On Friday, November 27 the highest-ranking scientist behind Iran’s nuclear programs Mohsen Fakhrizadeh was mysteriously ambushed and killed in a small city in northern Iran. For decades, the United States and Israel have regarded him as the key figure secretly spearheading Tehran’s country’s efforts to develop an atomic warhead.

Who Was Behind the Fakhrizadeh Assassination?

A number of American officials — including sources from the US secret services — have said that Israel was behind the assassination of Iran’s leading nuclear scientist, as he had long been on the Mossad’s list of top targets. The ambuscade, which consisted of reportedly five or six men, was set up in Absard, a small city in Iran’s northern Damavand region, where Mohsen Fakhrizadeh was travelling in his car. According to Iranian reports, an explosion preceded gunfire.

“Terrorists murdered an eminent Iranian scientist today,” Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif reacted on Twitter. “This cowardice — with serious indications of Israeli role — shows desperate warmongering of perpetrators.” 

Iran soon vowed to take retaliatory action. The country’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that Iran will pursue those behind the assassination and punish both “its perpetrators and those who commanded it.” Echoing him, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said the Iranian people “are braver than to leave this criminal act unanswered” and promised a response “in due time” as he blamed Israel.

Project 110 and Fakhrizadeh’s True Identity

Iran had long depicted Mohsen Fakhrizadeh as a mere academic who taught at the Imam Hossein University, a public university in Tehran which is under the authority of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

But as early as the 2000s, at least, intelligence reports in the United States focused on the mysterious figure and disclosed key information about him. In 2007, a CIA assessment made for the Bush Administration revealed that Fakhrizadeh’s academic profession was a cover story.

In fact, Fakhrizadeh had been running what Iran labelled “Project 110” and “Project 111” — a complex endeavor aimed to create a nuclear warhead that is small enough to fit into a missile but which holds out against the pressure of re-entering into the atmosphere.

“He was their senior-most nuclear scientist and was believed to be responsible for Iran’s covert nuclear program,” a former Pentagon Middle East policy top official told the New York Times. “He was also a senior officer in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and that will magnify Iran’s desire to respond by force.”

2018: Israel Names Fakhrizadeh Enemy Number One

In 2018, Israel’s Mossad stole documents from an Iranian warehouse that held documentations of a program named the “Amad Project”. Relying on those documents in a televised presentation, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also revealed Fakhrizadeh’s role to be of extreme significance and named him Israel’s public enemy number one.

Netanyahu said that even after the Amad Project was abandoned Fakhrizadeh had kept it secretly alive. He added that the project was now run by an organization within Iran’s defense ministry known as the Organization of of Defensive Innovation and Research (Sazman-e Pazhouheshhaye Novin-e Defa’i or SPND) which was also led by Fakhrizadeh.

Why Was Fakhrizadeh Killed Now?

On November 12, President Donald Trump told senior advisers in the Oval Office that he wanted to strike Iran’s nuclear site in Natanz, but his advisers soon dissuaded him, fearing the beginning of an unprecedented armed conflict. The day before, Trump had dismissed his then Pentagon chief Mark Esper.

As he is expected to concede the American election in January, Trump is now focused on sabotaging any possible diplomacy between the United States and Iran under President-elect Joe Biden and a prospective return to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (the 2015 nuclear deal from which Trump withdrew in 2018).

Had it taken place earlier this month, the strike would have wrecked that possibility beyond repair. But the killing of Fakhrizadeh — which occurred shortly after Netanyahu met Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman for the first time — certainly sought to reach the same end goal. 

By baiting Iran into retaliation, Israel — along with its regional allies — is trying to escalate already fuming tensions i the region and impede any negotiation with Iran in the future. Still, the targeting and killing of Iranian nuclear scientists — and others — in Iran is nothing new.

While many Iranians mourned the death of Fakhrizadeh and took to the streets to demand severe retaliation, some blamed the killing on repeated breache in Iran’s national security. Indeed, on August 7, al-Qaeda’s second-highest leader, Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah (who went by the nom de guerre Abu Muhammad al-Masri), was gunned down in broad daylight in the streets of Tehran by Israeli agents on a motorcycle.

A History of Israeli Breaches of Iranian Security

“Over the current decade, several top Iranian scientists have been targeted and assassinated in terrorist attacks and our firm evidence clearly indicates that certain foreign quarters have been behind such assassinations,” Majid Takht-Ravanchi, the Ambassador of Iran to United Nations, wrote in a letter addressed to UN leader Antonio Gueterres and the UN Security Council following the death of Fakhrizadeh.

Almost precisely 10 years ago, on November 29, 2010, two Iranian nuclear scientists were targeted in coordinated bomb attacks, when attackers rode motorcycles and stuck bombs on their cars. However, only one of them, Majid Shahriar, was killed in that specific attack. 

A number of other targeted killings happened later, while Stuxnet — a computer virus believed to be an Israeli and American creation — destroyed Iranian nuclear centrifuges, including in Natanz.

In July of this year, an mysterious explosion took place at a nuclear research and development center at Natanz. Israel, which vowed to destroy Iran’s hopes to develop nuclear weapons at all costs, also has a history of bombing plants in Syria and Iraq.

