by Ellie Geranmayeh
In recent weeks, hard-line members of the US Congress have stepped up their game of obstructing diplomacy with Iran. Resolving the Iranian nuclear conflict has been used as a chip in domestic politics rather than a foreign policy issue pursued through a multilateral track. Opposition to incentivized diplomacy with Iran is [...]]]>
by
Ellie GeranmayehIn recent weeks, hard-line members of the US Congress have stepped up their game of obstructing diplomacy with Iran. Resolving the Iranian nuclear conflict has been used as a chip in domestic politics rather than a foreign policy issue pursued through a multilateral track. Opposition to incentivized diplomacy with Iran is likely to intensify with the looming US mid-term elections and the November 24 deadline for the extended negotiations. Powerful factions in Congress are signaling that they will try to tie the hands of the US executive when it comes to fulfilling its obligations under a reasonable final deal. Given how sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program operate, the hawks in Congress are not just a problem for the US president — they are a problem for Europe, too.
President Barack Obama has presidential authority to negotiate with Iran on its nuclear program and issue temporary waivers on easing sanctions. At some point, the administration and Congress will have to see eye to eye in order to legislate for permanent sanctions relief as part of a comprehensive agreement. The on-going debate on Capitol Hill around this issue has vast implications for European companies that have been severely limited in their ability and willingness to do business with Iran due to the secondary effect of US sanctions. European companies took a large financial hit to endorse the sanctions regime against Iran since 2006. They understandably want a durable deal allowing them to trade with Iran without risking US Treasury penalties or a future US president dramatically altering the policy on Iran to Europe’s detriment.
Europeans companies have good reasons to worry that Congress won’t play ball as part of a final deal agreed to by Iran and the P5+1 (US, UK, France, China, Russia plus Germany. US lawmakers have called for fresh sanctions and/or for existing sanctions, which are suspended under the interim nuclear deal, to be reinstated. These measures would clearly spoil the spirit of good faith in the negotiations and go against the interim nuclear deal agreed to last November. Other members of Congress have proposed restricting the presidential waivers on sanctions against Iran. Most recently, a bill attempting to restrict the president’s ability to implement a final deal unless Congress can be satisfied that the funds released to Iran are not directed at terrorism or human rights abuses has also been circulated. This puts a huge burden on implementation timelines for a final deal and an impossible bar for the US executive to meet.
Powerful lobby groups and senators have campaigned Congress to shift the goal posts for the nuclear talks to include Iran’s role in sponsoring terrorism and its human rights record. Representative Eliot Engel has predicted that even if a final deal was reached, Congress would not allow the lifting of sanctions until Iran stopped being a “bad actor” in the region. Engel unhelpfully omitted to note what exactly this means or how to measure when Iran is being a force for good. Although these are all areas of concern for the West, they are unconnected to Iran’s nuclear program and rest outside the parameters of the nuclear talks. Proponents of these measures know well that the outcome of actually endorsing such conditions will squeeze Iran out of the talks. The European strategy of tackling human rights issues in tandem with supporting the nuclear talks provides a better model for progress on both issues.
The position of Congressional hawks is at odds with the P5+1’s overriding objective of removing potential threats posed by Iran’s nuclear program and lifting associated sanctions. Focusing on this goal is partially easier for the EU, which, unlike the US, has maintained clear divisions between sanctions targeting Iran’s nuclear program and those directed at human rights and terrorism. Europeans also have a different psychology when it comes to tacitly accepting Iran’s limited enrichment capability. For example, the UK Foreign Affairs Committee recently backed diplomacy with Iran and publicly acknowledged that “there is probably no prospect of a lasting deal which does not allow Iran to enrich uranium”. This stands in stark contrast to the hard-line position by Israel and certain members of Congress insisting Iran dismantle all its centrifuges and cease uranium enrichment on its own soil.
Without doing Obama’s job for him, Europeans should outline their interests and reasons for backing a final nuclear deal within the US political debate. Although this may not have much sway with the hawks, it could have a noticeable impact on those members of Congress who are sitting on the fence when it comes to diplomacy with Iran. Sceptics must be reminded that Iran has fully implemented the interim nuclear deal, which has in turn provided a stringent inspection on Iran’s nuclear program. A final deal can fulfill the checklists Western powers need to ensure Iran is unable to make a clandestine dash for the bomb. The alternatives to diplomacy, of upping sanctions or engaging in military conflict, cannot wholly eliminate Iran’s capacity for nuclear weapons. These actions will further destabilize an already turbulent and unpredictable region. They would also remove the potential for Iran to become a constructive actor in countries like Iraq.
Diplomacy with Iran has been a true exercise in patience, and there is a long road ahead. Congress should be wary of being perceived as the unreasonable actor in the nuclear talks. After all, it was the Europeans who in the early 2000s persuaded a reluctant US administration to follow the dual-track approach of sanctions and dialogue that avoided war and resulted in last year’s interim accord. But it was also Europe, rather than the US, that accepted the high costs associated with sanctioning Iran’s oil and banking sector, which was fully endorsed by Congress. If the US legislature obstructs a final deal without due cause, the international consensus behind sanctioning Iran to address proliferation concerns would be in danger. This could result in unwanted consequences not only in the Iranian case, but also in building future partnerships with Europe on sanctions, notably with respect to Russia.
