As Congress still struggles to pass a COVID relief bill, the rest of the world is nervously reserving judgment on the new US president and his foreign policy after successive administrations have delivered unexpected and damaging shocks to the world and the international system.
Cautious optimism toward Presidentis very much based on his commitment to Barack Obama’s signature diplomatic achievement in 2015: the Joint (JCPOA), the agreement with . , along with his fellow Democrats, excoriated then-President Donald Trump for withdrawing from the JCPOA in 2018 and promised to promptly rejoin the deal if elected. But now appears to be hedging his position in a way that risks turning what should be an easy win for the new administration into an avoidable and tragic diplomatic failure.
Will the US and Iran Meet Jaw to Jaw?
While it was the United States under Trump that withdrew from the nuclear agreement, Biden is taking the position that the US will not rejoin the agreement or drop its unilateral sanctions until Iran first comes back into compliance with the terms of the JCPOA. After withdrawing from the agreement, the rejected them, reiterating Iran’s firm commitment that it will return to full compliance as soon as the does so.is in no position to make such demands, and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif has clearly and eloquently
promised, “I would re-enter the agreement on day one of my presidency.”should have announced reentry as one of his first executive orders. It did not require renegotiation or debate. On the campaign trail, Senator Bernie Sanders, Biden’s main competitor for the Democratic nomination, simply
It wasn’t just Sanders. Then-candidate Senator Kirsten Gillibrand said during the Democratic primary, “We need to rejoin our allies in returning to the agreement, provided agrees to comply with the agreement and take steps to reverse its breaches.” Gillibrand said that must “agree” to take those steps, not that it must take them first, presciently anticipating — and implicitly rejecting — Biden’s self-defeating position that Iran must fully return to compliance with the JCPOA before the US will rejoin.
Ifjust rejoins the JCPOA, all of the provisions of the agreement will be back in force and work exactly as they did before Trump opted out. Iran will be subject to the same International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections and reports as before. Whether is in compliance or not will be determined by the IAEA, not unilaterally by the . That is how the agreement works, as all the signatories agreed: China, France, Germany, , Russia, the United Kingdom, the European Union — and the .
Neocons and Hawks
So, why is letter supporting the JCPOA, signed by 150 House Democrats, should have reassured that he has overwhelming support to stand up to hawks in both parties. But instead, he seems to be listening to opponents of the deal telling him that Trump’s withdrawal from the agreement has given him “leverage” to negotiate new concessions from before rejoining. Rather than giving leverage over , which has no reason to make further concessions, this has given opponents of the JCPOA leverage over .not eagerly pocketing this easy first win for his stated commitment to diplomacy? A December 2020
American threatened to launch a military attack on if the rejoins it, a flagrantly illegal threat that has yet to publicly condemn.and hawks, including those inside his own administration, appear to be flexing their muscles to kill Biden’s commitment to diplomacy at birth, and his own hawkish foreign policy views make him dangerously susceptible to their arguments. This is also a test of his previously deferential relationship with Israel, whose government vehemently opposes the JCPOA and whose officials have even
In a more rational world, the call for maybe hundreds — of nuclear weapons is the worst kept secret in the world. Tutu’s article was an open letter to Biden, asking him to publicly acknowledge what the whole world already knows and to respond as required under law to the actual in the Middle East.disarmament in the Middle East would focus on Israel, not . As Archbishop Desmond Tutu recently wrote in The Guardian, Israel’s own possession of dozens — or
Instead of tackling the danger of Israel’s realweapons, successive administrations have chosen to “cry wolf” over non-existent weapons in Iraq and to justify besieging their governments, imposing deadly sanctions on their people, invading Iraq and threatening . A skeptical world is watching to see whether President has the integrity and political will to break this insidious pattern.
The CIA’s Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation and Arms Control Center (WINPAC), which stokes Americans’ fears of imaginary Iranian nuclear weapons and feeds endless allegations about them to the IAEA, is the same entity that produced the lies that drove America to war on Iraq in 2003. In December 2002, WINPAC’s director, Alan Foley, told his staff, “If the president wants to go to war, our job is to find the intelligence to allow him to do so” — even as he privately admitted to his retired CIA colleague Melvin Goodman that forces searching for WMDs in Iraq would find “not much, if anything.”
What makes Biden’s stalling to appease Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the neocons diplomatically suicidal at this moment in time is that in November 2020, the Iranian parliament passed a law that forces its government to halt nuclear inspections and boost uranium enrichment if US sanctions are not eased by February 21.
It’s Getting Complicated
To complicate matters further, Iran is holding its own presidential election on June 18, and election season — when this issue will be hotly debated — begins after the Iranian New Year on March 21. The winner is expected to be a hawkish hardliner. Trump’s failed policy, whichis now continuing by default, has discredited the diplomatic efforts of Iranian President and Foreign Minister Zarif, confirming for many Iranians that negotiating with America is a fool’s errand.
Ifdoes not rejoin the JCPOA soon, time will be too short to restore full compliance by both and the — including lifting relevant sanctions — before Iran’s election. Each day that goes by reduces the time available for Iranians to see benefits from the removal of sanctions, leaving little chance that they will vote for a new government that supports diplomacy with the . The timetable around the JCPOA was known and predictable, so this avoidable crisis seems to be the result of a deliberate decision by to try to appease and warmongers — domestic and foreign — by bullying Iran, a partner in an international agreement he claims to support, to make additional concessions that are not part of the agreement.
During his election campaign, candidate Biden promised to “elevate diplomacy as the premier tool of our global engagement.” If President Biden fails this first test of his promised diplomacy, people around the world will conclude that, despite his trademark smile and affable personality, he represents no more of a genuine recommitment to American partnership in a cooperative “rules-based world” than Trump or Obama did.
That will confirm the steadily growing international perception that, behind the Republicans’ and Democrats’ good cop-bad cop routine, the overall direction of US foreign policy remains fundamentally aggressive, coercive and destructive. People and governments around the world will continue to downgrade relations with the, as they did under Trump, and even traditional US allies will chart an increasingly independent course in a multipolar world where the US is no longer a reliable partner and certainly not a leader.
So much is hanging in the balance, for the everyday people ofsuffering and dying under the impact of US sanctions, for Americans yearning for more peaceful relations with our neighbors around the world, and for people everywhere who long for a more humane and equitable international order to confront the massive problems facing all in this century. Can Biden’s America be part of the solution? After just weeks in office, surely it can’t be too late. But the ball is in his court, and the whole world is watching.
*[This article was originally published by FPIF.]
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
For more than 10 years, Fair Observer has been free, fair and independent. No billionaire owns us, no advertisers control us. We are a reader-supported nonprofit. Unlike many other publications, we keep our content free for readers regardless of where they live or whether they can afford to pay. We have no paywalls and no ads.
In the post-truth era of fake news, echo chambers and filter bubbles, we publish a plurality of perspectives from around the world. Anyone can publish with us, but everyone goes through a rigorous editorial process. So, you get fact-checked, well-reasoned content instead of noise.
We publish 2,500+ voices from 90+ countries. We also conduct education and training programs on subjects ranging from digital media and journalism to writing and critical thinking. This doesn’t come cheap. Servers, editors, trainers and web developers cost money. Please consider supporting us on a regular basis as a recurring donor or a sustaining member.