Featured Joe Biden reaffirms he will seek return to Iran nuclear deal

[Philosopher]

In interview with New York Times columnist, US president-elect says addressing Iran's nuclear programme will take precedence over other issues with Tehran

US President-elect Joe Biden reaffirmed that his incoming administration would seek a return to the multilateral nuclear deal with Tehran if the Islamic Republic also restores its compliance with the pact.

In an interview with New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, published on Wednesday, Biden pushed back against the proposal of maintaining sanctions against Iran's oil sector to gain leverage over broader geopolitical issues with Tehran.

Asked whether he stands by his previous call for a mutual return to the pact, Biden said: "It’s going to be hard, but yeah."

The incoming US president said preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon would be his priority.

He said dealing with Iran's nuclear programme is "the best way to achieve getting some stability in the region" and warned of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East where countries including Saudi Arabia and Egypt would try to acquire nuclear bombs to counter Iran.

"The last goddamn thing we need in that part of the world is a buildup of nuclear capability," Biden said.

The multilateral nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), was negotiated by the administration of former President Barack Obama, in which Biden served as vice president.

The accord saw Iran scale back its nuclear programme in exchange for the lifting of sanctions against its economy.

But in May 2018, President Donald Trump abandoned the deal, and his administration has been piling sanctions on the Iranian economy as part of its "maximum pressure" campaign. In response, Tehran has also downgraded some of its commitments to the agreement.

Hostility on the rise

Since then, hostility has been on the rise between the two countries and their regional allies. Early in 2020, Washington and Tehran came to the verge of war after a US air strike in Baghdad killed top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani.

Biden's remarks this week come amid another spike in tensions after the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh.

In a column following the killing, Friedman urged Biden not to remove Trump's sanctions against the Iranian oil sector in order to extract concessions from Tehran over the transfer of precision-guided missiles to its allies in Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen and Syria.

"If Biden tries to just resume the Iran nuclear deal as it was - and gives up the leverage of extreme economic sanctions on Iran, before reaching some understanding on its exporting of precision-guided missiles - I suspect that he’ll meet a lot of resistance from Israel, the UAE and Saudi Arabia," Friedman wrote on Sunday.

The column faced pushback from diplomacy advocates who argued that retaining the sanctions would make a return to the deal impossible and dim the prospect of resolving issues with Tehran through talks.

In his interview with Biden, the columnist said the president-elect did not think the idea was "crazy", but refused to adopt it nevertheless.

The incoming US president reiterated that a return to the JCPOA would be a starting point for further negotiations to strengthen the deal itself as well as talks over regional issues.

"In consultation with our allies and partners, we’re going to engage in negotiations and follow-on agreements to tighten and lengthen Iran’s nuclear constraints, as well as address the missile programme," Biden said.

Joe Biden reaffirms he will seek return to Iran nuclear deal

In interview with New York Times columnist, US president-elect says addressing Iran's nuclear programme will take precedence over other issues with Tehran

www.middleeasteye.net

 

[Indus Pakistan]

In interview with New York Times columnist, US president-elect says addressing Iran's nuclear programme will take precedence over other issues with Tehran

US President-elect Joe Biden reaffirmed that his incoming administration would seek a return to the multilateral nuclear deal with Tehran if the Islamic Republic also restores its compliance with the pact.

In an interview with New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, published on Wednesday, Biden pushed back against the proposal of maintaining sanctions against Iran's oil sector to gain leverage over broader geopolitical issues with Tehran.

Asked whether he stands by his previous call for a mutual return to the pact, Biden said: "It’s going to be hard, but yeah."

The incoming US president said preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon would be his priority.

He said dealing with Iran's nuclear programme is "the best way to achieve getting some stability in the region" and warned of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East where countries including Saudi Arabia and Egypt would try to acquire nuclear bombs to counter Iran.

"The last goddamn thing we need in that part of the world is a buildup of nuclear capability," Biden said.

The multilateral nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), was negotiated by the administration of former President Barack Obama, in which Biden served as vice president.

The accord saw Iran scale back its nuclear programme in exchange for the lifting of sanctions against its economy.

