peacefare.net

The US and Iran at loggerheads

Brookings held a panel discussion March 28 about constraining Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities, with Richard Nephew, Senior fellow at the Center of Twenty-first century, Vann H. Van Diepen, former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, and Suzanne Maloney, Deputy director at the Center for Middle East Policy. 

Nephew argues the US current strategy towards Iran won’t work and recommends a renewed diplomatic approach. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was a good agreement and should serve as the basis for future negotiations. Especially important are provisions that deal with transparency, the plutonium path, and controls on uranium enrichment. Renewed talks and economic pressure will enable the US to achieve a more durable agreement with Iran.

Iran however is no longer so keen on the JCPOA, because it has not gotten the sanctions relief it anticipated. This was a problem even before Donald Trump became president. With the passage of time, new issues are emerging, especially the question of when the agreement will end (“sunset”). The existing sunset provisions of the JCPOA might have made sense in the context of more diplomacy and engagement between the US and Iran. But the current confrontation limits the opportunities for diplomacy.

Van gave an overview of the Iranian missile program. Iran can already cause serious disruption of regional targets. The situation will get worse Iranian missile accuracy improves.

Iran is determined to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles able to reach the US. It is developing the necessary ICBM technology, including making intermediate-range ICBMs mobile. It is also developing a large liquid-propellant rocket engine in cooperation with North Korea in addition to a solid rocket motor produced in Iran. Iranian missile forces already pose a threat to the US and its allies in the region. Van believes the US should focus on deterring attacks and intimidation and delaying Iran capability that can reach beyond the immediate region, especially the US.

Maloney stated the sanctions have had a tremendous impact on Iran’s trade and investment. The value of the currency has plummeted and oil exports are half what they were prior to the sanctions. Growth is slowing, with a shortage in key commodities.

This situation has had a political impact, leading to some reshuffling at the top of the government, resignations and impeachment, as well as eroding to some extent the legitimacy of the government. The Islamic Republic depends not only on religion and ideology but also on its capacity to deliver promises of a better life and social justice.

But sanctions alone are not a strategy; they are a means to an end. The Trump administration has left ambiguity about what the end might be: regime change, a bigger and better nuclear deal, or simply leaving Iran stewing in deteriorating economic and international relations.

Maloney thinks Iran can manage this impasse, as it did in the past under even greater economic strain. Tehran has survived a long period of isolation. But it cannot escape economic constraints without a conversation with the US. Iran could restart its nuclear program and provoke more crisis in the region, but that will not solve the economic crisis, which is the high priority for Iranian leaders.

The US also faces a stalemate. There is no evidence the Trump administration is looking at the various contingencies, thinking about how it is going to respond, and finding a way to direct the Iranians toward the most constructive option, which is negotiation. The Americans need a clearer strategy that can garner bipartisan support.