Since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the oil industry has been one of the most heavily-affected sectors of the economy hit by the unprecedented crisis. The unique anomalies that have been noticed in the supply and demand equilibrium have shattered oil prices, leading to the historical moment in April 2020 when future oil contracts being traded in negative (below zero) rates.

As a renewed surge of CIVID-19 cases hits in a second wave, and given the latest developments following the outcome of the US elections, worries around the oil prices threshold are coming once again into the foreground.

Second Wave of COVID Raises Grave Concerns for Oil Markets

As we are leaving the summer far behind, more and more COVID-19-related cases and deaths are being reported at the global level. By mid-October 2020, there was a remarkable trend in the Covid-19 incidents across the world, indicating that a second more aggressive wave of the virus is due.

This has been the exact case up to date, as we are witnessing the virus numbers moving rapidly upwards. As a response several governments, including Germany, France, and the UK have decided to reimpose lockdowns across several parts of the country or in the national level.

This new situation has created grave concerns as the lockdown policies not only sharply reduce the daily consumption of oil products in the everyday life of the citizens in these countries, but also trigger a hard blow on the aviation industry as a whole.

With the volume of international trips being dramatically downsized, the demand for petroleum-based jet fuel is sharply falling, bringing down together the price of oil across the global markets. By early November and once UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson confirmed that the country was entering again a national lockdown, the market promptly reacted and showcased the aforementioned concerns, sending the WTI price under $34 a barrel at some point during last Monday’s session (November 2). This was the lowest since early June.

Prices briefly rebounded during that week, due to the volatility that the US elections have created and also the fact that OPEC+ has started reconsidering the scheduled easing of oil production by January 2021, pushing the prices to gain some momentum, but significant worries remain.

Biden’s Election and Potential JCPOA Renegotiation

The election of Joe Biden as the 46^th President of the United States could add further pressure on the short-term outlook of the oil prices. As mentioned earlier, the race to the US elections has helped the prices to shortly rebound by mid-week; however, Biden’s win could affect the short-term performance of oil for two major reasons.

On the one hand we should anticipate that the President-elect will adopt a much stricter policy towards the COVID-19 pandemic. While Trump has followed a focused strategy, trying to mitigate as much as possible the grave consequences of the virus on the US economy, namely enforcing measures to boost the finances of the states, Biden will most probably pursue a more aggressive approach, similar to the one that many EU countries have followed, through the implementation of new lockdowns in several parts of the country and a mask mandate.

At the same time, Biden has stated that a renegotiation with the Islamic Republic of Iran around the JCPOA is definitely on the table. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or “Iran Deal” has been a long-term process between Iran and P5+1 seeking to terminate parts of the Iranian nuclear program in exchange for lifting economic sanctions from Tehran and assisting the struggling economy of the country.

During the mid-2010s, Joe Biden – as the US Vice President at the time – played a pivotal role in the planning and implementation of the deal; and apparently the new President-elect still deeply believes in it. Trump, to the contrary, has fought every aspect of the deal during his Presidency, calling it the “worst deal ever negotiated”.

A potential renegotiation with Iran would not be an easy path, as Trump’s backing off from what was agreed and the likely election of a hardliner in the place of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani by the summer of 2021 could further complicate an already flawed relationship.

If Tehran comes to an agreement with Washington and the sanctions are lifted, then we should anticipate millions of barrels of Iranian oil finding their way back to the global markets daily, further deteriorating the problematic supply and demand equilibrium. Regardless of the outcome of the negotiations though – which are expected to run in the long-term anyway – the very fact that Biden is willing to restart the talks with the Islamic Republic will likely create additional concerns and push the oil prices even lower in the near future.

How Might OPEC+ React to an Oil Collapse?

Under the current circumstances, it is likely that we are due to face another perfect storm for oil prices on a global scale in the near future. In early December, OPEC is scheduled to meet and discuss the Organization’s strategies, in order to mitigate the impact of the another sharp downtrend in the demand of the petroleum products.

OPEC+ had previously implemented a supply cut of 9.7 million barrels per day to tackle the unparalleled challenges, posed by the COVID-19 crisis. This decrease – which started on May 2020 – was limited to 7.7 million barrels per day by August 2020 with an additional scheduled supply boost of two million barrels per day in January 2021; apparently the January boost has been currently paused, considering the new facts.

This step has temporarily provided some support to the fluctuating prices but would have minimal impact in the months to follow. Predicting that the new COVID-19 wave will have many similarities with the first surge of the virus, it is highly likely that we will face another oil crisis in the near future, sending WTI prices below 30 USD per barrel by early 2021.

This is the most probable scenario, unless there is a breakthrough development on the COVID-19 front – like the Pfizer/BioNTech’s latest vaccine announcement which gave an impressive 10% boost to WTI- or OPEC+ decides to proceed with radical moves, sharply cutting further the global supply in order to manipulate the oil rates; still such a move would put at risk the viability and the long-term outlook of petroleum-based economies, especially those of the rich monarchies of the Gulf and thus any such bold actions are unlikely to occur.

L'articolo Are Oil Prices About to Go into Freefall Once Again? proviene da InsideOver.

Washinton seeks to reimpose sanctions against Iran at all costs. America’s weapon of choice, the snapback option, is opposed by the Europeans. Nevertheless, the White House could have more leverage when it comes down to resolving the matter.

Washington’s Plan

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo followed up on his announcement and recently submitted a complaint to the UN Security Council arguing that Iran failed to meet its obligations under the nuclear deal. Pompeo attempted to trigger the snapback, with which all sanctions against Iran suspended in 2015 would come into force again.