But in May 2018, President Donald Trump abandoned the deal, and his administration has been piling sanctions on the Iranian economy as part of its "maximum pressure" campaign. In response, Tehran has also downgraded some of its commitments to the agreement.

Hostility on the rise

Since then, hostility has been on the rise between the two countries and their regional allies. Early in 2020, Washington and Tehran came to the verge of war after a US air strike in Baghdad killed top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani.

Biden's remarks this week come amid another spike in tensions after the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh.

In a column following the killing, Friedman urged Biden not to remove Trump's sanctions against the Iranian oil sector in order to extract concessions from Tehran over the transfer of precision-guided missiles to its allies in Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen and Syria.

"If Biden tries to just resume the Iran nuclear deal as it was - and gives up the leverage of extreme economic sanctions on Iran, before reaching some understanding on its exporting of precision-guided missiles - I suspect that he’ll meet a lot of resistance from Israel, the UAE and Saudi Arabia," Friedman wrote on Sunday.

The column faced pushback from diplomacy advocates who argued that retaining the sanctions would make a return to the deal impossible and dim the prospect of resolving issues with Tehran through talks.

In his interview with Biden, the columnist said the president-elect did not think the idea was "crazy", but refused to adopt it nevertheless.

The incoming US president reiterated that a return to the JCPOA would be a starting point for further negotiations to strengthen the deal itself as well as talks over regional issues.

"In consultation with our allies and partners, we’re going to engage in negotiations and follow-on agreements to tighten and lengthen Iran’s nuclear constraints, as well as address the missile programme," Biden said.

Joe Biden reaffirms he will seek return to Iran nuclear deal

In interview with New York Times columnist, US president-elect says addressing Iran's nuclear programme will take precedence over other issues with Tehran

www.middleeasteye.net

It's called game of "good cop/bad cop" and Iran will fall for it again. Then in the next election cycle Iran will get screwed again by the "bad cop". Thus are fools in this world. What is that about fool me once, fool me twice????

 

[Philosopher]

As expected, Biden's policy on Iran will mirror the Obama-Biden policy. With only weeks left in office, it remains to be seen to what level the dying Trump administration will turn up the heat on top of the boiling situation we're in.

 

[Dalit]

Iranian brothers need to be very careful with the Americans. Israel owns America.

 

[Philosopher]

It's called game of "good cop/bad cop" and Iran will fall for it again. Then in the next election cycle Iran will get screwed again by the "bad cop". Thus are fools in this world. What is that about fool me once, fool me twice????

False analysis. A good cop/bad cop routine requires for the two cops to be working in tandem. Trump ripping the deal (which he did not even read) has as much not do with a deeply calculated strategy as it does with him doing it out of spite for Obama. Furthermore, it was expected that a republican administration would have an irrational expectation from a deal, as G Bush did when asked for zero enrichment on Iranian soil. For Iran the situation is quite simple, either re-enter the deal and give your economy a big breathing space or continue under this crippling sanction. For as long as the Americans can wield their financial sword and Iran being susceptible to it, then sanctions will continue to be used.

There are few naive Iranian people in this forum that think a likely option at this time is that Iran would go nuclear and suddenly everything would be better.

 

[SalarHaqq]

It's called game of "good cop/bad cop" and Iran will fall for it again. Then in the next election cycle Iran will get screwed again by the "bad cop". Thus are fools in this world. What is that about fool me once, fool me twice????

Only the liberal factions in Iran will fall for this. Not the revolutionaries, not the Supreme Leader nor the IRGC. Question is only if the liberals will manage to impose their will on the revolutionaries a second time.

Key will be the presidential election next year in Iran. If the liberals win, they'll have a popular mandate to pressure Supreme Leader Khamenei with and might force the latter to cede. If a revolutionary candidate wins the election, it is highly unlikely that Iran will repeat the same mistake twice.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Only the liberal factions in Iran will fall for this. Not the revolutionaries, not the Supreme Leader nor the IRGC. Question is only if the liberals will manage to impose their will on the revolutionaries a second time.

Key will be the presidential election next year in Iran. If the liberals win, they'll have a popular mandate to pressure Supreme Leader Khamenei with and might force the latter to cede. If a revolutionary candidate wins the election, it is highly unlikely that Iran will repeat the same mistake twice.