Will Iran Strike Back?

Germany, which is a key US ally in Europe, urged the two sides not to allow the last weeks of the Trump administration to obliterate hopes for new negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program.

“A few weeks before the new US administration takes office, it is important to preserve the scope for talks with Iran so that the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program can be resolved through negotiations,” the German foreign ministry said in a statement. “We therefore urge all parties to refrain from any steps that could lead to a further escalation of the situation.”

But Iran, which has suffered two major killings this year — the first being the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, then the highest-ranking individual in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — seems to be more intent on revenge than ever before.

“We assure you that we will not rest until we track down and take revenge on those responsible for the assassination of martyr Fakhrizadeh,” Mohammad Bagheri, chief of staff for the Iranian armed forces, said in a statement responding to the assassination.

Meanwhile Israeli and American missions in neighboring countries have been put on high alert since the killing.

L'articolo Killing of Iran’s Top Nuclear Scientist Escalates Middle East Tensions proviene da InsideOver.

As the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism, the world has rightfully kept a close eye on Iran’s nuclear program. It is thus no surprise that all eyes were on Teheran when news broke several days ago that an incident had occurred in an Iranian nuclear facility. The details, however, are nebulous at this point, even though Iran has confirmed the incident.

Damage to Above-Ground Building

At the center of the incident is an above-ground building. According to the Iranian Atomic Energy Agency (AEOI), it was a shed under construction that was still empty. The agency’s spokesman, Behrouz Kamalvandi, was filmed by state television in front of the building, that he called “damaged”.  There were no injuries and no interruption in uranium enrichment. Radioactive substances were also not released. A team of experts from the Iranian Atomic Energy Agency was currently investigating the cause of the fire.

Natanz’s nuclear facility is located about 250 kilometres south of the capital, Tehran. Here, uranium is enriched using centrifuges. According to the IAEA, Iran is currently enriching uranium to 4.5 per cent fissile material, which is more than is permitted in the nuclear agreement. However, a purity of 90 percent is required for nuclear weapons.

Evidence Suggests Explosion at Facility

Photos and video recordings of the charred building suggest an explosion. The brick walls have bulged in several places. Metal doors are torn off their hinges, parts of the tin roof hangover the facade, sooty beams protrude. All of this can only be explained plausibly with a pressure wave that must have started inside the building.

Nevertheless, a technical defect cannot be ruled out as the cause, but the building may not have been empty, as the Iranians claim. It shows striking similarities to the building that the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) identified as a facility on satellite images in 2016, in which Iran assembles and balances new centrifuges. Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspected the building before machines were installed.

It is thus not a surprise that Iran’s version of the event has been disputed already. According to the New York Times, for instance, a Middle East intelligence officer who spoke on condition of anonymity told the paper that the explosion was caused by an explosive device installed in the facility. The explosion had thus destroyed a large part of the above-ground parts of the plant, in which new centrifuges —  sensitive devices that rotate at supersonic speeds —  were destroyed far before they were put into operation.

‘Homeland Cheetahs’

Moreover, an e-mail sent a letter of confession from a previously unknown group, “Homeland Cheetahs”, who described themselves as dissidents from the security apparatus. It contained information about the alleged attack —  such as the plant affected. The letter was received by the BBC‘s Persian service hours before the Iranian incident became public.

Accordingly, there are said to have been further attacks that the regime is trying to hide. It may thus not be a coincidence, that the Parchin military site, 30 kilometres from Tehran, was shaken one week ago by a severe explosion also. According to official information, a gas tank had exploded. However, satellite images show that the explosion occurred in an area that is part of a ballistic missile production facility owned by the EU and US sanctioned Shahid Hemmat Industrial Group. Here too the cause is unclear, as is the extent of the damage that has occurred.

Israeli Involvement?

However, a Kuwaiti newspaper reported on Friday that an Israeli cyberattack was responsible for the explosion, that, according to the paper’s source, is expected to set back Iran’s nuclear enrichment program by two months.

In the past, Iran’s nuclear and missile programs have repeatedly been the target of American and Israeli intelligence agencies, including the Stuxnet virus, and also targeted by some Arab and Western countries. An inside job or an attack conducted by foreign adversaries are thus both conceivable.

L'articolo The Iran Incident: Accident or Sabotage? proviene da InsideOver.

US President Donald Trump removed America from the Iranian Nuclear Deal in May of 2018, but that might not stop his administration from arguing it is still a member of the accord. In an unusual tactic, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is preparing to justify America’s continued participation in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in an attempt to force the UN to renew an arms embargo on Tehran, as the New York Times reported.

Flip-Flopping

Nearly a month ago, Pompeo indicated the Trump administration would consider easing some sanctions on Iran to help it fight COVID-19. Now, Pompeo is back to waging President Donald Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign, however. Since the Middle Eastern state has been sanctioned nearly every way possible from Washington, Pompeo has turned to the expiring UN arms embargo on Iran.

The embargo, established at the same time as the JCPOA, is set to expire in stages — restrictions on small arms will be lifted in October with missiles embargoed for an additional three years. An updated copy of the resolution reads: 

“Iran shall not supply, sell or transfer, directly or indirectly, from its territory, by its nationals or using its flag vessels or aircraft, any arms or related matériel, and that all member states shall prohibit the procurement of such items from Iran by their nationals, or using their flagged vessels or aircraft, and whether or not originating in the territory of Iran.”