Washington believes that no other nation can stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The American government differentiates between the regulations in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, known as the Iran nuclear deal and those in UN Resolution 2231, with which the agreement became part of international law.

The JCPOA’s dispute settlement mechanism calls for phases of dialogue before the UN Security Council gets involved. On the other hand, Resolution 2231 provides every “participant” to the agreement to reinstate the sanctions unilaterally.

Can the US Still Trigger the Snapback Option?

The snapback mechanism sets a legal precedent as it removes a state’s right to veto the Security Council. If a “participant” claims the right to trigger a snapback, only a new Security Council resolution can ensure that the sanctions remain suspended. However, Washington would veto such a resolution.

After the United States existed the deal in 2018 and reinstated its sanctions against Iran, opinions differ as to whether Washington remains a “participant” and can trigger a snapback. Paragraph 10 of Resolution 2231 names the signatories to the 2015 agreement as “participants.” The United States sees itself as such, even after its withdrawal.

Most importantly, paragraph 10 does not contain any provision that this status can change due to future behavior. Thus, it is more probable than not that the United States continues to be a “participant” from a legal point of view. Meanwhile, the Europeans continue to claim that no legal basis for the snackback exists, as, in the eyes of London, Paris, and Berlin, Washington is no longer a “participant.”

Washington also argues that even after withdrawing from the nuclear agreement, they insisted on unreserved compliance with Resolution 2231, which — in contrast to the agreement as a political agreement — is binding under international law. This also applies to the question of how to proceed if Iran fails to meet its obligations. Washington rules out that procedural maneuvers in the Security Council could block the snapback initiation and that the countdown of 30 days could be stopped.

However, the USA failed on Tuesday with its application to resume sanctions via the snapback. With the law arguably being on the US’s side, however, it seems inconceivable that Pompeo will concede to the defeat. The US could now draft its own resolution, which could create even more confusion.

Europe’s Perspective

In Berlin, the actions of the Trump administration continue to be viewed with great concern. During the entire dispute over the nuclear agreement, the Federal Foreign Office has always attached great importance to the fact that the three European participants in Germany, France, and Great Britain, should appear in a coordinated and uniform manner. They are cognizant of the issues the American position, as well as China’s and Russia’s position regarding Iran and understand the challenge this poses.

Therefore, the three Europeans wanted to develop a “smart alternative” and want to put particularly offensive types of weapons under an extended embargo period. Considering Washington has made now made sanctions its sine qua non, the European leaders are convinced that Trump’s administration’s ultimate goal is to bring the nuclear deal to a standstill before the election in America. One can almost be certain that secretly one hopes for an occupancy change at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

The Europeans want a new President in office for good reason.

In the worst case, the ongoing diplomatic dispute could lead to a split in the Security Council over the question of whether the old sanctions against Iran will apply again or not. Most countries could essentially ignore a snapback triggered by a unilateral US approach, which would lead to drastic distortions between Europe and the USA and, most importantly, could establish a precedent with severe consequences for the UN, its members, and international law itself.

L'articolo Why Europe Fears Snapback Sanctions for Iran proviene da InsideOver.

The future of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — better known as the Iran nuclear deal— will rely heavily on the result of the US presidential election this November, according to a former Iranian nuclear negotiator.

Iran: Carefully Thinking Over Its Options Regarding the Deal

The Iranian official—who was also a former nuclear negotiator—said that Tehran is politically and technically ready to pull out from the treaty following the US withdrawal, as Reuters cited. However, the official argued that Tehran should be smart and not be trapped by Washington’s trap that will push Iran to leave the agreement.

The statement came amid US President Donald Trump’s threat to reactivate a snapback clause after the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) failed to pass Washington’s proposal to restore the arms embargo on Iran.

Trump and his Democratic contender Joe Biden — a former two-term vice president under Barack Obama — will run as the Democratic candidate in the upcoming election. Many wonder whether Biden will return to the JCPOA if elected given that then-Barack Obama administration signed the deal in 2015 when Biden was the vice president.

The JCPOA: a Brief Overview

In 2015, Iran, the US, the UK, France, China, Russia, and Germany signed a long-term nuclear deal known as the JCPOA.

Under the agreement, Iran was only allowed to possess 300 kilograms of uranium compared to 100,000. The deal restricted Iran’s uranium enrichment up to 3.67 percent and stipulated that it must be used only for energy, far from the more than 90 percent needed to produce a nuclear weapons arsenal.

Iran agreed to limit its sensitive nuclear activities and allowed inspection from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in exchange for the removal of economic sanctions.

However, Trump decided to abandon the deal unilaterally in 2018, slamming it for being ineffective in halting Iran’s nuclear ambition. Trump also criticized the JCPOA as the most embarrassing agreement in history.

In July 2019, Iran retaliated by deliberately enriching uranium above the limit stipulated in the agreement. In November 2019, NPR reported that Iran announced its plan to enrich uranium up to 5 percent.

The deal’s remaining signatories complained to Iran for not sticking to the agreement. However, those signatories still hope to save the agreement and opposed Washington’s unilateral withdrawal.

Biden’s Views on JCPOA

As the US election nears, many are hoping that the US will return to the JCPOA if Biden is elected. There is considerable belief that he may do so, given his experience as vice president under the Obama administration who helped to craft and sign the agreement in 2015.