I am surprised that this is subject of the binary - liberal versus revolutionaries. I consider myself liberal and with a soft touch for the West. But if West shafted Pakistan like they have Iran I would take a very realistic line and accept the sobering facts. Any deal as we saw can be undone. Unless Iran has outlook of a goldfish and can't see anything further then their noses don't they know things can change abruptly.

Foreign policy should not be seen in context of liberal or other but instead seen strictly through realpolitik. As I said I am a liberal but I always supported the medieval Taliban in Afghanistan because I saw they were best for Pakistan's strategic goals.

 

[TheImmortal]

For Iran the situation is quite simple, either re-enter the deal and give your economy a big breathing space or continue under this crippling sanction.

Sanctions will not be lifted from Iran just “re entering” the deal. At best Iran will get to export 2-3M barrels oil per day instead of 1M it does today on black market.

Sanctions on terrorism, human rights, and majority of nuclear sanctions will remain till Iran:

A) agrees to permanent Nuclear restrictions which includes: shut down of Fordow, no advanced centrifuge beyond IR-1, no heavy water reactor unless installed by Western spies, and no uranium production outside of a token amount.

B) agrees to permanent missile restrictions which includes: full disclosure of entire missile inventory, caps on missile production, caps on range production, no new missile designs, halting of all solid fuel engine development, etc.

Now surely you cannot think that the Iranian economy will get any “breathing space” from a meager 1-2M barrels of oil? After all, long before Trump ripped up the deal Iran’s economic conditions worsened and its currency went from 3000 to 10000 before Trump even tore up the deal.

The person being naive here is you. 90% of sanctions will remain till Iran compromises on the above. Iran is making permanent changes in exchange for temporary changes from the other side. Sanctions can be brought back with a flick of a wrist.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

False analysis

Nope. Your mistaking United States policy toward Iran as contingent on indiviual politicians. You should know that it does not work that way. Obama and Trump represent two vast streams in American political world. They are merely 'faces'. Leaders and have come and gone since 1979 but US policy has remained roughly in similar direction when it came to Iran. That is because they are informed by the deeper American establishment and political elite. Like I said for Iran it is case of getting punched in silk gloves [Democrats] or punched bare [Republicans].

 

[Philosopher]

Sanctions will not be lifted from Iran just “re entering” the deal.

According to the facts (Biden's own words for one) you're missing the target by 180 degrees.

At best Iran will get to export 2-3M barrels oil per day instead of 1M it does today on black market.

Source for these numbers?

Sanctions on terrorism, human rights, and majority of nuclear sanctions will remain till Iran:

A) agrees to permanent Nuclear restrictions which includes: shut down of Fordow, no advanced centrifuge beyond IR-1, no heavy water reactor unless installed by Western spies, and no uranium production outside of a token amount.

B) agrees to permanent missile restrictions which includes: full disclosure of entire missile inventory, caps on missile production, caps on range production, no new missile designs, halting of all solid fuel engine development, etc.

This has nothing to do with topic at hand, i.e going back to the terms of JCPOA and sanctions associated with it.

Now surely you cannot think that the Iranian economy will get any “breathing space” from a meager 1-2M barrels of oil? After all, long before Trump ripped up the deal Iran’s economic conditions worsened and its currency went from 3000 to 10000 before Trump even tore up the deal.

You're blending so many different factors together. Iran's own mismanagement cannot be ruled out, however one would have to be completely in denial to compare Iran's economy before and during sanctions.

90% of sanctions will remain till Iran compromises on the above.

Invented figures.

Iran is making permanent changes in exchange

What permanent changes? Every single Iranian moves can be redone.

for temporary changes from the other side. Sanctions can be brought back with a flick of a wrist.

This is why I have said these next 4 year will be key. If indeed the Americans show the unwillingness to implement their side of the deal so that Iran is gaining tangible benefits, then indeed the deal will die. However right now, it is too early to expect rash moves from Iran.