Pompeo wants the UN to extend the embargo, but in anticipation of Russia and China objecting, he is readying another option. If the US was still a member of the JCPOA, it could exercise a “snapback” provision in the deal. Doing so would essentially return all UN sanctions that existed before the agreement including sanctions on oil and banking.

“We cannot allow the Islamic Republic of Iran to purchase conventional weapons in six months. President Obama should never have agreed to end the U.N. arms embargo,” Pompeo told the New York Times. “We are prepared to exercise all of our diplomatic options to ensure the arms embargo stays in place at the U.N. Security Council.”

Expecting Resistance

According to the New York Times, Moscow has already signaled interest in selling arms to Tehran once again. Both Russia and China are permanent members of the UN Security Council alongside the US. If a single member disagrees with passing an embargo extension, the measure will fail.

Pompeo understands this and, more pertinently, he knows the proposed extension will come under heavy scrutiny when pitched to the UN. Both Russia and China have already called the Trump administration out for escalating tensions and argued the sanctions are unjust.

“I think [the Trump administration] will get tremendous pushback, because the Trump administration withdrew from the agreement,” said Wendy Sherman, the lead negotiator for the JCPOA and director of the Center for Public Leadership at Harvard. 

On May 8, 2018, Trump said “I am announcing today that United States will withdraw from the nuclear deal.” He justified it by declaring “we have definitive proof” of Iran pursuing nuclear weapons and called the JCPOA  “one-sided deal that should have never, ever been made.” He also said it was “nuclear blackmail.” 

When a reporter asked how withdrawing from the JCPOA would make America safer, he only replied that it would, offering no details.

In tearing up the deal, Trump hoped to forge a new one bearing his name. In the same speech he announced the US withdrawal, he said Pompeo had been dispatched to North Korea to create a deal. No deal has been signed between the US and North Korea, other than a vague pledge to recommit to peace between the two states.

Pompeo’s mission to portray the US as still involved in the nuclear deal may seem impossible given Trump’s own statements on the issue. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif highlighted the perceived hypocrisy in his reaction. He said Pompeo and Trump were “dreaming that their ‘max pressure’ would bring Iran to its knees. Given that policy’s abject failure, he now wants to be JCPOA participant.”

Biding Time

If the other members of the UN Security Council refuse grant an extension for the arms embargo, it the ball would be back in Trump’s court. At that point, if Pompeo isn’t bluffing, he would try to force UN members to restore sanctions, effectively nullifying the agreement. Achieving that would be questionable, however, as some European states, notably France, have taken on more of a mediator role on the issue.

The UK, Germany, Russia, China, EU, and France are all still parties to the nuclear deal and have urged both sides to reconcile. Even as Tehran exceeded limits and became non-compliant, the signatories refused to rollback the agreement and restore sanctions. 

While Pompeo can threaten to undercut the deal, assuming the remaining signatories even entertain the idea of the US having not withdrawn, it would still be up to other states to enforce it. On paper, UN sanctions could be restored, but Washington might find itself pitted against the rest of the world in that case.

What could Trump do if other states refuse to honor sanctions Pompeo is arguing for? The global economy is already wrecked for the foreseeable future, so threatening trade wars would not be as effective. Furthermore, with an election in November, other states could simply refuse to comply and wait until the election plays out. By that point, they could conceivably only have two months left of Trump before a more reasonable successor takes office.

For Tehran, a lifting of the embargo in October would open up an economic avenue in a time when it has few options. It’s economy has plummeted to unimaginable depths and could certainly benefit greatly. However, continuing with an embargo extension would likely have little effect. There aren’t stockpiles of weapons and factories spun up in anticipation of a sudden boom in sales. Tehran isn’t as invested yet in the embargo being lifted.

L'articolo Pompeo Insists US Still Part of Iranian Nuclear Deal in Ploy to Extend Arms Embargo proviene da InsideOver.

U.S Senator Chris Murphy (Dem-Conn) secretly met with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference (MSC) as conservative news outlet the Federalist first revealed. However, the news organization did not elaborate more about what both men were apparently discussing at that time. The meeting seemed to upset U.S President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. It indicated a stark difference of opinion in the Trump administration about how to handle the ongoing tension with Tehran.

Iran’s Reaction

Iran’s Foreign Ministry responded to the recent meeting between both senior politicians, saying that it occurred in the framework of Iran’s general diplomacy.

“These measures are part of public diplomacy, including meeting with elites, think-tanks, and interviewing and meeting with media associates. These meetings are also an opportunity for the Islamic Republic to put forward its views on “the realities of the region,” foreign ministry spokesman Abbas Mousawi tweeted.

Trump, Pompeo Slam Meeting: ‘Violation of the Logan Act‘

Trump criticized the Connecticut-based Senator’s act for violating the seldom-enforced Logan Act, which bans non-governmental figures from having contacts with foreign governments. The bill was ratified following an illegal meeting between U.S senator George Logan and the French government in 1798 during the presidency of John Adams.