“If Iran comes back into compliance with the deal, then yes, Joe Biden said we would do the same thing, but we would use that as a platform to try to build a stronger and longer deal working with our partners,” Biden’s foreign policy adviser Anthony Blanken told CBS News.

During his presidency, Obama called for a new chapter of the US-Iran relations. He uploaded the video on the Youtube account The Obama White House, which sent a warm message to Iranians.

However, if Biden is elected, he and his administration will face a tough challenge since US-Iran ties have reached a very low level under the Trump administration.

There are three main issues to be addressed should the Biden administration plan to restore the JCPOA; Iran’s undermining activities in the region, and the country’s continued strategy to produce its ballistic missiles, and the sunset clauses that remove restrictions on Iran’s nuclear enhancement program in 2025.

Joseph Rank, former acting deputy assistant secretary of defense for Middle East policy (2017-18), stated that offering some sanctions’ relief is the best way to persuade Tehran to return to the negotiating table.

JCPOA’s Signatories Should All Be Involved

Indonesian international affairs expert Yusran told Insideover that Germany, Russia, and China can play a role in pushing the US and Iran to return to the negotiating table due to their global influence.

“Germany is politically stable and has resources to be maximized. While Russia and China are among the world’s nuclear powerhouses,” Yusran said.

L'articolo The Future of the Iran Deal After the 2020 US Election proviene da InsideOver.

Greek Minister of Foreign Affairs Nikos Dendias welcomed his Saudi counterpart Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al-Saud to Athens last week. It’s the second time the two ministers have met in less than a month. According to Dendias, the two countries are working together as two responsible guarantors of regional stability. This is a rather ill-advised statement, considering that the scope of the current Greek diplomacy and foreign policy does not qualify for such a role and simultaneously considering that Riyadh’s international attitude proves that the kingdom is more of a cause of regional tension than it is a responsible power that promotes peace and stability.

The Greek-Saudi Patriot Missile Deal

Besides their aligning interests in the Libyan front, as both countries are supporting Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar and the LNA, the specific reason for the Greek-Saudi meeting and the issue on the top of the agenda was the so-called Patriot deal. A drone attack against Saudi Arabia’s state-owned Saudi Aramco oil processing facilities took place in September 2019. Considering the impact on the main pillar of the Saudi economy—the energy industry—Riyadh sought to enhance air defense capabilities both domestically and through international partnerships. Their priority is to stop potential attacks from the Iran-backed Houthi rebels or any other affiliated groups.

The Greek government responded promptly to the Saudi call and has agreed to provide Patriot Surface to Air missiles (SAMs) from the arsenal of the Hellenic Airforce. At this point, it would be worth looking more into the rationale of the deal, as one might reasonably wonder why the Saudis had to take this missile system from Greece rather than directly from the United States.

Why Does Riyadh Want To Buy Patriot Systems From Athens And Not Washington?

Riyadh has traditionally secured major deals with the US defense industry. Considering the economic wealth and importance of the kingdom, these deals could be interpreted as a significant diplomatic means that ensured the stable and prosper bilateral relations between the two countries and the continuous US support for KSA in terms of defense and security. So, what is the point in having Greece deploying the missiles instead of a direct deal between Riyadh and Washington?

If US-Saudi economic relations can be understood as a foreign policy tool, this is where the latest agreement with Greece also fits in. After the recent visit of the Greek PM to the White House, Athens has been advised to satisfy the Saudi request in order to support the ongoing US confrontation with Iran. The long-lasting dispute between the two major players in the Middle East—Riyadh and Tehran—could stop being perceived as a regional clash through proxy actors in neighboring countries like Yemen and Lebanon, while the participation of an EU country in the air defense system of Saudi Arabia with personnel on the ground boosts the narrative of a multinational anti-Iran force standing up to Iranian aggression. It also sets the ground for other US-affiliated countries to join. But what could be the consequences of such a move for Greece?

Greek-Saudi Deal Is A Dubious Move Amidst Greek-Turkish Escalation

In order to understand the size of the force, the SAM batteries to be deployed to Riyadh account for almost 16 percent of the—probably—most sophisticated Hellenic SAM air defense system available. Combined with the specialized personnel that accompany the system—over 100 servicemen—that will be transferred to Saudi Arabia to support the mission, it is obvious that there is a severe impact on Greek capabilities and readiness, especially when taking into account the current escalation between Ankara and Athens and the continuous Turkish breaches of Hellenic airspace.

Even though the aforementioned numbers have not been confirmed by governmental officials yet, it is highly likely that they are accurate. After a—rather insufficient and unsuitable, as usual—criticism from the opposition parties, sources of the Hellenic Government have tried to downplay the consequences of this agreement, suggesting that a Patriot battery has been inactive until recently so the agreement with Riyadh would make no difference to Greek defense capabilities. Even if this claim is accurate, it is totally unacceptable for the current administration to admit that a critical weapons system has been out of service for an unspecified period of time, and it is equally unreasonable to suggest that when eventually it has been put back into service, it would shortly be shipped to Saudi Arabia in order to support operations irrelevant to the Greek interests. There are some rumors about a technical update from the US on the remaining Patriot systems in Greece on beneficial terms in return for the deal with KSA, but—while possible—those rumors are too generic and still remain unconfirmed.