Nope. Your mistaking United States policy toward Iran as contingent on indiviual politicians. You should know that it does not work that way. Obama and Trump represent two vast streams in American political world. They are merely 'faces'. Leaders and have come and gone since 1979 but US policy has remained roughly in similar direction when it came to Iran. That is because they are informed by the deeper American establishment and political elite. Like I said for Iran it is case of getting punched in silk gloves [Democrats] or punched bare [Republicans].

You're somewhat correct in your view of the American deep state, but your rational here is not correct. We all know both the republicans and democrats have a nigh identical objective regarding Iran, but there is clearly a divide between them in how they go about this, and this is not part of some designed good cop/bad cop. The Christian Zionists of the Republican parties are far more irrational towards Iran due Iran's position towards Israel. The democrats are more willing to make deals that actually both sides can accept. Once JCPOA was agreed upon, Obama was almost out of the door, so we never really had time to see where this situation could have led, but now with Biden coming in office, we will see what happens in the next 4 years. You need to see this from a practical viewpoint, i.e what are Iran's best options here. Returning to the JCPOA is the best of the worse options, there really does not exist any "good" options for Iran at the moment.

 

[Arian]

Nope. Your mistaking United States policy toward Iran as contingent on indiviual politicians. You should know that it does not work that way. Obama and Trump represent two vast streams in American political world. They are merely 'faces'. Leaders and have come and gone since 1979 but US policy has remained roughly in similar direction when it came to Iran. That is because they are informed by the deeper American establishment and political elite. Like I said for Iran it is case of getting punched in silk gloves [Democrats] or punched bare [Republicans].

You are absolutely right. US policies towards Iran are bi-partisan. Any Iranian that advocates otherwise is mistaken or a traitor.

 

[OldenWisdom...قول بزرگ]

Iran is in the bag! It is surrounded like never before. Arabs have even unmasked/exposed themselves and their alliance with Israel... Azerbaycan(could be a front/source for Israeli spec. ops/surveillance and/or air raids) has softened Armenia... Pakistan is under pressure to do the same(choose Arabs/Israelis over Iranians)...
Covid has and continues to do a number on Iran...

As it stands, Iran was forced to start a war when Soleimani was killed and now once over with top scientist. On surface, perhaps forcing Iranian hand but it may just be boiling a frog and keeping tabs on the temperature...

I would assume that both Israelis and Arabs are on the same page... meaning Biden gets a frog on the simmer or burns by splash!

 

[SalarHaqq]

False analysis. A good cop/bad cop routine requires for the two cops to be working in tandem. Trump ripping the deal (which he did not even read) has as much not do with a deeply calculated strategy as it does with him doing it out of spite for Obama.

Even if their actions aren't concerted and their strategies differ, both sides are pursuing a similar objective, namely Iran's destruction. And both strategies are dangerous for Iran. It could even be argued that the Democrats' approach is the more hazardous one given its insidious, unobvious nature.

Furthermore, it was expected that a republican administration would have an irrational expectation from a deal, as G Bush did when asked for zero enrichment on Iranian soil. For Iran the situation is quite simple, either re-enter the deal and give your economy a big breathing space or continue under this crippling sanction. For as long as the Americans can wield their financial sword and Iran being susceptible to it, then sanctions will continue to be used.

Third and in my opinion wisest solution: go full steam ahead with the implementation of a war economy. There is still much room for improvement and unused potential in terms of shielding the Iranian economy from the effects of sanctions.

Sanctions have proven not to reach the effect desired by their authors. Of course, pressures on ordinary Iranians have augmented but Iran's economy is far from collapsing and no serious popular unrest is in sight.

To provide ordinary Iranians with relief, measures such as the rationing of basic consumer goods for low income households (which worked brilliantly during the Iran-Iraq war) ought to be taken.

Furthermore the establishment of a proper income tax system to compensate decreased oil revenues, barter and use of alternative currencies in bilateral trade with partners and allies, decisive measures against corruption (including confiscation of illegally acquired wealth and property), strict and method price control via the monitoring of imports/exports as well as currency exchange, plus many other such measures would go a long way in allowing Iran to continue weathering the sanctions.

There are few naive Iranian people in this forum that think a likely option at this time is that Iran would go nuclear and suddenly everything would be better.

