By Kevin D. Williamson
Tuesday, December 08, 2020
It is clear that President-elect Joe Biden believes that
his most immediate and most urgent task upon assuming the presidency is
un-Trumping things. He should be careful about that when it comes to Iran.
As Barack Obama did for much of his presidency, Donald
Trump has relied heavily on unilateral executive action to advance his policy
goals, which is far easier than working out a compromise in Congress but which
also produces policies that are unstable — that which can be done unilaterally
by a president generally can be undone unilaterally by a president. And so
Biden will make it his business to undo a great deal of what Trump has done, in
some cases reinstating unilateral Obama administration policies that the Trump
administration unilaterally undid.
The president has a fairly wide scope of action in
matters of foreign relations, and so, in addition to rejoining the Paris
agreement on climate change, Joe Biden plans to recommit the United States to
the Iran nuclear deal, the “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.”
How you think about climate-change policy depends to a
very great extent on whether you think getting it wrong on climate will mean a
marginally more painful and disruptive process of adaptation than the one we
are likely to undergo in any case or instead think that getting it wrong on
climate means unprecedented human suffering and even possible human extinction.
Similarly, the question of whether Biden’s plans for Iran should be thought of
as intelligent proactive diplomacy or as grievous miscalculation depends to a
very great extent on how likely you think it is that Tehran will use nuclear
weapons against the United States or our allies. In both the United States and
in Europe, people who tend to be very risk-averse when it comes to climate generally
are the opposite when it comes to Iranian nuclear ambitions, and vice versa.
A signature on the Paris agreement may be all Biden
actually wants or needs on climate. Even if simply reinstating the JCPOA with
no changes were an option — and it probably isn’t — that would not settle the
matter of Iranian nuclear development for the Biden administration or the
United States.
Cynics rarely are disappointed, and a cynic might
conclude that the one thing Americans really need to know about the JCPOA is how
desperate Tehran is to see it reinstated. Tehran is in the process of provoking
a nuclear crisis with an eye to achieving that.
The Trump administration pulled out of the JCPOA in 2018,
leaving the Europeans trying to hold together a functioning agreement with
support from Moscow and Beijing. This was ultimately unsuccessful. In January
2020, Tehran announced that it would no longer respect JCPOA limitations on its
nuclear program. Tehran accused the Europeans of being in noncompliance with
the deal for not taking a more defensive line against Trump’s sanctions regime
and for “taking measures in line with the US pressure campaign,” as Iran’s Financial
Tribune put it.
And now the Iranian parliament has passed a law directing
the nation’s nuclear agency, the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI), to
begin a campaign of nuclear escalation. Writing in Haaretz,
Henry Rome and Ariane Tabatabai spell out the details: AEOI is ordered to begin
producing 20-percent-enriched uranium, which is closer to what is used in
nuclear weapons, something AEOI hasn’t done since before the agreement was
implemented; AEOI will increase production of less-enriched uranium as well;
AEOI will install some 1,000 advanced centrifuges; it will begin work on a
uranium-metal-production plant, necessary to a weaponized nuclear program; AEOI
will design and begin work on a new 40-megawatt reactor; and perhaps most
significant, the new law directs the Iranian government to reduce its
cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency to a bare minimum.
“It is hard to sugarcoat this bill,” Rome and Tabatabai
write. “It is a step-by-step guide to triggering a nuclear crisis akin to the
pre-JCPOA period.” And, with an election coming up, hardliners in the Iranian
government may be disinclined to make concessions. The Trump administration
described its position on Iran as “maximum pressure,” and Tehran is now
responding with defiance that is, if not maximum, then at least pointed in the
maximalist direction. It is worth keeping in mind that the law already was
under consideration before the death of Iranian nuclear-weapons developer
Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, though
his assassination may have intensified the campaign for the new law.
The Trump administration’s sanctions campaign worked, but
only in a limited way. The sanctions succeeded in imposing severe economic
suffering on Iran, at least for a period, although Iran has seen some relief as
its oil exports have bounced back, with bargain-hunters in China and elsewhere
thumbing their noses at threatened sanctions. The sanctions caused pain, but
imposing economic pain on Iran is not an end but a means to an end — an end the
Trump administration has not achieved. As The Economist puts it:
“Defenders of Mr. Trump’s policy insist that it simply needs more time to work,
an argument that is impossible to disprove. Mr. Trump leaves office with Iran’s
influence undiminished and its nuclear programme accelerated. Sanctions can be
a useful foreign-policy tool. But they cannot be the only one.”
What is it that Biden hopes to achieve vis-à-vis Iran? It
may be that his goal is purely political, as it seems to be in rejoining the
Paris agreement rather than negotiating a climate treaty that might actually be
ratified by the Senate. The Democrats are eager to distance themselves from the
bumptiousness of the Trump administration and, having become the party of the
moneyed professional classes and the policy-making elites, they are very
solicitous of international public opinion, here meaning for the most part
European public opinion, which runs strongly in favor of the JCPOA. Biden is
very likely to be a one-term president, and though he does not exactly dazzle
with his intellect, he can do the math and is cunning enough to understand that
neither a lasting settlement with Tehran nor an Iranian nuclear strike on Tel
Aviv is very likely to come to pass during his time in office. As often is the
case with new presidents taking over from a member of the opposite party, Biden
indicates that he wants to concentrate on domestic affairs — as both Barack
Obama and George W. Bush before him had hoped to do. Donald Trump was unusual
in putting so many foreign-relations questions — China, Mexico, Afghanistan,
trade agreements — at the center of his first campaign. Joe Biden probably
would prefer not to think very much about Iran at all.
But he does not have that luxury, and, if he intends to
accomplish something more substantive on Iran, then simply rejoining the JCPOA
and declaring our foreign policy cleansed of the stain of Trumpism is not going
to get it done. Biden and others, including our European allies, have suggested
that the JCPOA is something that can be built on, that rejoining it would only
be the first step toward building a dialogue in which other outstanding issues
(and there are many of them with Iran) can be addressed. If that is what Biden
wants to do, then he has as much business to attend to with Senate Republicans
as he does with Tehran, because any meaningful and stable long-term change in
U.S.–Iranian relations is going to require reasonably broad bipartisan buy-in
and consensus.
Neither the Iranians nor our allies have reason to put
much faith in an executive-only agreement that is likely to be voided in four
years if the presidency changes hands. But Biden has shown little inclination
to put seeking bipartisan consensus at the center of his program when it comes
to climate change, which he says is important to him, and there is little
reason to think he has the desire — or even the ability — to work out something
more meaningful on Iran.
And so that can probably will be kicked down the road, at
the end of which is a nuclear-armed Iran. If anything, Biden’s accommodating
left-wing efforts to hobble the U.S. energy industry is likely to strengthen
both the position of Iran itself and the ayatollahs’ patron in Moscow. The last
four years have shown that sanctions can hurt, that Iran’s Arab neighbors are,
in their way, slowly coming around to the understanding that Iran is a much
bigger problem for them than are 7 million Jews in Israel, that the American
energy renaissance has put the United States in a much stronger position in the
Middle East —and that none of this is quite enough. There is a lot of room
between status quo ante and regime change in Iran, and the JCPOA,
whatever its modest merits, cannot be the end of the road. There is at this
moment not much reason to believe Biden has a credible program for what comes
after.
No comments:
Post a Comment