Two-Fold Impact On Greek-Iranian Relations

At the same time, this move will certainly deteriorate the long-term bilateral relations between Athens and Tehran. Iran has traditionally been an important partner to Greece, with significant commercial and cultural ties having long been established between the two countries. Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis in a diplomatic blunder was urged to declare support for the US administration after Soleimani’s killing. This move has been heavily criticized, considering that all the other EU leaders have tried to be as neutral as possible in order to contribute to the de-escalation of the tension and not provoke Tehran further; not surprisingly the Greek reaction has pushed Iran to officially lodge a demarche through diplomatic channels. Among others matters, the statement mentioned any facilitation from a third country to US Forces deployed and ordered to operate against the Islamic Republic would be perceived as a hostile act.

Even if the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs, alongside the major in-country media outlets, tried to downgrade the incident, indicating that the Greek-Iranian relations remain well-tempered, Athens is now making a controversial deal with one of Tehran’s worst enemies. Criticism within Greece has focused on the impact of this development on the commercial ties between the two countries, with many voices mistakenly suggesting that Iran is still one of the major oil providers for Greece, although there has been a tremendous downturn on Iranian oil imports to Greece since Trump started abandoning JCPOA. Of course, we don’t doubt that Tehran is an important trade partner for Athens and the last moves would have a negative impact, but the most vital and concerning aspect for Greece has been once again internally neglected.

This is the impact on the internal security of the state and the perception of the terrorist threat in Greece. A statement from the Greek PM would hardly trigger a violent reaction from Tehran, however, a substantial engagement of Greek forces on Saudi ground might be a step too far for the Iranian leadership. We have previously discussed how insufficient Greek infrastructure is, in controlling Middle East-originated individuals entering the country; we have also explained the heightened risk ensuing from this situation, from a security perspective, explaining that the perpetrators of some of the most high profile attacks in European metropolitan cities have entered Europe through Greece.

The risk perception could remain manageable as long as Greece is adopting a responsible neutral and balanced stance in the region. But the surprising decision of the Patriot deployment to Saudi Arabia might well provoke an unprecedented Iranian reaction. We have seen several times in the past that the triggering of dormant proxy cells in third countries as a means of Iranian retaliation is a possibility even if Tehran hardly ever takes the credit for such actions—at least officially. Athens should have already secured the appropriate countermeasures before proceeding to such controversial diplomatic maneuvers. At this point, we seriously doubt if any countermeasures were taken.

L'articolo Controversial Greek-Saudi Weapons Deal Moves Forward proviene da InsideOver.

On Nov. 15, protestors rallied against the Iranian government after it announced fuel prices would increased by a minimum of 50 percent. They organized the way every modern society has: through the internet. Iran’s infrastructure and political system allowed the government to respond by shutting down Iranian internet within 24 hours. Despite its best efforts to keep word of the protests contained within its borders, photos, videos, and reports of human rights violations slipped out before Tehran could secure a full shutdown. Now that internet has been restored to their people and protests have been squashed, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Hasan Rouhani are beginning to publicly preach mercy for activists ensnared in the demonstrations.

Unofficial estimates peg the death toll between 180 and 450 people, but it is unlikely a firm number will ever be announced, especially by the government, which has been under increased international scrutiny following its nuclear dispute with the United States and an alleged attack on Saudi Aramco oil facilities. The government declared it would compensate families of those killed in the violent response to demonstrations and people who lose money during the event, such as destroyed property and vandalised businesses. 

Rouhani also said a committee would be formed to further investigate the short-lived protests. Khamenei went a step further as he endorsed the use of the term “martyr” for people killed in the violence who had no part in causing it. Finally, Rouhani demanded authorities release “unarmed and innocent” protestors. In short, Tehran is in full-on damage control mode in an attempt to maintain its grip on power as its economy continues to spiral downward. 

If the Iranian government was unpopular before the unrest, it certainly did not engender goodwill by its response. Although the riots that led to the ousting of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi took place 40 years ago, the two Iranian leaders likely view it as a possible outcome and maybe even feel a little remorse for their actions, not because they were violent or unjust, but because they carry high political costs. Tehran knows its history and neither Khamenei nor Rouhani want to be ousted and exiled like the shah 4 decades ago.

Whack-A-Mole

The process to take down the internet, be it for Iran or any nearly any other state, is quite complicated from a technological perspective, hence the 24-hour delay between the protests beginning and the internet flickering off. Internet across the globe is usually managed by the private sector via internet service providers (ISPs). These companies maintain the infrastructure – cables and datacenters – while selling access to customers. In Iran’s case, the government does not have a switch it can simply flick to turn off the internet as one would turn off a bedroom light, nor is that setup common. 

China is a primary example of a nation with the means to fully control its internet because it designed the system with control mechanisms from the very beginning. In this textbook example, Beijing has the ability to wall off access to outside networks through what is known as “The Great Firewall” in addition to censoring its citizens. In China’s case, the government could disable the internet with a central switch, but its control does not extend to Hong Kong, which has seen activists coordinate through social media. 

Network infrastructure, unless designed from the onset like China’s, is actually a barrier to government control. 

“The more networks and connections a country has, the more difficult it is to cut access for good,” said Lukasz Olejnik, security researcher for Oxford University’s Center for Technology and Global Affairs. “To shut down a country’s access to internet, it takes a lot of preparations.”

Internet speed and access is a key measure of a nation’s wealth and the better the internet, the faster the economic development. Therefore, as networks grow more complex and sophisticated, the method of shutting them down does so as well. When Iran cut off internet access, it had to do so in a piecemeal operation in coordination with ISPs. As one would turn off access, the internet load would shift to the remaining operators. 

“They would take down a portion of the network and then the network would automatically reroute around that dead portion to keep providing service. And then they would have to kind of do a whack-a-mole type situation to get it all under control,” said Lily Hay Newman, senior security reporter at Wired. 