I'm not one of them. However I would also advice against betting on feigned overtures by the US, and against repeating the mistake of the Rohani administration. And by that I'm not simply referring to Trump's sudden irruption onto the scene and his tearing up of the JCPOA, but to the principle of engagement and "normalization" adhered to by the reformist and moderate currents in Iran - principle which goes way beyond the idea of negotiating temporary sactions relief while strengthening one's resilience, and is actually not in tune with this idea.

Indeed, to the mentioned reformists and moderates, much like their Democrat American counterparts, the JCPOA was to be the first chapter in a series of similar agreements, where the follow-on ones would limit Iran's ballistic missile power and regional alliances, and thereby directly jeopardize the country's deterrence and its ability to defend against foreign aggression. Reformists and moderates want to engage Iran on the path which Gaddafi treaded before them. We saw how badly that ended for Libya.

Even if one rejects any negotiations on missiles and regional policy while advocating full reinstatement of the nuclear deal - the problem is that in case the liberals manage to convince the Iranian public that their material situation improved as a result of Biden returning to the JCPOA, this will help those liberals not only to have their candidate elected as president in 2021, but it will allow them to pressure if not blackmail the Supreme Leader, the IRGC and the revolutionary factions into ceding against their will on missile and regional policy deals with the west (read: sharp restrictions on Iran's missiles and regional allies). I think we know what would come next if liberals had their way and made Iran accept such deals.

______

Reminds me in Iran, girls getting fooled by guys with promise of “marriage” and “love”. Girl expresses doubt and the guy swears his loyalty and how serious he is. Then the girl sleeps with the guy and he tosses her aside.

Iran is a love-struck girl getting ****ed by guys over and over (US administrations).

Do not insult Iran.

Also don't get us started about practically non-existing sexual morals in the US, in comparison to which Iran is quasi immaculate.

 

[Philosopher]

Even if their actions aren't concerted and their strategies differ, both sides are pursuing a similar objective, namely Iran's destruction. And both strategies are dangerous for Iran. It could even be argued that the Democrats' approach is the more hazardous one, given its insidious, unobvious nature.

Agreed.

Third and in my opinion wisest solution: go full steam ahead with the implementation of a war economy. There is still much room for improvement and unused potential in terms of shielding the Iranian economy from the effects of sanctions.

We're in agreement. It seems sanctions were not enough to put Iran's management in the right place, a united national effort be needed to aid in insulating Iran from sanctions. A war economy leading to great industrialisation is one option.

Sanctions have proven not to reach the effect desired by their authors. Of course, pressures on ordinary Iranians have augmented but Iran's economy is far from collapsing and no serious popular unrest is in sight.

To provide ordinary Iranians with relief, measures such as the rationing of basic consumer goods for low income households (which worked brilliantly during the Iran-Iraq war) ought to be taken.

Sanctions were just another tool weaponised, this was especially implemented during Obama. When they realised bombing would not work against Iran, both due to lack of will and actual effectiveness. Sanctions by themselves would never break Iran, however they are doing everything possible to contain Iran's growth. Morever, a sadist nature of these sanctions is to precisely hurt the Iranian people in the hope they will rise against the "regime". This will fail.

Furthermore the establishment of a proper income tax system to compensate decreased oil revenues, barter trade and use of alternative currencies in bilateral trade ties with partners and allies, decisive measures against corruption (including confiscation of illegally acquired wealth and property), strict and method price control via the monitoring of imports/exports as well as currency exchange, plus many other such measures would go a long way in allowing Iran to continue weathering the sanctions.

Also I would add, focus much more on knowledge based companies to create value added products. Simply relying on selling crude products is not enough.

I'm not one of them. However I will also advice against betting on feigned US overtures, and against repeating the mistake made by the Rohani administration. And by that I'm not simply referring to Trump's sudden irruption onto the scene and his subsequent tearing up of the JCPOA, but to the principle of engagement and "normalization" policy pursued by the reformist and moderate political currents in Iran - principle which goes way beyond the idea of negotiating temporary sactions relief while strengthening one's resilience, and is actually not in tune with this idea.

