Trump Administration backsliding on its demands for fixing Iran deal

The Israel Project

Good Tuesday afternoon,

Yesterday the NYT reported Trump administration diplomats are backsliding on the president’s January 12 requirements for fixing the Iran deal [a]. The fixes would have reimposed pre-deal sanctions if new robust conditions were not implemented: forcing inspections of Iran’s military facilities (verification), prohibiting development of nuclear-capable missiles (ballistic missiles), and no expiration date for any conditions (sunsets).

Instead U.S. diplomats are working with the Europeans to convince Trump they “changed deal without actually changing it,” according to the NYT. On verification, they’d still rely on the IAEA to ask for access, even though IAEA officials say they won’t make any requests that give Trump an “excuse” to exit the deal [b]. On ballistic missiles, they’d leave out restrictions on missiles Iran would use to wipe out Israel or Saudi Arabia. On sunsets, they’d assure the Europeans the deal is stable in the coming years in exchange for promises on restrictions years from now.

The weakened changes would take the form of “promises to consider tougher responses and sanctions,” according to a new AP story. Full story pasted below. Here’s the part of the AP story on that:

British, French and German official have been receptive to the ideas, according to the U.S. officials and advisers. The focus is on a supplemental agreement addressing Trump’s concerns without unravelling the original Iran deal, padded by European promises to consider tougher responses and sanctions for Iranian missile activity, support for Hezbollah and other non-nuclear matters.

Inadequate fixes by the Trump administration could cost U.S companies tens of billions of dollars. Saudi Arabia is engaged in an $80 billion push to develop its civilian nuclear infrastructure [c]. U.S. companies are limited from developing foreign countries’ nuclear infrastructure unless those countries have accepted tough nuclear restrictions that had been institutionalized as a global standard (“123 agreements”).

The Iran deal detonated the global non-proliferation regime and the Saudis will not accept the old standard unless the Trump administration reverses the precedents set by the deal, either by abandoning it or securing robust fixes. Here’s the part of the AP story on that:

The Saudis have indicated they might accept such curbs if a separate nuclear deal with its arch-foe Iran is tightened… the Saudis, among his closest allies, are now asking a simple question: If Iran can enrich, why can’t we?… At issue on Perry’s trip is what’s known as a “123 agreement.” Without one, U.S. nuclear energy firms like Westinghouse would lose out on business opportunities with the Saudis. American officials and outside advisers said the Saudis have dangled the prospect of such contracts if new restrictions are imposed on Iran’s nuclear activity.

Omri.

—

US opens tough Saudi nuke talks, in shadow of Iran deal

By MATTHEW LEE and JOSH LEDERMAN, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration is opening talks with Saudi Arabia on a potentially lucrative atomic energy agreement that’s inextricably linked to an Obama-era nuclear deal with Iran. At stake: Billions of dollars in contracts for U.S. companies and bigger questions about America’s ability to keep friend and foe alike from reaching nuclear weapons capability.

Energy Secretary Rick Perry will lead an interagency U.S. delegation to talks with the Saudis in London on Friday, two administration officials and three outside advisers said. The meeting comes as the Arab powerhouse explores a civilian nuclear energy program, possibly without restrictions on uranium enrichment and reprocessing that would be required under a U.S. cooperation deal.

But there’s a catch: The Saudis have indicated they might accept such curbs if a separate nuclear deal with its arch-foe Iran is tightened, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak publicly on the matter.

The separate negotiations, over Saudi and Iranian nuclear capabilities, put American officials in the middle of the great balance-of-power of the modern Middle East. The Saudis are loath to sign away their ability to move closer to bomb-making capability while Iran is bound by a 2015 nuclear accord that will become increasingly lenient next decade.

When President Barack Obama blessed the nuclear compromise with Tehran, his officials insisted they weren’t weakening nonproliferation standards for everyone else. But that difficult task has fallen to President Donald Trump. And the Saudis, among his closest allies, are now asking a simple question: If Iran can enrich, why can’t we?

“Our objective is we want to have the same rights as other countries,” Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir said this month at a security conference in Munich.

