I digress. So, here’s my take on Iran. First, does the President have
the power to bind America to the withdrawal? The Constitution grants power to
the Presidency to enter into treaties with the advice and consent of the
Senate. Impliedly, a President may not withdraw without consent but some constitutional
scholars argue that if the Constitution does not express such a reservation, the
President is not bound by this implied stricture.
When I looked into JCPOA, I discovered that while President Obama called
the agreement a treaty, he chose to enter into it via executive agreement,
by-passing the need for Senate approval. Therefore, President Trump must have
the legal right to end America’s participation unilaterally, unless the JCPOA
expressly forbids such action, which it does not. The other participating
nations have not resiled from JCPOA but it will be a struggle for them to
continue without America’s participation.
Second, why did
President Trump withdraw from JCPOA? In an article in The Washington Post,
Trump’s rationale was examined. Here are some extracts from his speech
of 8th May:
“In fact, the deal allowed
Iran to continue enriching uranium and — over time — reach the brink of a
nuclear breakout. …
“The agreement was so poorly negotiated
that even if Iran fully complies, the regime can still be on the verge of a
nuclear breakout in just a short period of time. The deal’s sunset provisions
are totally unacceptable. …
“If we do nothing, we know exactly
what will happen. In just a short period of time, the world’s leading state
sponsor of terror will be on the cusp of acquiring the world’s most dangerous
weapons.”
As I understand it, the JCPOA’s prohibition on Iran’s building nuclear
weapons is not restricted by the sunset clause, which brings the treaty to an
end at a fixed future date. Further, other international agreements to which
Iran has committed itself prohibit Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. Other
critics of the JCPOA have said that Iran could, under cover of peaceful goals
like a nuclear energy programme, work on nuclear capability. Therefore, easing
restrictions over time would open the door to Iran’s attaining nuclear weapons
capability, rendering the JCPOA ultimately ineffective. Logic tells me that even
if this assertion is correct, JCPOA buys time, subjecting Iran to strong
constraints on its nuclear activities for up to 25 years. As a result of
Trump’s decision, the constraints are fast disappearing
“This disastrous deal gave this regime — and
it’s a regime of great terror — many billions of dollars, some of it in actual
cash — a great embarrassment to me as a citizen and to all citizens of the
United States.”
It is a pity that Trump is both inarticulate and prone to repetitious hyperbole.
This aside, has the United States government casually handed Iran billions of
dollars in cash? The statement is highly misleading. Billions of dollars-worth
of Iranian assets were frozen in foreign banks because of sanctions over its
nuclear program. Trump refers to “actual cash.” A settlement of a decades-old litigation between the United States and Iran accounts for this. I shan’t
go into details. Suffice it to say the dispute arose when the Shah was deposed.
“At the heart of the Iran deal was a giant
fiction that a murderous regime desired only a peaceful nuclear energy program.
Today, we have definitive proof that this Iranian promise was a lie. Last week,
Israel published intelligence documents long concealed by Iran, conclusively
showing the Iranian regime and its history of pursuing nuclear weapons.”
In April, Israel’s Prime Minister asserted that Mossad agents had
obtained a massive cache of documents and data discs from Iran about “Project
Amad,” a clandestine nuclear-weapons development program. Netanyahu said the
documents proved that Iran had lied about its past nuclear efforts. “What he is
revealing with all this detail is not news,” Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control
Association says Israel’s findings are irrelevant. Indeed, they strengthen the
case for the JCPOA.
The International Atomic Energy Agency has found that Iran has complied
with the JCPOA. Furthermore, just two months ago, Israeli Chief of General
Staff, Gadi Eisenkof, affirmed “the agreement is working and is putting off the
realisation of the Iranian nuclear vision by ten to fifteen years.”
“Making matters worse, the deal’s inspection
provisions lack adequate mechanisms to prevent, detect, and punish cheating and
don’t even have the unqualified right to inspect many important locations,
including military facilities. Not only does the deal fail to halt Iran’s
nuclear ambitions, but it also fails to address the regime’s development of
ballistic missiles that could deliver nuclear warheads.”
To comply with JCPOA, Iran had to dismantle its nuclear program
significantly. Then, Iran gave the international community wide access to investigate
its nuclear activities. IAEA already has the ability to investigate nuclear
facilities and activities disclosed by Iran’s government. The country also has
committed itself to ratifying the IAEA’s Additional Protocol which would give
international investigators the power to “investigate undeclared nuclear
facilities and activities” as well as “demand information from member states.” If
Iran were to violate the terms of the deal, sanctions would be reinstated.
Supporters of the deal claim the JCPOA grants them unprecedented
access. Some critics point out that Iran has been known to evade inspections in
the past and that key provisions giving access to monitors will end in due
course. Others say the IAEA should be given wider authority, particularly the
ability to inspect military sites, to adequately police Iran’s nuclear
programs.
I am reminded of the movie, Wag The Dog, where
a besieged US president starts a foreign war to take people’s minds off
domestic catastrophes. Trump likes confrontation and disruption,
claiming the political status quo is so awful that ending the current system
would inevitably be better than keeping it intact. He calls it clearing the
swamp for which he will claim all the credit, no doubt. But Trump is destroying
the very levers of governing that prevent mistakes and hold abuses of power in
check.
I also feel there
is an element of the personal. Trump abhors the policies of his predecessor. He
has made numberless efforts to remove the Affordable Care Act from the statute
book. He decided to throw out the Trans Pacific Partnership but has realised
its benefits and is now restoring it. The decision to abandon JCPOA is another
swing at Barack Obama.
Trump has now chosen
to gamble on nuclear war, deflecting the American people from the domestic
scandals and outrages. He is banking on a solution to North Korea’s nuclear
war-mongering, which he will proclaim as a victory whatever the outcome of the
June talks. He seeks to reassure the voters that his actions against Iran
protect America. It’s like a trade-off gone wrong. How big a threat is North
Korea compared with Iran?
My conclusion on
the scrapping of the Iran treaty is this. Of all the decisions Trump has
made, I believe terminating it is dangerous and plain wrong. He has
ignored overtures from America’s European allies and his own experts. As the
Great Negotiator, will he demonstrate he can get a better deal? Has he brought the
world closer to another Middle East war? If so, will Trump abandon Israel? After
all, he is an isolationist.
There are so many
variables resulting from the scrapping of the Iran treaty. For example, the
treaty partners are now getting mired in American sanctions and have much to
lose as a result, after business deals were made with Iran to bring it into the
international family. In the meantime, America’s Bully-in-Chief decides to
shout, not speak softly and carry a big stick. Perhaps the stick should be in
the shape of a violin. Trump could then become Nero, fiddling while the world
burns.