Indeed, to the mentioned reformists and moderates, much like their Democrat American counterparts, the JCPOA was to be the first chapter in a series of similar agreements, where the follow-on ones, aimed at limiring Iran's ballistic missile power and regional alliances, would directly jeopardize the country's deterrence and its ability to defend against foreign aggression. Reformists and moderates want to engage Iran on the path which Gaddafi treaded before them. And we saw how badly that ended for Libya.

Even if one rejects any negotiations on missiles and regional policy while advocating full reinstatement of the nuclear deal - the problem is that in case the liberals manage to convince the Iranian public of even the slightest improvement in their material situation as a result of Biden returning to the JCPOA, this will help them not only to have their candidate elected as president in 2021, but will allow them to pressure if not blackmail the Supreme Leader, the IRGC and the revolutionary factions into ceding against their will on missile and regional policy deals with the west (read: sharp restrictions on Iran's missiles and regional allies). I think we know what would come next if the liberals had their way and made Iran accept such deals.

The American strategy is plain as day light, they will slowly try to creep everything they are threatened by into negotiation. Anyone in Iran that attempts to negotiate anything in the fields such as missile should be viewed as performing treasonous acts. I am trying to view the situation from the position of Khamenei, it is clear he wanted to use the opportunity of the JCPOA to give some life to our economy. I believe he will give the okay for the JCPOA for the next 4 years. Our enemies are dreading the notion that Iran could gain access to $100's of billions in the coming years. Like I mentioned to a member earlier, we're choosing from the best of the worse options as a good option is not available readily and in the short term.

Regarding the reformists, they are a dangerous group for Iran, especially in the long run. My personal view is that they must be contained and removed from Iranian power structures. But when discussing these topics, I always try to talk regarding what is happening rather than what I want to happen. At the end of the day, our wishes and dreams here would not likely translate to reality.

 

[SalarHaqq]

I am surprised that this is subject of the binary - liberal versus revolutionaries. I consider myself liberal and with a soft touch for the West. But if West shafted Pakistan like they have Iran I would take a very realistic line and accept the sobering facts.

Well, in my opinion the west has already been dishonest and reprehensible enough in its policies towards Pakistan to justify stronger reactions. But that's another matter.

When it comes to Iran, we should not to forget that its relationship with America stands at a far lower level than current Pakistan-US ties. There are not even diplomatic relations between Tehran and Washington, and as good as zero bilateral trade. In fact the Iran and the US are enemies in the every sense of the word. So Iranian liberals will always stress this to promote their belief in a "need" for normalization with the US, claiming that all issues faced by Iran are stemming from this supposed isolation on the international scene (by which they essentially mean the west).

And generally speaking yes, that's how far these reformists and moderates would be willing to go in submitting to the west.

Foreign policy should not be seen in context of liberal or other but instead seen strictly through realpolitik. As I said I am a liberal but I always supported the medieval Taliban in Afghanistan because I saw they were best for Pakistan's strategic goals.

In Iran there are two political camps with radically opposed outlooks on foreign policy. Those who understand Persian will immediately realize this when listening to representatives of the two camps. Their views are indeed that far apart.

It is certainly a consequence of Iran being both a revolutionary state which severed all ties with the US and started challenging the latter full on, and at the same time allows political pluralism and practices free elections. The power and influence of the US being what it is, and the costs of resisting the hegemonic "superpower" being what they are, it perhaps isn't that surprising to eventually see one group emerge in Iran to advocate a complete reversal of this foreign policy course.

Present day reformists weren't always such apologists of western policy by the way: in fact, at the beginning of the Revolution, they constituted one of the most radically anti-American / anti-imperialist factions of the Islamic Republic, namely the so-called Islamic left. Then, after the Iran-Iraq war and during the presidency of the moderate Hashemi Rafsanjani, they engaged in a complete revision of their political positions (on domestic and cultural issues, foreign policy, and later even economic levels), transitioning to become what is today known as the reformist camp.

It's not that their foreign policy choices are informed simply by their liberal ideogody or that they would be incapable of pragmatism in the foreign policy realm. It's that they are challenging and seeking to abolish a central tenet of the Islamic Revolution's ideology and praxis: Resistance against imperial oppression.