At issue on Perry’s trip is what’s known as a “123 agreement.” Without one, U.S. nuclear energy firms like Westinghouse would lose out on business opportunities with the Saudis. American officials and outside advisers said the Saudis have dangled the prospect of such contracts if new restrictions are imposed on Iran’s nuclear activity.

Trump shares many of the Saudi concerns over the Iran deal, which he’s called the worst ever and repeatedly threatened to walk away from. In January, he vowed he wouldn’t issue more waivers of U.S. sanctions — an Iran deal requirement — unless it’s amended to prevent Tehran from gradually resuming a variety of currently banned nuclear activities.

Such talks, primarily with Europe, are thus taking on added importance ahead of a mid-May deadline for more Trump waivers.

Trump has identified four specific problems that must be addressed, including two not covered by the deal: Expiration dates on some nuclear restrictions, inspection rules for Iranian military sites, ballistic missile work and Iranian activity in countries around the Middle East — where it has helped Syria’s government in a civil war and aided Yemeni rebels in another.

A team led by the State Department’s policy planning chief Brian Hook has met twice recently with European officials, in London last month and Paris last week. It’s seeking Europe’s commitment to re-impose sanctions with the U.S. if Iran violates a new set of nuclear restrictions. A third meeting is set for Berlin in March.

British, French and German official have been receptive to the ideas, according to the U.S. officials and advisers. The focus is on a supplemental agreement addressing Trump’s concerns without unravelling the original Iran deal, padded by European promises to consider tougher responses and sanctions for Iranian missile activity, support for Hezbollah and other non-nuclear matters.

As it is now, Iran can use thousands of centrifuges and enrich uranium, albeit to levels far short of weapons-grade material. Under 123 agreements, foreign countries can buy U.S. nuclear technology and the nuclear know-how that comes with it if they agree not to enrich uranium and reprocess plutonium. Both can be used for nuclear weapons fuel.

The irony that an agreement designed to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon lets it do more than its rivals isn’t lost on Saudi Arabia — or other countries that have voluntarily limited the scope of their programs. At least 23 countries have such agreements with Washington, including South Korea, South Africa and Vietnam.

The United Arab Emirates entered into a 123 agreement with the U.S. in 2009, one of the strictest ever reached. When the Iran deal was reached, the Emirati ambassador to Washington told Congress his country “no longer felt bound” by provisions preventing the UAE from enriching.

While Trump has aggressively courted the Saudi government, seeing the Sunni-led powerhouse as a bulwark against Shiite Iran, there is near universal agreement among national security experts that allowing any country to introduce nuclear weapons in the volatile Middle East would be a terrible idea. Currently, the only Mideast country believed to possess a nuclear arsenal is Israel.

But there are also concerns a U.S.-Saudi disagreement will lead the kingdom to turn to U.S. rivals Russia and China, whose state-owned nuclear companies are competing to build reactors in Saudi Arabia. That would give the United States even less insight into Saudi Arabia’s nuclear activities in the future.

The overlapping issues have Iran deal opponents insisting tougher rules on Iran is the easiest solution.

“A fix puts the administration in a much better position with the Saudis,” said Mark Dubowitz of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. “It’s a critical step in demanding adherence to the ‘gold standard’ as opposed to the Iran standard.”

—

[a] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/26/us/politics/trump-europe-iran-deal.html
[b] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-inspections/u-s-pressure-or-not-u-n-nuclear-watchdog-sees-no-need-to-check-iran-military-sites-idUSKCN1BB1JC
[c] https://www.wsj.com/articles/saudi-resistance-to-nuclear-standards-could-roil-u-s-reactor-deal-1519122600

*****

One more article from yesterday.

Trump administration diplomats couldn’t get the Europeans to agree to the ‘fixes’ required by Trump to preserve the Iran deal, so instead they’re pushing hollowed-out versions. The NYT reported they’re working with Europe on language they can use to convince President Trump they “changed the deal without actually changing it” [a]. The AP reported they’re only asking the Europeans for “promises to consider tougher responses and sanctions” [b].

The European Union is rejecting even that, according to Bloomberg quoting EU ambassador to the US David O’Sullivan:

European allies, pressed by President Donald Trump’s administration to impose tough new sanctions on Iran for its ballistic missile program, are digging in against moves that would effectively void the 2015 nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic… O’Sullivan said the EU wouldn’t support reimposing trade sanctions lifted under the nuclear deal under a different rationale, such as to punish Iran for its missile program or support for terrorism.