“Sen. Murphy met with the Iranians. Is that a fact? I just saw that on the way over. Is there anything that I should know? Because that sounds like, to me, a violation of the Logan Act,” Trump told reporters as Middleeasteye.net reported.

Pompeo also echoed his boss’ statement, wondering about what both Murphy and Zarif were talking about. The former CIA chief hoped the Senator promoted the White House’s policy, not the Senator’s personal view.

“It’s Dangerous Not to Talk to One’s Enemies”

While Murphy argued that there was nothing wrong with his private talk with Zarif, adding that someone should talk to a country dubbed as the U.S’ enemy. “It’s dangerous not to talk to one’s enemies,” he said, adding that if Trump did not want to talk to Iran, then someone should do so.

Murphy explained that he discussed Iran’s support for Houthi rebel groups in Yemen, Tehran’s influence in Iraq, and American prisoners in Iran, The Hill wrote. The Democrats politician also wanted to make sure whether the revenge for the killing of Iran’s influential general Qasem Soleimani was over.

“I want to make sure it is 100 percent clear to him that if any groups in Iraq that are affiliated with Iran attack the United States’ forces in Iraq, this will be perceived as an unacceptable escalation,” Murphy stated.

A Brief Background of U.S-Iran Tension

Trump has repeatedly criticized the Iran nuclear deal or known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), signed under the Barack Obama administration in 2015. The real estate mogul argued that the agreement was not effective in pushing Iran to halt its nuclear ambition, despite the compliance report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

In 2018, the White House announced its formal withdrawal from the JCPOA, a step that sparked criticism from other signatories such as France, Germany, the U.K, Russia, and China. Washington also imposed a series of sanctions on Tehran.

Iran then retaliated by reducing its commitment to the JCPOA. The Middle East nation announced its plan to enrich uranium above the level stipulated in the agreement.

The attack on Saudi’s oil facility in September last year and the killing of Soleimani in early 2020 in Iraq have intensified the tension. Then, Iran was under worldwide condemnation for accidentally shooting a Ukraine passenger airplane after mistakenly assuming the aircraft was an enemy’s aircraft. Tehran apologized for the incident and was ready to be responsible for the horrific incident that killed around 176 passengers, most of them Iranians and Canadians.

Is White House Split over Iran?

Murphy stated Trump’s approach to Iran has failed, indicating the differences between the POTUS and U.S lawmakers in dealing with Tehran. In May 2019, Senator Ruben Gallego revealed that the U.S intelligence has faked and exaggerated Iran’s threat to the U.S and its allies, accusing the then National Security Adviser John Bolton and Republican senator Tom Cotton of creating a false narrative over Tehran.

“What I saw was a lot of misinterpretation and wanting conflict coming from the administration and intelligence community. Intel doesn’t show existential threats. Even what it shows, it doesn’t show threats to U.S. interests,” Gallego told the Washington Post in a telephone interview.

Just a few days after Iran apologized for accidentally shooting down the Ukrainian plane, Pentagon chief Mark Esper refuted Trump’s claim that Iran had planned to attack four U.S embassies, adding that Trump was ready for a dialogue unconditionally.

L'articolo The Meeting Between Chris Murphy and Iran’s Foreign Minister proviene da InsideOver.

With the United States and Iran on an ongoing collision course since the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani and the nuclear deal seemingly worth nothing more than useless paper, Europe finally appears to be trying to fill in the vacuum and play its role of a mediator between the global and regional power. 

EU Rep Tries To Ease US-Iran Tensions

Europe is certainly trying, in any case. Last week the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell touched down in Iran. During the two-day visit, the top diplomat met President Hasan Rouhani, Foreign Minister Javad Zarif and Speaker of the Parliament Ali Larijani for discussions ranging from the regional issues to the nuclear deal. 

Ever since President Trump moved into the White House and began pursuing his campaign against the Islamic Republic—beginning with unilateral revocation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—Europe has increasingly come into the spotlight to take a leadership role. They want to help salvage the deal and prevent Tehran from pursuing a nuclear path. 

Sanctions Against Iran Are Taking A Heavy Toll

From Iran’s point of view, much of that salvaging meant coming in the form of increasing trade, investments and being able to sell its oil. But good things have been hard to come by, as Washington unleashed sanctions on not only Tehran but also those engaging in business with it. As a result, the country’s economy suffered a massive blow with growth rate tanking down close to a negative 9.5% in 2019. 

As economic prospects from the JCPOA have failed to deliver any results, Iran has become visibly frustrated. Hints of that came in November last year when it stopped an inspector of the International Atomic Energy Agency from visiting a nuclear site and injected uranium gas into the Fordo plant. Then on Jan. 6, the country said it would scrap limits on enriching uranium and, just two weeks ago, a bill was presented in the parliament that called for exiting the Non-Proliferation Treaty as a whole.

Needless to say, the message was heard loud and clear in the European Union. The EU’s three key members, France, Germany and the UK, triggered a dispute mechanism in mid-January which—if not resolved within 15 days—could see the matter landing at the United Nations.  