Iran’s recent stranglehold on the internet is not the first time it took such a reactionary measure, but it was the largest event of its nature. During the 2017-2018 protests, Iran disabled access the the Telegram messaging app, essentially ending the demonstrations. 

Other Developments

Iran’s crackdown on protestors came at a critical juncture in the state’s geopolitical affairs. The stalemate between Tehran and Washington continues as neither side is willing to cave to the demands of the other; Trump refuses to lift sanctions and Iran remains unwilling to return to the provisions of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Officials from The Pentagon said America is weighing the option fo sending 4,000 to 7,000 more troops to the region as a deterrent after Iran transferred short-range missiles into Iraq. The movement of resources to Iraq is part of a larger effort from Iran to arm its militias in the Middle East. In November, the US Navy caught an Iranian ship hauling weapons to Yemen. 

The few world powers that have sided at least partially with Iran in its economic plight are beginning to sour on the idea of supporting Tehran. Germany and the United Kingdom, alongside France, the most vocal European critic of US sanctions, have together penned a letter to the United Nations expressing concerns that Iran is now in possession of missiles able to deliver nuclear warheads. Taken alongside Iran’s political ambitions in Lebanon and Iraq, the entire situation is turning the tide against Rouhani’s government. 

At the beginning of Iran’s row with the US, it maintained a more diplomatic posture and restrained attitude. As the economic situation worsened and Washington refused to relent to Iranian demands, Tehran became more desperate. Actions in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, and against its own people imperil Iran’s chances of forging a deal with the US. At some point, it will cross the point of no return, possibly if its citizens tire of Rouhani’s recent antics. The US is renowned for its proclivity to foster coup attempts in Latin America and the Middle East. If Washington can convince discontented citizens who already are irked by Rouhani’s actions to support a challenger, it would be in line with countless historical examples for the US to try and oust Rouhani and possibly even Khamenei. 

L'articolo Iran Makes Concessions Following Protests, but Are They Enough?  proviene da InsideOver.

Iran, a country with a population of over 80 million people is facing a new crisis which threatens to destabilize its government. In the face of numerous sanctions imposed by the United States, the locals are now stepping onto the streets to fight for their rights. The primary concern among those is the increase in fuel prices. Setting cars on fire, vandalizing shops and facing off against security officials, mainly the Revolutionary Guard Corps, has not come at an easy price. Many Iranians risk losing their lives but that is just the beginning.

Iranians are suffering from what they call a crisis that has taken over their homeland. What they look for now in the face of dark sanctions and problems looming on the state is an uncertain future that might risk the lives of millions of citizens. However, the problems cannot only be blamed on the Iranian government since numerous issues need to be taken into account. Firstly, the biggest problem that Iran faces today could be linked to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. The JCPOA is an agreement signed by Iran, China, France, Russia, Germany, United Kingdom and the United States. The 2015 agreement aimed to curb Iran’s nuclear activities and prevent the enrichment of uranium.

This was just the beginning as the United States and the United Nations planned to impose a multitude of sanctions if Iran refrained from keeping its commitments. These sanctions mainly targeted a range of Iranian diplomats and entities which included the government and the financial sectors. These weren’t the only planned sanctions; anyone trading with Iran would also be sanctioned under the demonic agenda set by the institutions. Iran has stated on several different occasions that its nuclear activities were not being run to produce nuclear weapons but were solely being used to develop nuclear energy. There might be a difference in opinion but the Iranian government has reiterated its stance regarding its nuclear activities on many different occasions.

Coming back to the country itself, we must realize that Iran is facing immense pressure from the international community to cut down on nuclear rejuvenations. Facing so many sanctions over time, it has embroiled the country’s economy in a complete meltdown. The protests that recently erupted across the country were due to some of the decisions the government took considering the hefty sanctions it was facing. The Iranian government sharply raised fuel prices which acted as a blowback since citizens took to the streets denouncing the move and called on the government to reverse its policies.

Iran is an extremely oil-rich country. Given the circumstances, the government should not have raised the prices but it was forced to do so since the economic problems took a turn for the worse. Sharp inflation in the country, basic rights in jeopardy and a bleak future led to mass protests. During these protests, the internet remained shut down as the government tried to peacefully quell the demonstrations. However, that brought more agony and anger as protesters torched numerous buildings, gas stations and everything and anything that came in their way.

The Iranian government dispatched the special Revolutionary Guard Corps to disperse protesters however, things turned violent. Amnesty International says at least 143 protesters have been killed in the disturbances. The number is yet to be confirmed by those in Tehran but sources say it could be much higher than expected. Considering the blockade of the internet, numerous conflicting reports have emerged stating that the guards converged on a more violent technique by shooting protesters. A country already facing a financial crunch, the protests added more costs and burden for the government.

The loss of lives, economic costs and people demanding their rights. Stories emerging from Iran give us a new perspective that people do want change and they need it immediately. Despite the rise in protests, the government did eventually manage to secure peace in the country. It said the protests were a ‘conspiracy’ designed by the United States to bring down the Iranian government. It may or may not be the case, since the United States has targeted Iranians through its ‘maximum pressure’ campaign, a move it says would cripple the Iranian economy and would subsequently leave the officials with no other option but to give in to American demands.

Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei says ‘global arrogance’ against Iran would soon be quelled as he believes the Iranian people trust higher authorities to solve their problems. Modern-day problems require modern solutions and this is something which needs to be highlighted. The only solution to the chaos in the country would be mediation between the members of the JCPOA. Iran should also be willing to comply with international agreements and hopefully try to get the United States back on the negotiating table since it opted an exit in 2018. With France and Germany somewhat supporting Iran, a peaceful outcome could be calibrated where all sides benefit from one each other’s policies, regulations and cooperation.

L'articolo Iran’s Reluctance to Back Down in the Face of Crisis proviene da InsideOver.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani announced Oct. 14 that Tehran would continue with a plan to downscale its commitment to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, commonly referred to as the Iranian nuclear deal. The march toward its complete withdrawal from the framework has been gradual and well-publicized by the Iranian government in order to hopefully convince European powers to intervene. By giving the international community advance notice of its nuclear moves, Iran has tried to force a sense of urgency upon it, although by most accounts the strategy has not worked. 

In May, the government began the first steps of extricating itself from the agreement by exceeding nuclear stockpile limits. It was authorized under the accord to possess up to 300 kilograms for uranium. Then it breached the enrichment cap, which was set at 3.76 percent. Now, according to Rouhani, Iran is preparing to begin the development of advanced centrifuges, which were limited to 6,104 IR-1 level equipment. Prior to the Obama-era deal, Iran had over 10,000 centrifuges, but it rapidly shuttered half of them to comply with the JCPOA. 

In September, Iran spun up 20 IR-6 centrifuges and 20 IR-4 models, producing enriched uranium 10 times and five times faster, respectively. Rouhani’s announcement signaled a continuation of his recent policy to pressure the world to do something, anything, to come to its economic defense as the Iranian economy hit rock-bottom. Senior members of the Iranian Parliament echoed his sentiment while taking it a step further by declaring that international inspectors would have reduced access to Iran’s nuclear program. 

“We will certainly take the fourth step of reducing commitments to the JCPOA; Europeans have not honoured their part of the commitments and we have not seen any practical step taken by the other side, said Hossein Naghavi-Hosseini, spokesman for the Iranian Parliament’s national security committee. “When the other party doesn’t fulfill its commitments, there is no necessity for us to meet our part of commitments.”

Until this point, International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors have had unprecedented access to Iranian nuclear sites and before May, each of their verifications confirmed Tehran was in full compliance with the JCPOA. The French foreign ministry called on Iran not to proceed with these “particularly worrying steps,” but as Rouhani has said recently, he has only heard words from European leaders without seeing any action. 

The problem Iran faces is that regardless of whether or not it complies with the nuclear deal, it still must endure American sanctions. While the European Union and United Nations have yet to reimpose sanctions for violating terms of the agreement, Iran has already faced severe economic hardship because international businesses and governments fear doing business in Iran will lead to retaliation from the United States. Therefore, it is essentially already operating under international sanctions for all intents and purposes. 

According to Tehran, inflation has soared to 43 percent, but the real figure may be much higher as the cost of food and medicine has increased 43 to 60 percent as the EU reported. Housing prices have also doubled and the GDP has shrunken.

For Iran, outside of downscaling its adherence to the nuclear deal, its options are fairly limited. The most obvious tactic it could employ is to clamp down on the Strait of Hormuz. The shipping channel is vital to the global oil industry as 25 percent of shipments pass through it. In the past, Tehran has issued vague threats about the possibility of closing the channel, but the reality is doing so would almost certainly turn into armed conflict. Given Iran’s relationship with its neighbors, primarily Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, a military conflict would be unlikely to go in Iran’s favor. 

Alternatively, Iran could turn to more-friendly powers such as Russia and China for recourse. Both have publicly spoken out against the US sanctions in support of Tehran and China has economical power it could wield to rival America. As China is already aligned against the US in terms of trade, it would simply be a continuation of Beijing’s policy to buck Washington. 

Iran could also look to regional governments for improved relations. Rouhani said discussions with UAE diplomats have went well and it is currently negotiating with Saudi Arabia to end hostilities. If it were to also bring Qatar onboard, which has become more open to Iran following the blockade, Iran could broker some sort of regional economic plan to stabilize itself. 

However, when ti comes to negotiating with the US, there are few options for Tehran. Even exceeding the nuclear deal limitations is a card being played against the EU, not America. Despite this, Rouhani said he is open to negotiating with Washington, however sanctions must be removed first. For the US, it is Iran which must make the first move and it appears neither will budge anytime soon. 

L'articolo Iran To Limit Nuclear Inspection Access proviene da InsideOver.

US President Donald Trump and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani reportedly both agreed with a recent plan to restart US-Iran talks, however things went off course before the agreement could proceed further. French leader Emmanuel Macron acted as a go-between to get the two parties together, but Rouhani walked away from a later planned phone call with Trump after demanding the US first explicitly promise to lift heavy sanctions as a precondition to further discussion.

The four-point document drafted by Macron was aimed at restarting talks between the countries and deescalating the currently high tensions. Macron attempted to mediate between the two leaders on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly along with support from other leaders such as UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

The diplomatic document saw Iran promise to “never acquire a nuclear weapon” and “fully comply with its nuclear obligations and commitments.” It also stipulated that Iran “refrain from any aggression” and “seek genuine peace and respect in the region through negotiations.” In return, the US government agreed to lift sanctions that were re-levied in 2017 and allow Iran to openly and fully export its oil. The document would have let Trump claim diplomatic victory for reining in Iran’s ballistic missile program and regional expansion and Iran claim victory from crippling sanctions. It would also let France reclaim a place as a world player in geopolitics.