“That, in my view, is not going to work,” O’Sullivan said. “We removed the sanctions which were part of the deal, and in good faith you cannot put back those sanctions without due cause… we want to work with you. But we will not do anything which jeopardizes the deal… We will not renegotiate the deal, and we will not do anything which in our view puts the deal in jeopardy.”

There is a policy debate about whether the EU posture matters. Trump administration officials say it doesn’t: they say are negotiating with the E3 – Britain, France, and Germany – and don’t need the EU because just reimposing those countries’ sanctions is enough. Critics point out that’s wrong: because the new language is so weak EU action would be necessary to trigger sanctions reimposition, for instance by pushing the IAEA to ask for inspections in technical forums created to implement the Iran deal (because instead of forcing inspections of Iran’s military facilities, the verification change would still rely on the IAEA to ask for access, even though IAEA officials say they won’t make requests that give Trump an “excuse” to exit the deal [c]).

On ballistic missiles, instead of prohibiting development of nuclear-capable missiles, the changes would not include missiles Iran would use to wipe out Israel or Saudi Arabia. On sunsets, instead of locking in European enforcement, the changes would assure the Europeans the deal is stable for now in exchange for promises on restrictions years from now, when the U.S. won’t have leverage to enforce them.

As always, let me know if you need anything else.

Omri.

—

Europeans Dig In Against New Iran Sanctions Risking Nuclear Deal
By Nick Wadhams
February 26, 2018,

EU Ambassador O’Sullivan said accord Trump spurns is working. ‘You cannot put back those sanctions without due cause’: Envoy

European allies, pressed by President Donald Trump’s administration to impose tough new sanctions on Iran for its ballistic missile program, are digging in against moves that would effectively void the 2015 nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic.

“There is no problem that you can think of with Iran that would not be to the power of 100 worse if this was a nuclear-armed country,” David O’Sullivan, the European Union’s ambassador to the U.S., said Monday in a meeting with editors and reporters at Bloomberg’s Washington bureau. “So for us, the first thing to do is to make sure this country doesn’t have nuclear weapons. That’s what the deal did and does in our view, and it is working.”

Trump vowed in January to back out from what he’s called “the worst deal ever” by May unless its flaws can be resolved. “This is a last chance,” Trump said. U.S. officials have been focusing on talks with their European counterparts on how to restrain Iran’s continuing development of ballistic missiles, which isn’t explicitly barred under its 2015 deal with the U.S. and five other world powers.

But O’Sullivan said the EU wouldn’t support reimposing trade sanctions lifted under the nuclear deal under a different rationale, such as to punish Iran for its missile program or support for terrorism.

“That, in my view, is not going to work,” O’Sullivan said. “We removed the sanctions which were part of the deal, and in good faith you cannot put back those sanctions without due cause.”

The EU envoy also rebuffed suggestions that the 28-nation bloc was slow to condemn Iran because it didn’t want to risk losing deals made possible when the nuclear sanctions were lifted.

“There is a complete mythology in the United States among some people that somehow we are only interested in trade with Iran and we are willing to sell our souls for the purposes of selling a few automobiles or a few airplanes — unlike Boeing,” O’Sullivan said in a jab at the U.S. plane maker, which has about $20 billion in jetliner sales to Iran currently planned.

“We are not in the business of selling our principles for the purposes of a few trade deals,” O’Sullivan said.

He said the EU will try to find an accommodation with the U.S. “because you’re our friend and ally and we want to work with you. But we will not do anything which jeopardizes the deal, which is absolutely fundamental to Europe’s national security,” O’Sullivan said. “We will not renegotiate the deal, and we will not do anything which in our view puts the deal in jeopardy.”

—

[a] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/26/us/politics/trump-europe-iran-deal.html
[b] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/26/the-associated-press-us-opens-tough-saudi-nuke-talks-in-shadow-of-iran-deal.html
[c] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-inspections/u-s-pressure-or-not-u-n-nuclear-watchdog-sees-no-need-to-check-iran-military-sites-idUSKCN1BB1JC