclear deal with North Korea.  Trump’s transformational goal for a new Iran deal is over-reach. Litwak believes the US should be more pragmatic.

Takeyh anticipates that the US and Iran will eventually return to negotiations, considering the dearth of unofficial dialogues with Iran.  The JCPOA was seriously flawed, especially the sunset clauses. A new deal with Iran must be permanent, a treaty approved in the Senate with minority party support.  Ultimately, arms control will need to be an aspect of Iran policy, not the totality of it.