In the coming weeks, President Biden will face the biggest decision of his presidency regarding Iran: whether it is time to say 'no' and build a coalition that will hold Tehran responsible for nuclear fraud and breach of its obligations, or fall into a trap that closes the door to a better, longer and stronger agreement.
In recent months, the administration has been working under the mistaken assumption that if the United States reduces pressure on Iran while eliminating any credible threat to the use of military force, the leader will be persuaded to negotiate a return to the 2015 nuclear deal.
In practice, it turns out that the reality is the opposite.
Iran entered 2021 with accessible foreign exchange reserves of only $ 4 billion, with a president demonstrating a willingness to use force and with the possibility that the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will appeal to the UN Security Council over violations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty Nuclear (NPT).
Three weeks later, Iran received an influx of oxygen, and Trump's "maximum pressure" campaign was replaced by a "maximum concessions" campaign to entice Tehran to return to negotiations. Instead of continuing to starve the regime, the thirst for cash allowed Iran to use its frozen reserves to repay debts At the same time, Europe was persuaded not to impose sanctions on Iran in the face of its continued refusal to cooperate with the IAEA investigation.
At the same time, Iran is examining Biden through its envoys in the region, and initiates attacks on American troops in Iraq, missiles on Israel and Saudi Arabia and attacks at sea.
Biden did not respond, as his predecessor did, by attacking the Revolutionary Guards, who conducted the attacks, even after an American was killed.
And the results?
Aggressive expansion of uranium enrichment, imposing severe restrictions on UN inspectors and establishing an Iranian government determined to build a new nuclear baseline for the purpose of the negotiations.
Biden has allowed Iran to turn the scenario, within a few months, from a regime on the verge of economic collapse into a regime that is becoming more self-assured and very advanced to nuclear-capable, or even more dangerous, nuclear-stealth capability by creating the ability to use covert facilities and advanced centrifuges.
Iranian President Ibrahim Raisi, Photo: APP
Iran already operates advanced centrifuges, enriches uranium to 60 percent, and is a short distance from fissile material.
Iran refuses to answer IAEA questions as to why banned nuclear material is found in at least three undeclared locations.
The regime not only violates obligations under the nuclear agreement, it materially violates obligations to the NPT. Since Baiden became president, the IAEA board has met three times. To maintain a chance of a return to negotiations, the administration has opposed, before any meeting, condemning Iran for its non-cooperation with the IAEA and non-compliance with the NPT, despite reports Spicy on the part of the director general of the agency. The result was that after each meeting, Iran accelerated the violations, interfered with the IAEA and did not cooperate with its investigation. For Iranian cooperation, Karaj is the proof.The world is waiting for the board meeting in November, and the credibility of the IAEA and personal director and the credibility of the NPT regime are now under serious challenge, a point that Democrats and Republicans in the Capitol should present to Grossi on his upcoming visit to the US.
If Biden makes the same mistake for the fourth time, he alone will be responsible for the continuation, a green light for nuclear escalation. It's time to turn the bowl upside down. In coordination with the Allies in Europe, the administration should request an immediate special meeting of the board, which will determine that Iran is responsible for pursuing an illegal nuclear policy.
Biden and his advisers must internalize that after more than eight months of wasting U.S. economic leverage, along with a significant increase in Iranian leverage, Mali's advice does not lead back to a longer or stronger deal or deal, but to something much worse, known as "less for less." "B will provide" partial "relief in sanctions against" partial "nuclear concessions. This may sound tempting, but it does mean that for a regime with limited financial resources, the partial easing of sanctions is the result of Iran objects. This will allow them to continue their terrorist support activities around the world, while at the same time establishing their nuclear progress as a basis for future negotiations.
The status quo is unbearable, but a return to the very flawed agreement - some of which is about to expire - or to a worse "less for less" deal are not acceptable.
Baiden has one good option: to re-establish a coalition that is willing to exert economic and political pressure, along with credible and lasting military deterrence, to force Iran to meet its commitments to the NPT and negotiate a better, longer and stronger deal.
China and Russia will complain along the way, let them.
They will not be able to stop a coalition of the United States and its allies. Nor can they stop the IAEA's appeal to the Moabit and UN sanctions.
The Biden administration likes to say that the American leadership in multilateral institutions, such as the IAEA, is "back." The world will watch Vienna in the coming weeks to see if this is really true.