Borrell Assures Tehran That EU Will Work To Avoid Further Sanctions

That was one of the key issues that Borrell tried to diffuse during his visit where he ensured Tehran that the “EU will extend indefinitely the time limit to resolve disputes in the Iran 2015 nuclear accord to avoid having to go to the UN Security Council or triggering new sanctions.” Later in a presser, Borrell again signaled Brussels’ desire to keep the deal alive and continue engagement.  

While Tehran has lately rolled back on the nuclear front, the move is nowhere near permanent, as it yet again expressed intention to go back to the negotiating table. “The Islamic Republic of Iran is still fully ready to interact and cooperate with the European Union to settle issues and whenever the other side lives up to its commitments completely, Iran is ready to return to its commitments,” its statement at the meeting’s conclusion noted. 

Next Meeting Between EU And Iran Set For March

The two sides are also expected to meet again in March at the EU-Iran High-Level Dialogue where a range of issues will be discussed including political, security, human rights, trade, migration and a financial envelope of €150 million. From the looks of it, Borrell is on a mission of serious engagement as he has been corresponding with all regional players including the Saudi and Emirati foreign ministers. In fact, the Iran trip came just after the European diplomat’s visit to Jordan where he met King Abdullah. 

The list doesn’t end here, as the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy went to Washington, the first visit since he took this role. Here he had a meeting with Secretary Mike Pompeo with a number of issues on the agenda and briefed Pompeo on his recent trip to Iran. 

Taking the helm of Brussels foreign policy just in December, Borrell seems to be proactive on most matters of international importance. Not only has he called for dialog and reiterated EU’s commitment to it, the diplomat has at the same time shown independence in judgment and policy as evident by his criticism of the US’s peace plan. But in the case of Iran whose economy is being crippled by sanctions, it will be tough for Borrell to deliver relief leaving slim chances of the JCPOA’s survival.

L'articolo Europe Steps up Mediator Role in US-Iran Conflict proviene da InsideOver.

On 14 January, Germany, France and Britain formally triggered the dispute mechanism of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal. Which was signed in Vienna on July 14, 2015.

The decision was triggered by Iran’s announcement that it would no longer adhere to the limits of uranium enrichment agreed under the deal. This followed the killing of one of its top military commanders, General Qassem Soleimani in a US drone strike in Baghdad. Tehran has, however, promised to continue cooperating with UN nuclear inspectors.

The action by the three European countries could see sanctions being re-imposed on Iran for failing to meet its commitments to the deal. However, they also  emphasised that their aim is to make the deal survive and not the re-imposition of sanctions.

“Our countries are not joining a campaign to implement maximum pressure against Iran,” They said. “Our hope is to bring Iran back into full compliance with its commitments under the JCPOA.”

How does the JPOA dispute mechanism work?

According to the JPOA agreement, “If Iran believed that any member or all of the E3/EU+3 were not meeting their commitments under the JCPOA , Iran could refer the Issue to the joint Commission for resolution. Similarly, if any of the E3 /EU+3 believed that Iran was not meeting its commitments under the JCPOA, any of the E3 /EU+3 could do the same.”

In the current case, since Iran is the accused it will be referred to a joint commission made up of representatives from Iran itself, Russia, China, Germany, France and the European Union.

The Joint Commission will have 15 days to resolve the issue, unless the time period is extended by consensus. In case the issue is not resolved by the Joint Commission, any participant will be able to refer it to Foreign Affairs Ministers of the countries that are signatory to the nuclear deal. This would take 15 days unless the extension of the time period is made by consensus.

If Iran is not satisfied with the decision of the Joint Commission, and Foreign Affairs Ministers, it could request for the matter to be considered by an Advisory Board made up of three members, “one each appointed by the participants in the dispute and a third independent member.”

The Advisory Board should be able to provide a non binding opinion or suggestion on the matter within 15 days. If, after the 30 day process the issue is not resolved, then the Joint Commission would consider the opinion of the Advisory Board for no more than five days in order to resolve it.

If the Iran uranium enrichment issue still has not been resolved to the satisfaction of France, UK and Germany who are the complaining participants, and if they deem “the issue to constitute significant non performance, then they would treat the unresolved issue as grounds to cease performing its commitments under the JCPOA in whole or in part and/or notify the UN Security Council that it believes the issue constitutes significant non performance.”

Upon receiving the notification from Germany, Britain and France, as described above including a description of the good faith efforts they may have made to “exhaust the dispute resolution process specified in the JCPOA , the UN Security Council, in accordance with its procedures, shall vote on a resolution to continue the sanctions lifting on Iran.”

If the resolution described above has not been adopted within 30 days of the notification, then the sanctions in all previous provision of the old UN Security Council resolutions would be re-imposed on Iran, unless the UN Security Council decides otherwise.

In such events, the provisions would not apply “to contacts signed between any party and Iran or Iranian individuals and entities prior to the date of application, provided that the activities contemplated under an execution of such contracts are consistent with the JCPOA and the previous and current UN Security Council resolutions.”

The JCPOA agreement further states that, “The UN Security Council, expressing its intention to prevent the reapplication of the provisions if the issue giving rise to the notification is resolved within this period, intends to take into account the views of the States involved in the issue and any opinion on the issue of the Advisory Board.”

L'articolo Understanding The Iran Deal Dispute Mechanism proviene da InsideOver.