Iranian leader Ali Khamenei recently stated that any negotiations should be a no-go until the US signs back on to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) or as it is colloquially known “Iran Deal” to limit Iranian nuclear development. Two years ago President Rouhani also stated that “no one will trust America again” if Trump were to exit the JCPOA. In remarks prior to this year’s UNGA, Rouhani said that “mutual trust” would have to be reestablished for him to meet with Trump but “the trust is something that Mr. Trump took away from this framework.” Speaking at the UNGA, Trump castigated Iran’s influence in the Middle East and Gulf, saying it is a nation full of “bloodlust” and “menacing behavior.” Tensions between Iran and the US and West have spiked this past year after various incidents, especially since the Sept. 14 attack on Saudi oil facilities that Trump and various European nations blamed on Iran.

Macron, for his part, said the deal fell apart partly due to differences in the leadership realities of President Trump and President Rouhani. Whereas Trump makes many executive decisions and sometimes moves apart from his administration, Rouhani is only one rung of the ladder in a complex hierarchy and must consistently consider the opinions of many other individuals, including hardline elements in Iran who are opposed to resuming talks with the American government in any capacity.

Ultimately, after making sure audio equipment was set up in a secure room of the hotel ready for Rouhani, Macron was disappointed that Rouhani would not leave his room and Trump was reportedly left hanging on the line. The French are continuing to push for a diplomatic solution, despite the fact that this attempt failed.

This situation is reminiscent of North Korea peace talks which reportedly fell apart when North Korea asked for an end to all sanctions as part of the deal. Trump simply would not concede anything to the North Koreans and demanded that every American demand be fully accepted in order to proceed, especially that North Korea turn over all nuclear weapons and bomb fuel prior to reduction of sanctions. Remarks by former US National Security Advisor John Bolton that Trump would follow “the Libya model” if North Korea didn’t agree to all its demands also contributed to the tense environment in which the deal fell through. For his part, Bolton is now saying military strikes may be the only option to halt the Hermit Kingdom’s nuclear program and that Trump was too diplomatic.

While it is undeniable that diplomacy is exceedingly difficult, but sometimes even bad guys need to get a few concessions in order to keep them at the table. President Trump’s strategy of approaching diplomacy by only making demands is ineffective, and Bolton’s strategy of attacking first and asking questions later is disastrously ill-advised. Further, Trump’s action in walking away from the JCPOA and his choice in pursuing an erratic foreign policy of half-cocked statements and wild threats is not conducive to creating a future deal. As other leaders like Macron work to come up with answers, it’s all too likely that Trump’s behaviour and policy decisions will have already contributed to new—and worse—problems by the time initial solutions to resuming Iran negotiations are in place.

L'articolo Trump And Iran Agreed To Resume Negotiations Before Iran Walked Away proviene da InsideOver.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani delivered a speech at the United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday. In the week leading up to the gathering of world leaders, there was discussion about a possible meeting between Rouhani and United States President Donald Trump. Before the conference began, however, both sides downplayed the idea.

“Nothing’s ever off the table completely, but I have no intention of meeting with Iran, and that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. I’m a flexible person,” Trump said on Sunday. His remarks came only two days after he imposed new sanctions on Iran’s central bank and sovereign wealth fund in addition to sending more American troops to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Previously, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stated Trump would be willing to meet with his Iranian counterpart with no preconditions and several members of his administration — and even Trump himself – corroborated that position before Trump accused it of being “fake news.” 

During a Fox News interview, Rouhani said before meeting, there must be concessions on the American’s side. 

“Why would we bump into one another?” he said. “If we seek to pursue higher goals to benefit both countries, both people, it must be planned, and talks must be based on those plans. But prior to that, we must create mutual trust, and the trust is something that Mr. Trump took away from this framework. We had an agreement. Mr. Trump exited without a valid justification, and illegally, from an international agreement.”

Rouhani went on to accuse the US of spreading terrorism across the region, using Syria as an example. This idea carried over into his speech at the UN Wednesday. 

“Ladies and gentlemen, the Middle East is burning in the flames of war, bloodshed, aggression, occupation and religious and sectarian fanaticism and extremism,” Rouhani declared. Then Rouhani introduced a new initiative he called the security coalition of HOPE, an acronym standing for the Hormuz Peace Endeavor. The basis for the plan is to leverage the Strait of Hormuz as a political tool to force cooperation among the region. A large portion of the Persian Gulf stretches alongside Iranian coastline, making it a key player in the issues surrounding the strait. Rouhani did not expand upon how HOPE would operate, but emphasized that peace in the Middle East could only be made through Middle Eastern states cooperating, not by foreign powers such as the US occupying countries.

“The security of our region shall be provided when American troops pull out,” he said. “Security shall not be supplied with American weapons and intervention.”

In addition to calling for a US withdrawal from the region, Rouhani also stated Saudi Arabia must end its aggression in Yemen. Iran has also been involved in the civil war by supporting Houthi rebels, which claimed responsibility for the Sept. 14 on Saudi oil facilities. Yemen, together with Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, terrorism in the Middle East has gone unabated since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in 2001.

Rouhani warned that a “single blunder” could “fuel a big fire” in the Middle East in regards to military activity. Many feared that blunder happened during the drone attack, but much to the surprise of Saudi Arabia, Washington leaders refused to commit to a retaliatory strike on Iran. The US initially blamed Tehran and on Monday, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany all joined Washington in pointing the finger at Rouhani’s government, which continues to deny involvement. 

