Talks with Iran must be genuinely joint and comprehensive
Despite gloomy news from the standoff between Iran and the rest of the world, there appears to be a silver lining. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is now practically dead and US “maximum pressure” is working. The UK is recalibrating its Iran policy and new European leaders may also do the same. Iranian politicians are hinting at compromise. These developments should lead to a political way out through genuinely “joint” and “comprehensive” negotiations that cover all aspects of the conflict.
There was not much to report from the meeting on the remaining principals of the JCPOA in Vienna on Sunday. Iran was apparently unwilling to end its recent breaches of the deal, and the EU-3 (the UK, France and Germany) were not ready to give in to Iran’s demands for economic giveaways to counter US sanctions. Iran’s hopes of getting anything extra for merely complying with the agreement did not go far.
Iran has publicly admitted that it has breached the JCPOA’s limits on uranium enrichment. In addition, there were unconfirmed reports that the breaches went far beyond what has been officially announced. The JCPOA is thus practically dead. With the US out and Iran in material breach, there is not much left to save, especially as the new UK government under Boris Johnson is likely to be less enthusiastic about it than its predecessor.
On the other hand, there is evidence that the US policy of maximum pressure is working and some Iranian officials are reconsidering their hard-line approach. On Saturday, Frederick Kempe, president and CEO of the Atlantic Council, one of the US’ most influential think tanks (and one that is rather sympathetic to Iran), wrote that: “Surprising new signs are emerging that President Donald Trump’s controversial ‘maximum pressure’ campaign on Iran could set the table for new negotiations toward a better agreement.” Since April, Kempe wrote, Tehran’s oil exports have “nosedived” to some 300,000 barrels a day, its economy has shrunk by 6 percent and its currency has lost 60 percent of its value over the past year.
Iran’s immediate reaction to US pressure was belligerence. It breached the nuclear deal, attacked and detained a number of oil tankers from several countries, and shot down an American drone. At the same time, its proxies across the region launched attacks, mostly unsuccessfully, against Saudi Arabia’s oil installations and airports, as well as against US bases.
Beside the nuclear issue, the negotiations should include Iran’s ballistic missile program and its regional activities.
Abdel Aziz Aluwaisheg
However, some Iranian politicians, including former hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have advocated negotiations with the US. According to Ahmadinejad, “Mr. Trump is a man of action. He is a businessman and therefore he is capable of calculating cost-benefits and making a decision. We say to him, ‘let’s calculate the long-term cost-benefit of our two nations and not be short-sighted.’” Ahmadinejad accepted that issues other than Iran’s nuclear program were relevant and would require “a fundamental discussion.” Other Iranian officials have floated similar ideas.
These developments point in one direction: Negotiations. But they need to be more joint and more comprehensive this time than the JCPOA was. More parties need to join the talks, especially the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), either collectively or through some of its members. Beside the nuclear issue, the negotiations should include Iran’s ballistic missile program and its regional activities in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and elsewhere.
A new realistic approach toward Iran should not be beyond reach. The US’ Iran policy enjoys bipartisan support and, as such, should not be controversial or subject to the ebbs and flows of the upcoming 2020 election campaign. This means that the Trump administration is not going to be hampered by domestic politics on this issue.
As in Washington, Europe’s new leaders do not have a vested interest in keeping the JCPOA alive, as they were not part of the negotiations that led to its conclusion. The UK’s new government is expected to be more realistic about the broken nuclear deal. Similarly, the new EU administration, due to take office in the fall, should give Gulf security a fresh look. Other recent shifts in European politics have not been particularly favorable to Iran.
The ongoing military buildup in the Gulf is not an impediment to negotiation; quite the opposite. It is meant to disabuse Iran of its notion that it can punch itself out of the crisis, and to persuade Tehran to instead seek a political solution. The GCC has long called for political solutions to the conflict, which goes beyond the nuclear deal. It has sent proposals to Iran on how to establish a framework for such solutions. During the current crisis, GCC leaders have made their common position quite clear: For example, the joint communique of the GCC emergency summit held in Makkah on May 30 emphasized that the organization favored a political solution, calling on Iran to spare the region further conflict by adhering to the UN Charter and globally recognized principles of state conduct. These principles were the same ones cited in previous GCC communications with Iran.
The US should take the lead in pursuing such a joint and comprehensive approach. Even Iran recognizes that Washington holds the keys to such an initiative. The US should not go it alone, however, but gradually build a consensus of like-minded actors, to be followed by negotiations with Iran.
- Abdel Aziz Aluwaisheg is the GCC Assistant Secretary-General for Political Affairs & Negotiation, and a columnist for Arab News. The views expressed in this piece are personal and do not necessarily represent GCC views. Twitter: @abuhamad1