Foreign policy has traditionally been determining whether or not a president’s tenure can be considered successful. Donald Trump’s foreign policy has been in the spotlight since he won the presidency but has moved even more into focus with the current Iran crisis. While the president will ultimately make the final decision, the vision, the grand strategies, are often shaped by people close to the president. Quincy Adams or George Shultz, only to name a few, were more than just Secretary of State. They were architects of foreign policy doctrines. The same applies to Mike Pompeo, who has become the main driver behind Trump’s foreign policy.

Pompeo, who succeeded Rex Tillerson in March 2018 indicated his political vision for America abroad immediately, yet very few people expected him to reach the influence he now has. Most importantly, European diplomats in Washington knew that Pompeo’s arrival would not only result in an end of the Iran nuclear deal but a significantly different stance on Teheran.

Already during his first speech as the new Secretary of State, Pompeo made it very clear that Trump’s decision to withdraw from the nuclear deal with Iran and also laid down his doctrine for future dealings with Tehran.

The deal that Obama signed with Iran was weak, he criticized, and while it might have delayed Iran’s nuclear program for a few years at most, it did not permanently prevent Tehran from building an atomic bomb. Above all, according to Pompeo, the lifting of economic sanctions associated with the agreement brought “new wealth” to the Iranian regime, which immediately invested the money in the financing of various Shiite militias working in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Iraq for Tehran Waged war. During his first speech, Pompeo also mentioned the name of the man who was responsible for the militia activities: Qassim Soleimani.

Pompeo is cognizant that Tehran is the driving force behind the chaos in the region. Thus, the appeasement politics under the Obama administration was substituted for maximum pressure on the regime to protect the US, its allies, and geopolitical interests in the region. The killing of Soleimani was thus not only imperative from Pompeo’s point of view but in the planning for a more extended period, as the Washington Post had recently reported.

However, it is not merely Pompeo’s stance on Iran that has made him Trump’s most trusted cabinet member. After three years of leaks within the White House, Trump has displayed a reluctance to trust many of his advisors – and often rightfully so. With Pompeo, however, he found a loyal individual, with whom he also appears to connect on a human level. A mix that cannot be overestimated in the current position.

This relationship was cultivated even before Pompeo became a cabinet member. When he had still been the head of the CIA, Pompeo would brief the president personally on all relevant security matters. Usually, a CIA representative would conduct these briefings. However, Pompeo appears to have been cognizant of how beneficial an amicable relationship with this president can be. Moreover, it was CIA Director Pompeo who meeting with the North Koreans first and establishing a line of communication.

Now, as the Secretary of State, Pompeo has continued to build on the foundation the two men had established. Thus one can regularly witness Pompeo’s TV appearances, in which he displays his loyalty by not merely repeating the president’s agenda, but by reaffirming that the president’s agenda is indeed the correct one. In return, Pompeo has been granted the leeway to create the administration’s foreign policy.

With this leeway and power, Pompeo has become more than just Trump’s Secretary of State. It is apparent that Pompeo is significantly more present inside and outside the government than Secretary of Defense Esper, a role that used to carry significantly more responsibility. John Bolton, the former National Security Advisor, was not sharing the same visions as Pompeo and was let go as a result – though the official reason given were differences of opinion with Trump himself. Since Bolton was replaced, however, another formerly highly influential and essential position was filled by a comparable profile-less Robert O’Brien in September 2019 – which will have only increased Pompeo’s influence further.

However, the most critical element that connects Pompeo and Trump is that he shares the President’s America First doctrine. Similar to Bolton, Pompeo has always been hawkish on foreign and security issues with a hardliner stance on Iran. This stance is not an opportunist move by Pompeo, however, but a continuation of a policy he has been conducting dating back to his CIA days. After all, Pompeo, in one of his first acts as CIA Director, was to increase operations against Iran massively.

Further attempts to bring Iran to its knees are thus not only conceivable but almost a certainty.

L'articolo Mike Pompeo: President Trump’s Foreign Policy Architect proviene da InsideOver.

Despite Iran’s missile attacks, a military counterattack was not announced by President Trump during his address at the White House. However, the conflict between Iran and the US will continue to exist, as Washington plans to continue to impose its policy of maximum pressure and coercive diplomacy. Iran, on the other hand, has its very own agenda. However, one is reasonably cognizant by now that neither Washington nor Teheran are inclined to start a war, though for different reasons.

For Iran, a war would have obliterated the regime in Teheran. For the US and Trump, in particular, a war in the election year would be inappropriate at best and downright detrimental at worst. The majority of the population opposes war, and any mission, regardless of the US’s superiority, begs severe risks. Moreover, and contrary to the general belief, Trump himself has proven ad nauseam that his alleged proclivity to engage in conflicts, remains a thorough falsehood.

Sure, he often engages in Reagan-esque strength rhetoric while appearing to embody Nixon’s madman doctrine. Nonetheless, military actions will only be ordered by Trump if his imposed redline of killing Americans is being crossed. Iran, after countless provocations (e.g., the oil tanker incident, the US drone incident, and the attack on Saudi oil facilities), did cross this line when an American contractor was killed the previous week.

