The US State Department dismissed an idea floated by Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, who suggested the EU could help coordinate the actions needed to be taken by the US and Iran to revive the 2015 nuclear deal, known as the JCPOA.
When asked about Zarif’s offer, State Department spokesman Ned Price said there are “many steps” the US has to take before engaging “directly with Iran” and before the US is willing to “entertain any sort of proposal.”
Price restated the Biden administration’s demand for Iran to return to commitments it agreed to when the JCPOA was negotiated. Iran’s argument against this demand is that since the US violated the deal, it is on Washington to return to compliance.
Price also stressed the need for the administration to consult with US allies, partners, and Congress on Iran before going forward.
A US official speaking to Reuters on the condition of anonymity said Price’s comments should not be taken as a “rejection” of Zarif’s proposal. The official said the US has not “begun negotiating with Iran, or with anyone else, because our priority is to consult” with allies and partners.
The focus on consulting with other countries before even talking to Iran shows the Biden administration is in no hurry to revive the JCPOA and give Iran sanctions relief. Most regional US partners, like Israel and Saudi Arabia, are strongly opposed to the JCPOA.
European signatories to the deal are also signaling opposition to reviving the JCPOA as it was agreed to in 2015. French President Emmanuel Macron called for new, “strict” nuclear negotiations with Iran that include regional countries like Saudi Arabia, something Iran rejected.
Zarif offered the idea to coordinate a return to the JCPOA in an interview with CNN on Monday. He also said that the time for a possible return to the deal is “not unlimited,” a sign of Tehran’s frustration with the Biden administration’s failure to act.
As per a law passed by Iran’s parliament in the wake of the assassination of Iranian scientist Mohsen Fakrizadeh, if sanctions are not lifted by February 21st, IAEA inspections on Iran’s nuclear program will be slightly restricted.
“Iran has the strictest IAEA inspection mechanism anywhere in the world,” Zarif said. “We will be limiting that, but there is a very easy way of addressing it, and that is for the United States to come back into compliance before that date.”
re: Price also stressed the need for the administration to consult with US allies, partners, and Congress on Iran before going forward.
There was no consultation when the US dropped out of the agreement and sanctioned Iran. — allies, partners, and Congress. — Is Biden also going to consult an astrologist?
Iran FM Zarif said in November that sanctions could be done swiftly through “three executive orders”. It looks like that won’t happen.
. . .and from SecState Blinken, Feb 1:
Looks like the JCPOA is DOA.
Iran needs nuclear weapons to be taken seriously by the US and deter israeli aggression. Following old agreements will not end the sanctions, because the US will always demand more if coersion works.
In other news, Iran has a court ruling in its favor. Iran filed a lawsuit with the International Court of Justice on July 16, 2018, claiming that re-imposing nuclear sanctions on Iran was a violation of the United States’ international obligations. “On humanitarian grounds, the US must remove by means of its choosing any impediment to the free exportation to Iran of goods involving humanitarian concerns,” said the United Nations court’s verdict on 3 October 2018. Today the preliminary US objections to admissibility were rejected by the International Court of Justice here.
H/T FM Zarif who commented here.
I trust Iran like I trust Putin. The only way I could possible trust Iran if would be run by democratically elected civilians and not Clerics who think they are getting their orders from above. There is only one way to deal with Iran, destroy their nuclear infrastructure..
Hmm … I wonder what Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the U.S. Congress are going to say? That’s a real stumper. Can you say DOA.
Since Iran can revert back to the original commitments rather easily, according to them, they should do so. Then watch as the Biden administration squirms and moves the goalposts once more. That should leave no ambiguity about our intentions.
Two things:
(1) other countries have their internal politics too. In Iran’s case, just like us, they had very strong debates about the wisdom of joining the JCPOA in the first place. The folks who were against it (and who are likely to win the presidency this summer) have, so far, been proven right. And they have passed laws that do not allow the govt to make any further concessions w/o the US coming back into compliance.
(2) But even if it was possible, this would be a very bad move for Iran politically. I would be rewarding a party (US) for breaking a deal solemnly agreed to just a few years before. What would any deal be worth after that?
No, the US has to go first. Zarif gave Biden a climbdown path and it’s been spurned. I am not hopeful.
I don’t disagree with anything you said, especially this: “What would any deal be worth after that?” The answer is absolutely nothing. My point is to get it over with because there is never going to be a deal. Make us show that the real obstacle to any deal is us and that isn’t going to change no matter what they do.
Since the US broke the deal first, and since the US has continuously proven itself untrustworthy in the past, the Iranians would be silly to be the ones to make the first move here. Fool them once and so forth.
And, frankly, the US needs to be publicly humiliated for pulling this shit.
Which gets them what? Might as well force our hand. If we say their compliance will lead to our compliance, prove us wrong and show the world we are the ones at fault for “pulling this bullshit”.
This all makes zero sense vis a vis US interests, …is in fact counter to them. That we should have to thus toady (to ‘our allies’) is a pure illumination of the truly amazing power of Zionism.