Amid continued war and the so-far unsuccessful attempts to open the Strait of Hormuz, the goal of preventing Iran from developing a bomb has been sidetracked. It was a primary objective when the war started, but atomic diplomacy has been at a standstill for weeks, notwithstanding unconfirmed claims of supposed negotiations. The impediments to substantive nuclear talks are many—Trump’s overreliance on the use of force, Iranian mistrust of Washington, and now the prospect of a risky U.S. nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia.
Reaching a nonproliferation agreement with Iran remains essential, however. If the White House is unable to make progress, a new multilateral initiative may be necessary.
The June 17 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was criticized for its lack of detail and is now mostly in tatters, but the plan included important pledges that are worth preserving. Iran made a commitment not to develop nuclear weapons and to reach agreement on enrichment issues and the disposition of its nuclear stockpile under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) supervision. The United States agreed to begin lifting sanctions. The terms were vague, but they contained mutual concessions that could be the basis for renewed diplomacy. The White House hasn’t followed up on the points, though, and recently revoked sanctions relief on sales of Iranian oil.
The Previous Deal
Although Trump has shown waning interest in negotiating a new nuclear deal, he has been obsessed with the nuclear deal of 2015, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Trump disparages the Obama deal constantly, more than three dozen times since the start of the current war, according to a CNN analysis. He repeatedly attacks Obama for negotiating the JCPOA and continues to spread lies about the terms of the agreement. At the G-7 summit in June, he repeated a vulgar and insulting curse of Obama. He has even tried to place responsibility for Iran’s current hardline stance on Obama’s dealings with the regime 10 years ago.
Who knows what goes on in Trump’s mind or motivates his JCPOA obsession. Could It derive partly from his longstanding personal and political animus toward Obama? Perhaps it is also his way of trying to justify the disastrous decision he made in 2018 to withdraw from the accord, which set in motion a pattern of hostility that led to the current war.
The details of the JCPOA do not apply to the current challenge of stemming Iran’s nuclear program, which has become larger and more menacing since the 2018 break. It is important to understand what was accomplished then, however, to gain a realistic expectation of what may be possible now, and to counter Trump’s incessant fabrications and rewriting of history.
Under the terms of the JCPOA, Iran agreed to reduce its stockpile of enriched uranium by 98 percent, shut down two-thirds of its centrifuges, significantly curtail its remaining enrichment capacity, eliminate its ability to produce weapons usable plutonium, and accept the most comprehensive and intrusive weapons inspection system ever negotiated. In response to Iranian acceptance of these conditions, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2231 in July 2015 lifting sanctions.
Iran adhered to the accord. Trump’s State Department, director of national intelligence and secretary of defense all testified before Congress that Iran was in compliance. In April 2018, just weeks before Trump killed the agreement with claims of Iranian cheating, the State Department reported that Iran is “transparently, verifiably, and fully implementing the JCPOA.” The IAEA issued more than a dozen reports on Iranian compliance from 2016 through 2018 and found no substantive violations.
Current Challenges
Today, the world has reverted to square one, or perhaps minus one. The security conditions are more dangerous and difficult than a decade ago. The war has spread to other countries in the region, and both sides have shown more interest in military action than negotiations.
The Saudi nuclear deal, if implemented, would pose additional obstacles. The deal as proposed excludes IAEA monitoring, which would make it difficult to convince Iran to accept renewed monitoring. Saudi leaders moreover have vowed that if Iran builds a bomb, they will follow suit quickly.
If nuclear talks are to make progress, a different approach will be needed. Former National Security Advisor Philip Gordan has advocated sustained multilateral diplomacy with a greater emphasis on sanctions and incentives and international coalitions to influence Iranian behavior.
The June 17 MOU would create an “executive mechanism” to monitor implementation of a negotiated agreement. Research on peace accords indicates that multilateral accompaniment and monitoring mechanisms increase the likelihood of implementation and a more sustainable peace process.
A New Authority
I have proposed the creation of a new international authority under UN auspices to negotiate a nuclear deal and establish IAEA monitoring and verification. The model for an international authority today could be the multinational coalition that produced the nuclear deal in 2015. The United States, the UK, France, Germany, Russia, and China negotiated with Iran under the auspices of the European Union and the UN Security Council. A new arrangement would include Gulf state participation and could be tied to parallel negotiations to open the Strait.
The proposed authority could be linked to the UK-France multinational naval protection force. Announced by the two countries in April, the independent mission is intended to safeguard commercial shipping through the Strait and will be “strictly peaceful and defensive.” In May, defense ministers from 38 states expressed their support for the task force, which would become operational once fighting in the Gulf ends. The White House attempted to persuade the European states to join the current naval mission, but they refused. They want to be helpful but will not be drawn into an ongoing war.
The multinational naval task force could serve as the springboard for a broader diplomatic effort to negotiate a sustainable end to the conflict. The UK, France, and other states could bring the matter to the UN to create a new independent authority for resolving the crisis.
Until now, multilateralism has been anathema to the Trump administration. But as the costs of its failed policies mount, the White House may begin to see the need for a different approach. Multinational diplomacy offers the best option for preventing continued war and nuclear proliferation in the region.