New York Times: Iran Will Never Capitulate
WASHINGTON (Dispatches) -- In 2018, the Trump administration unilaterally withdrew from a nuclear agreement, convinced that a new set of far more oppressive sanctions would cripple Iran enough to humiliate it into accepting new terms more favorable to the United States, "but President Donald Trump’s gambit failed”, the New York Times says.
The new sanctions prompted the Iranian government to restart nuclear work that it had given up. Other nations, including China, which worked closely with the United States and European powers to forge the nuclear deal with Iran, have grown weary of U.S. unilateralism and could resume doing business with Iran, one way or another, the paper added.
Republicans like Elliott Abrams, who served as Trump’s special representative for Iran, as well as Democrats like Bob Menendez signed a recent letter from 43 senators that calls for sanctions to be kept in place until another agreement can be reached that puts deeper restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program, its ballistic missiles program and its support for resistance movements in the region.
"That letter is more of a wish list than a starting point for talks. If Iran was inclined to capitulate to those American demands, it would have done so long ago,” the Times said.
"At this point, the hard-line approach defies common sense. If the United States refuses to honor the first agreement, why would Iranians ever trust it to honor a second?” it added.
The uncomfortable truth is that "maximum pressure” sanctions are unsustainable, according to the Times. "They haven’t changed Iranian behavior for the better. Quite the opposite,” it said.
Under the nuclear deal, the paper said, Iran was allowed to enrich uranium up to a purity of 3.67 percent, far below weapons grade. It is now enriching up to 20 percent purity. Under the nuclear deal, Iran was limited to 202.8 kilograms of uranium. It is now estimated to have stockpiled three tons.
"Under the nuclear deal, international inspectors were also allowed to investigate every inch of Iran’s nuclear fuel cycle with little advance notice. Now, inspectors have been notified that they will lose that kind of access. In May, unless the nuclear deal is revived, international inspectors will lose visibility on what’s happening inside Iran’s nuclear sites. That status quo is not static,” the paper said.
The Times also touched on U.S. Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew’s warning in 2016 that overuse of financial sanctions could backfire badly.
"If other countries tire of the U.S. threat to punish banks and businesses around the world that do business with Iran, they could begin to seek alternatives to the U.S. financial system. Not only will U.S. sanctions lose their power, but the centrality of American banks and the dollar’s status as the world’s dominant reserve currency could also begin to erode,” it said.
"We’re starting to see glimpses of what can happen if sanctions remain for too long. China’s recent announcement of a plan to invest $400 billion in Iran’s oil, gas and transportation infrastructure in exchange for oil is a sign that China and Russia won’t abide by such onerous restrictions forever.”
The new sanctions prompted the Iranian government to restart nuclear work that it had given up. Other nations, including China, which worked closely with the United States and European powers to forge the nuclear deal with Iran, have grown weary of U.S. unilateralism and could resume doing business with Iran, one way or another, the paper added.
Republicans like Elliott Abrams, who served as Trump’s special representative for Iran, as well as Democrats like Bob Menendez signed a recent letter from 43 senators that calls for sanctions to be kept in place until another agreement can be reached that puts deeper restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program, its ballistic missiles program and its support for resistance movements in the region.
"That letter is more of a wish list than a starting point for talks. If Iran was inclined to capitulate to those American demands, it would have done so long ago,” the Times said.
"At this point, the hard-line approach defies common sense. If the United States refuses to honor the first agreement, why would Iranians ever trust it to honor a second?” it added.
The uncomfortable truth is that "maximum pressure” sanctions are unsustainable, according to the Times. "They haven’t changed Iranian behavior for the better. Quite the opposite,” it said.
Under the nuclear deal, the paper said, Iran was allowed to enrich uranium up to a purity of 3.67 percent, far below weapons grade. It is now enriching up to 20 percent purity. Under the nuclear deal, Iran was limited to 202.8 kilograms of uranium. It is now estimated to have stockpiled three tons.
"Under the nuclear deal, international inspectors were also allowed to investigate every inch of Iran’s nuclear fuel cycle with little advance notice. Now, inspectors have been notified that they will lose that kind of access. In May, unless the nuclear deal is revived, international inspectors will lose visibility on what’s happening inside Iran’s nuclear sites. That status quo is not static,” the paper said.
The Times also touched on U.S. Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew’s warning in 2016 that overuse of financial sanctions could backfire badly.
"If other countries tire of the U.S. threat to punish banks and businesses around the world that do business with Iran, they could begin to seek alternatives to the U.S. financial system. Not only will U.S. sanctions lose their power, but the centrality of American banks and the dollar’s status as the world’s dominant reserve currency could also begin to erode,” it said.
"We’re starting to see glimpses of what can happen if sanctions remain for too long. China’s recent announcement of a plan to invest $400 billion in Iran’s oil, gas and transportation infrastructure in exchange for oil is a sign that China and Russia won’t abide by such onerous restrictions forever.”