It is the red line that Iran did not seek to cross yesterday, not after the previous violation resulted in Soleimani’s killing. Nonetheless, in order to maintain control in the country and the region, Teheran needed to save face as the call for vengeance by the regime was omnipresent. In the end, the boisterous rhetoric culminated in nothing more than a scripted propaganda stunt. A pseudo-attack that was never supposed to cause any severe damage and, above all, should not cause American casualties.

While not the White House nor the Pentagon has confirmed this notion and is unlikely to do so with respect to Iran, various points speak for it.

First, and as previously expected, the selection of the attacked airbases Al-Assad and Erbil was a message. If Iran had wanted to cause severe damage, it would very likely have attacked the Balad base, which not only is in closer proximity to Iran but also home to significantly more US soldiers than the targeted bases.

Second, the short-range missiles launched by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards hit the Al-Asad base in areas were not US soldiers were present. Whether this is due to the base’s early warning system, or the fact that, as reports have indicated, Iran warned Iraq, is up for debate. However, one should grant the Iranians the capabilities to cause casualties if wanted, in a compound, that is host to almost 30.000 soldiers.

Third, despite the overt action, Tehran conducted excessive propaganda during the development, including the claim that “80 American terrorists” were killed in the attacks, while the number of missiles had also been exaggerated. Meanwhile, US reports continued to suggest that no casualties had been suffered.

Fourth, Trump’s reaction during his address fits the narrative. While he referred to minor damage and a reluctance of Iran to retaliate on a big scale, he did not ridicule the attacks, that, by all accounts, could have been presented as a total failure by Iran, as an attack that fired missiles into the dirt.

No, Iran intended this stunt. It understood that it was its only way to sustain its political survival at this stage. Washington understood the message, too.

Despite it, Trump made his demands on Iran clear yesterday. It must immediately cease its nuclear program, be ready to start negotiations on a new nuclear deal, and stop sponsoring terrorist groups in the region. Until the regime adheres to these demands, the prevailing economic sanctions would be further tightened, Trump said, though details were not communicated. The question now is: How will Iran react?

The options at this stage are limited. Especially after Teheran showed that it is not interested in a direct military confrontation, it simply cannot succeed in.

The past forty years have indicated that Tehran will not merely succumb and concede its ambitions in the region (i.e., regional hegemony) nor turn away from sponsoring terrorism of its proxies in Lebanon and Gaza. Now, however, Teheran is almost forced to return to the negotiating table. Otherwise, new sanctions could make the country permanently ungovernable, and the protests in the country would probably continue to expand. Thus, the message to the mullahs is clear: act accordingly, or an eventual regime change due to Iran’s own, deprived population will be inevitable.

For now, however, Tehran’s pseudo-attacks provided President Trump with an opportunity to escape an intense situation. Trump has utilized it and suddenly does not only look like the big winner domestically due to a strong economy and record employment but, most importantly, as the big winner on the international stage and concerning his foreign policy.

And here is why: unlike his predecessor Obama, Trump has drawn a red line in the sand and enforced it. This result and the deterrence it has created will travel far beyond Iran’s borders and was the perfect strategic answer to Tehran’s hostile behavior.

L'articolo Iran’s Failure and Trump’s Signature Move proviene da InsideOver.

If war did escalate between the US and Iran, the greatest fear among many in the West is that Russia and China would collaborate with the latter, resulting in a devastating conflict. But fortunately for Washington, Beijing’s muted response to the US’s killing of leading Iranian general Qassem Soleimani suggests China is still not ready to collaborate with Russia in taking a leading role in the Middle East’s continuous wars.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi described the US’s action last Friday as ‘unacceptable’, but he refused to condemn it like his Iranian and Russian counterparts, Javad Zarif and Sergei Lavrov.

From Beijing’s perspective, their neutral position has prevented them from clashing with Washington on another matter where both sides fail to see eye-to-eye. China is already engaged in trade negotiations with the US that seek to end the 18-month trade war between both countries. The Chinese Government has so far done little to resist US President Donald Trump’s attempt to increase pressure on Tehran, but it did defend the 2015 Iran Deal and criticised America’s unilateral sanctions.

Chinese President Xi Jinping has increased his nation’s military cooperation with Russia and expanded its relations with Iran, but it cannot afford to take sides when it also relies on Saudi Arabia, the Islamic Republic’s rival, for oil. Therefore, Beijing has managed to avoid upsetting either side and can still depend upon the Saudis for natural resources. Shi Yinhong, an adviser to China’s cabinet and also a professor of international relations at Renmin University in Beijing, told Bloomberg they are ‘caught in a dilemma.’

China’s lack of intervention provides the US with an opportunity for it to flex its muscles in the Middle East. Although Trump tweeted in June that he would like to see Xi ‘come off the fence’ and start protecting their own oil shipments through the Persian Gulf, it should work to the US President’s advantage that they do not choose sides. If Tehran knew they could depend upon Chinese support, it would mean America would face pressure from Moscow and Beijing to ease its sanctions on Iran.

China also has the advantage of being a member of the UN Security Council. This provides Beijing with a platform to condemn US actions in Iran, which is what Washington accused them of doing when both China and Russia blocked a Security Council resolution condemning the attack on the US embassy in Baghdad that precipitated Trump’s decision to order the strike at Soleimani. The fact that they have not used their position at the UN to thwart US action in Iran altogether shows that they want stability in the Middle East.