– Ellie Geranmayeh is an ECFR policy fellow and the author of the recently published report, “Détente with Iran; how Europe can maximise the chances of a final nuclear deal.”
Photo: US Secretary of State John Kerry and German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier brief the press about their bilateral consultations during negotiations with Iran in Vienna on July 13, 2014.
]]>by Ellie Geranmayeh
The violence in Iraq has provoked serious considerations by the West as to whether cooperation with Iran is worth testing to secure regional stability. In the last decade, both sides have avoided expanding their dialogue beyond the nuclear issue in fear of giving the other side leverage or poisoning the [...]]]>
by Ellie Geranmayeh
The violence in Iraq has provoked serious considerations by the West as to whether cooperation with Iran is worth testing to secure regional stability. In the last decade, both sides have avoided expanding their dialogue beyond the nuclear issue in fear of giving the other side leverage or poisoning the talks. Now the search for ways to de-escalate the violence in Iraq comes at a critical juncture in the negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program. While the terms for a final deal will not be impacted, Iran’s strategy in assisting Baghdad can add to or undermine the general confidence-building process in the talks. If Iran decides to be constructive, it gains points in the “trust bank” alongside the continued implementation of the interim “Joint Plan of Action” reached in Geneva last year. However, if Iranian actions inflame the Iraqi crisis or directly undermine Western interests, the ongoing process of détente could be seriously damaged.
In addition to the potentially constructive role Tehran could play in stabilizing conflict zones such as Syria and Iraq, the West has also been influenced by the “Rouhani factor.” The foreign policy of Iran’s new president has triggered unprecedented improvements in Western relations with the Islamic Republic. For Europeans, the signing of the interim nuclear deal last November opened the doors for increased contact through ten foreign ministerial visits to Tehran. Last week’s announcement of the UK embassy re-opening was a clear signal that Iran and the UK need and intend to enhance their direct channels of dialogue. The frankness of the White House and some influential Republicans towards potential collaboration with Iran in securing Baghdad was also a welcomed surprise. The culminations of these measures have been instrumental to trust-building with Iran after a cooling off period under former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Despite this new positive tone, Iranian-Western strategic cooperation on Iraq remains farfetched. Tehran has fresh memories of how its intelligence sharing with the West in 2001 in Afghanistan was rewarded by the Bush administration with an “axis of evil” badge. Powerful factions within Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps also believe that the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIL or SIS) has reached its height of power and faces inevitable decline. This reduces the need to make concessions on Iraq that do not serve Iran’s core interests. Meanwhile, Western powers view the Iranian Quds Force as having systematically undermined their interests in the region and see Iranian interests in Iraq as running contrary to the Western drive for national cohesion.
What should be expected and encouraged at the moment is the emergence of a transactional relationship between the West and Iran on regional security. The ISIS quandary may provide the right platform for both sides to engage on such concerns sooner than originally thought possible, and perhaps before a comprehensive nuclear deal is reached. The West’s current strategy in the region is anything but a success and testing the alternative route of dialogue with Iran may yield more concrete results. If security in Iraq and Afghanistan both unravel in the coming year, the Obama administration would face a true regional nightmare.
For Iran, taking a constructive role in stabilizing Iraq is an opportunity to demonstrate that when its interests overlap with the West, a zone of positive, mutual interaction is indeed possible. This cooperation involves the added bonus of laying foundational stones for further positive engagement. The two sides should at least explore areas where their regional policies can be more complementary, or at minimum not destructive to the interests of the other. This would have a positive impact for the nuclear talks by boosting the momentum required for achieving and implementing a final deal.
The recent Middle Eastern uprisings, rooted in domestic political grievances, have morphed into broader and now sectarian struggles in which the West lacks the ability to achieve its objectives and stability on its own. Going forward, Western powers require new and improved methods of implementing their policy agendas in the Middle East where the future power balance between Iran and Saudi Arabia will be vital to security. Working exclusively with one side of this fault line may not aid long-term Western interests — at times, the goals will be more closely aligned with Iran, and in other instances, will overlap better with Saudi Arabia and/or Israel. A more transactional relationship with Iran offers the West the option to balance opposing regional stakeholders and apply its leverage more effectively.
Western powers do not share Iranian ambitions, but given the Middle East’s dangerous regional trajectory, achieving some form of dialogue aimed at preventing a full regional implosion would be mutually beneficial. As demonstrated by the recent crisis in Iraq, there are instances of overlapping interests that make an alliance of convenience between Iran and the West an obvious choice. It is worth attempting — and in the end necessary — for the West to engage all sides when formulating sustainable solutions to the security threats, extremism and humanitarian crises overrunning this region.
The West has practiced a similar strategy in the past. For example, it accepted and at times encouraged cooperation between opposing March 8 and March 14 Alliance movements in Lebanon knowing full well that the alternative of civil war would further threaten its interests. This is not to suggest that the West or Iran will halt support towards traditional allies. Nor will Iran dramatically relinquish partnerships that safeguard Iranian interests. However, events in the coming months could create the political space necessary on both sides to selectively de-escalate shared hostility in pursuing some common regional goals. The new crisis in Iraq could just be “exhibit A.”
This article was first published by LobeLog and was reprinted here with permission. Follow LobeLog on Twitter and like us on Facebook
– Ellie Geranmayeh is an ECFR policy fellow and the author of the recently published report, “Détente with Iran; how Europe can maximise the chances of a final nuclear deal.”
]]>