Those same countries continued their plan to meet with Rouhani regarding the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, commonly referred to as the Iranian nuclear deal. Talks with American negotiators have been stalled for some time during which Iran has gradually begun exceeding the limits imposed under the framework of the agreement. European leaders have met with Iranian representatives on several previous occasions to try and bring Tehran back to compliance, but the major barrier has been the disastrous economic effects caused by American sanctions. European signatories to the accord created INSTEX, a bartering exchange system in an attempt to curtail some those effects, but it has thus far been unsuccessful according to Federica Mogherini, European Union foreign policy chief. 

“As you know, the agreement has two pillars — the nuclear commitment and the economic side that is linked to the sanctions lifting. On both elements, there is full determination to try and preserve the agreement,” Mogerhini said following a meeting with Rouhani. 

Ultimately, even if EU powers are able to create a workable arrangement with Rouhani that helps its economy, discussions with the US must resume at some point. For that to happen, Rouhani said Washington must cave on sanctions. 

“We once negotiated under sanctions. We will not do so again. Halt the sanctions and return to your commitments so the dialogue may reopen,” he said told the General Assembly. “Our patience has a limit.” 

The General Assembly was the perfect opportunity for Trump to have a change of heart on Iran. He reportedly had been previously considering a $15 billion stimulus package before the attack in Saudi Arabia, so the willingness was at least once there to resume negotiations. Rouhani’s insistence that Washington remove sanctions before meeting is unrealistic, especially in light of the newest round on Sept. 20. However, it is possible that European leaders who have shown a continued desire to meet with Tehran could convince their American counterpart to do the same. 

L'articolo Rouhani Announces HOPE Coalition But Avoids The US proviene da InsideOver.

The Iranian nuclear situation has pulled powers from around the globe into the quagmire as world leaders search for a way to save the Obama-era nuclear deal. France is no different and it has struggled to coordinate a European effort to find common ground between Washington and Tehran. It was one of the signatories to the deal and has a vested economic interest in Iran’s success as both enjoy a mutually-beneficial economic relationship; France is the sixth-largest exporter to Iran and Tehran is Paris’ third-largest Middle Eastern customer. 

Stay in Your Lane

Despite France being a party to the 2015 nuclear accord, US President Donald Trump views it as his problem to deal with and has voiced his belief that other powers such as France should limit their involvement. France defended itself by declaring that it does not need US permission to negate with Iran. 

“France speaks for itself on Iran as a sovereign power,” said Jean-Yves Le Drian, French foreign minister. “France is deeply committed to peace and security in the region, is committed to deescalating tensions, and does not need any authorization to do so.”

Le Drian was responding to a series of tweets from Trump which targeted French President Emmanuel Macron and criticized his government for sending “mixed signals” to Iran.

“I know Emmanuel means well, as do all others, but nobody speaks for the United States but the United States itself. No one is authorized in any way, shape, or to represent us!” Trump tweeted.

Trump likely lashed out at Macron due to a report that he had extended an invitation to Iranian President Hasan Rohani to meet with Trump at the G7 summit next week. A French diplomat denied this report, however, and emphasized that bringing Iran back to compliance of the nuclear deal is a priority. 

Best Hope

Macron and Trump have been at odds before with the US leader disagreeing with the political leanings of his French counterpart. Trump has attacked Macron on everything from tariffs and taxes to approval ratings and even loss to Nazi Germany in World War II. When he visited France for Armistice Day events, he chose not to attend a remembrance ceremony due to the rain while other world leaders still went. 

In many ways, France represents one of the best hopes for a preservation of the Iranian nuclear deal. With the US and Iran currently refusing to meet, depriving the the situation of a most-critical discussion that must take place, the ball is currently in Europe’s court to somehow keep Iran beholden to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. While Russia and China are also signatories to the accord, they have been mostly passive as the deal has broken down, although both have spoken in complete support of Tehran. China is already occupied with the ongoing trade war with the US and Hong Kong protests while Russian President Vladimir Putin is focused on rebuilding Russia’s grip on former Soviet states. 

European powers such as France and Germany are best poised to stabilize the state of affairs with Iran. Each wield strong political and economic clout and have relatively stable governments. In contrast to Washington, Paris and Berlin have stables full of seasoned diplomats rife with experience, whereas the Trump administration has completely gutted the US Department of State. After discarding decades of experience and in some cases not even replacing embassy staff, Trump has essentially rendered himself and a few advisors as the sole negotiators for the US with Iran. 

As Europe sees itself as a possible savior in the Iran deal, so too does Iran. However, it views economic relief as key to restoring its nuclear compliance. So far, that support has been slow and limited to the launch of the INSTEX trade system whereby European economies can exchange certain goods with Tehran on a barter system. For it’s part, France is eager to boost INSTEX by working with any of the signatories to the JCPOA without set financial requirements. Sources have pointed to $15 billion already raised for a line of credit for Tehran, but French officials refused to verify those claims. 

The back-and-forth between Trump and French officials was likely due to the false report that Macron had invited Rohani to meet Trump at the G7 summit. Given that the two leaders are not exactly on speaking terms at the moment, it is understandable that this idea would upset Trump and he is not particularly known for exercising restraint. France is, however, one of the best chances at bring Iran back to the nuclear deal by using a reasonable tone and attempting to provide economic aid. If Trump truly desires a new nuclear deal with Iran, he would do well to welcome outside help such as Macron’s government. 

L'articolo France Rebuffs Trump’s Attack On Iranian Diplomacy proviene da InsideOver.