Beijing’s failure to assert itself in the Middle East represents a devastating blow for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which helped China and Russia enhance their military ties in recent years. Xi described Russian President Vladimir Putin as his ‘closest foreign colleague.’ But because both sides have failed to demonstrate a united front over Soleimani’s killing, this proves that they both have different intentions in the Middle East.

In May 2019, Haaretz reported that the Israeli Finance Ministry published a controversial tender to build a new water desalination plant dubbed Soreq B, and the Chinese Hutchinson Company bid for the contract. With Jerusalem being a staunch opponent of Iran, Xi has also avoided upsetting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at a time when both nations are increasing their economic cooperation.

But it also means that Russia and the US are left competing for influence in the Middle East. The further Trump retaliates against Iran’s actions, the more defensive Putin will become. This will further damage relations between Russia and America.

China’s lack of intervention in Iran could have significant consequences. But with Trump keen for Beijing to choose a side and Russia being the only superpower resisting American influence in the Middle East, it will be difficult to argue that Xi can delay deciding on this matter forever.

L'articolo What are the consequences of China’s neutrality on Iran? proviene da InsideOver.

Trying desperately to buffer mounting tensions between America and Iran, Europe has sought to keep peace in the Middle East for years. Last week, those hopes were dashed. With his decision to assassinate General Qasem Soleimani, President Trump issues Tehran a fateful challenge: continue on a path of rhetoric, or commit to revenge. The latter will be forthcoming, Iran says. Whether that materialises militarily, we do not know; but diplomatic repercussions are all-but guaranteed.

US-Iranian relations have been on a steady slide for months. The pair’s foremost piece of peace-seeking diplomacy, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), is now scarcely worth the paper it’s written on. Signed by President Obama in 2015, the agreement reined in Iran’s nuclear weapons programme in exchange for economic concessions. It was, for many, a historic accord that offered stability to the Middle East – but in the eyes of Donald Trump, JCPOA amounted to the “worst deal in history”. In May 2018, he announced the US’s unilateral withdrawal, replacing the pact with a raft of crippling sanctions.

Dismayed at Washington’s punitive measures – especially as Tehran had been abiding by the agreement’s conditions – EU leaders resolved to keep JCPOA on life support. Calling constantly for conciliation in the face of increasingly incendiary rhetoric, it’s been a thankless task. But still, there was hope – sustain the deal until November 2020, when, perhaps, a new, more sympathetic leader enters the Oval Office.

Soleimani’s assassination has ended any such ambition. Emboldened by the attack, Tehran’s hard-line government promptly announced its total disregard for JCPOA. For European leaders – who have strived to prevent the Middle Eastern state from developing weapons-grade uranium – it is a bitter blow. Regardless, as news of the killing broke, they clung to the dream of de-escalation.

In a joint statement, the leaders of France, Germany, and the UK called for an urgent dialling down of tensions, urging Iran to avoid a violent response. There was no explicit condemnation of the US’s sudden use of force – but neither, tellingly, was there a message of support. 

This will have made poor reading for the Americans, particularly Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. In the immediate aftermath of the strike, he dispatched a series of near-identical tweets to his European counterparts – an effort, no doubt, to convey a united transatlantic front. But the stunt achieved little more than to suggest that only then, hours after the attack, was Europe being notified. 

This should come as no surprise – on Middle East policy, Europe and America are miles apart. For the White House, Tehran represents an ever-present threat to its regional interests. In the last year, Iranian-made weapons have struck strategic targets in US-allied Saudi Arabia, taken down American drones, and inflicted damage on Western ships. EU leaders recognise this aggression, but unlike their Oval Office opposite number, they view Iran as a force to be contained through diplomacy, not pummelled by sanctions and airstrikes. 

But diplomacy may be a luxury they can no longer afford. US soldiers across the Middle East are now targets for retaliatory action, Iran has made clear. That, by extension, puts European troops conducting NATO missions in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the firing line. Western civilians are in danger too, prompting the Netherlands to recall citizens living in Iraq, and for several EU nations to issue travel warnings. 

And then there are the indirect security consequences. This week, furious Iraqi lawmakers voted to expel the country’s US army contingent. Instrumental in training local personnel, the 5,000 Americans based in Iraq have helped keep Islamic State – now a resurgent force – in check. Ordered to withdraw from the country, observers worry that the self-proclaimed caliphate could regain ground. Having suffered the group’s bloody terror tactics firsthand, EU leaders will rightly push back against any measure that facilities the extremists’ return. 

But what can Europe do? Notoriously inflexible, it’s unlikely President Trump would have reevaluated the hit on Soleimani had European counterparts objected. And now the damage is done, EU leaders have little leverage to insist Iran reacts reasonably. Indeed, enjoying a wave of support provoked by the attack, Tehran’s leadership is more trenchant than ever. 

And so, Europe may have to resign itself to the sidelines, calling desperately for calm while the world lurches towards war.        

L'articolo As America Plays With Fire In The Middle East, Europe Watches On Helplessly proviene da InsideOver.