Iran lobby gets excited over nothing

The State Department officially notified Congress on Wednesday that Iran has met all its commitments under the Obama-negotiated nuclear agreement.  The certification is required every 90 days, and the previous administration dutifully rubber-stamped it each time.

What was unusual is that this approval was the first under the Trump administration and was being closely watched by regime supporters and foes alike.  The decision to provide the approval was being loudly hailed and trumpeted by the Iran lobby, especially the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), a known pro-Iran lobby, as a sign that the nuclear deal is working and that even U.S. president Donald Trump has to admit it.

In the immortal words of ESPN college football analyst Lee Corso, "Not so fast, my friend!"

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the nuclear deal has failed to squash Iran's ability and determination to develop atomic weapons, arguing that the country's ambitions still threaten international peace and security, according to the Washington Post.

"An unchecked Iran has the potential to follow the same path as North Korea and take the world along with it," Tillerson said in remarks to reporters in the formal setting of the State Department's Treaty Room.  "The United States is keen to avoid a second piece of evidence that strategic patience is a failed approach."

The White House has decided to conduct a top-to-bottom review of its Iran policy, including an evaluation of the deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.  To this end, the granting of approval was a pro forma act and means relatively little moving forward.

"With this certification, President Trump must now uphold the United States' obligations and renew the sanctions waivers," said NIAC president Trita Parsit.  "If not, Trump will place the U.S. in violation of its commitments and be responsible for unilaterally killing the nuclear deal."

Parsit is correct in saying President Trump can effectively kill the Iran nuclear deal in a heartbeat by not renewing sanction waivers granted by the Obama administration.  However, he misses the entire point of the Trump administration's review, aimed at finally tying together all of Iran's actions in areas such as human rights, support for terrorism, and active military campaigns against its neighbors.

This was the crucial missing link in the Obama administration's approach to Iran, willing to excuse Iran on a number of issues and delink the regime from the agreement.

Support the Assad regime as it drops chemical weapons on civilians?  Not a problem.

Busy executing thousands of Iranian citizens and political dissidents?  Go for it.

Allowing the beating and mistreatment of Iranian women for violations of moral codes, and deny them education and job opportunities?  Okay by us.

The effort to appease the regime only enabled and emboldened the mullahs, and now the Trump administration has to do the heavy lifting and hard work the Obama administration couldn't and wouldn't do, which is why this review will be so critical.

In a slap at the Obama administration that negotiated alongside the P5+1 for the deal, Tillerson said, "The Trump administration has no intention of passing the buck to a future administration on Iran."

Congress has introduced bills extending U.S. sanctions against Iran related to its alleged support of terrorism, human rights violations, and missile tests.  Lawmakers have put the legislation on pause, however, because of the impact the bills could have on Iran's presidential election scheduled for next month.

  • Should the U.S. confront Iran directly by using military force against proxies such as the Lebanese Hezb'allah and Afghan mercenaries in Syria?
  • Should Washington re-impose a broad swath of sanctions on Iran and target the commercial enterprises of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)?
  • Should the Trump administration affirmatively embrace and recognize Iranian dissident groups, such as the National Council of Resistance of Iran, and focus efforts on their inclusion back into Iran?

All these questions and more will have to be part of the White House review.

The administration is inclined to adopt a "more rigorous application of the tools at its disposal," a senior White House official told Foreign Policy, referring to sanctions policy.  Among the options under consideration: broadening U.S. sanctions to include much larger chunks of the Iranian economy linked to the IRGC.

In his remarks, Tillerson focused not only on the nuclear deal, but also on what he called Iran's "alarming and ongoing provocations that export terror and violence."

He specifically cited Iran's support for Syrian president Bashar Assad and Houthi rebels in Yemen, as well as hostility to Israel, the harassment of U.S. naval vessels plying the Persian Gulf, and cyber-attacks targeting the United States and its Gulf allies.

"Iran spends its treasure and time disrupting peace," he said.

Time is of the essence, considering the upcoming April 25 meeting between Iran and the P5+1 in Vienna for a quarterly review of the accord.

But President Trump doesn't have to tear up the deal to tighten the screws on Iran.  The agreement, which is not a treaty, provides broad leeway to signatory governments in interpreting its terms, and the Trump White House is mulling taking a much more forceful stance on enforcing the deal to the letter.

There are already signs that the Trump administration is using existing legal authorities in a more forceful manner than its predecessor.  Last Thursday, the Treasury Department imposed sanctions on Sohrab Soleimani, the brother of IRGC Quds Force chief Qassem Suleimani, for his role in abuses in Iran's prisons.  And in February, the Treasury Department also blacklisted eight IRGC-linked organizations, including an official based in Lebanon.

At the end of the review, the question of whether or not to keep the nuclear agreement may be centered not exactly on the agreement itself, but rather on whether or not the cost of keeping the pact intact is too high a price compared to the cost of not containing Iran as it expands into Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen, along with new threats to Bahrain and other Gulf states.

The State Department officially notified Congress on Wednesday that Iran has met all its commitments under the Obama-negotiated nuclear agreement.  The certification is required every 90 days, and the previous administration dutifully rubber-stamped it each time.

What was unusual is that this approval was the first under the Trump administration and was being closely watched by regime supporters and foes alike.  The decision to provide the approval was being loudly hailed and trumpeted by the Iran lobby, especially the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), a known pro-Iran lobby, as a sign that the nuclear deal is working and that even U.S. president Donald Trump has to admit it.

In the immortal words of ESPN college football analyst Lee Corso, "Not so fast, my friend!"

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the nuclear deal has failed to squash Iran's ability and determination to develop atomic weapons, arguing that the country's ambitions still threaten international peace and security, according to the Washington Post.

"An unchecked Iran has the potential to follow the same path as North Korea and take the world along with it," Tillerson said in remarks to reporters in the formal setting of the State Department's Treaty Room.  "The United States is keen to avoid a second piece of evidence that strategic patience is a failed approach."

The White House has decided to conduct a top-to-bottom review of its Iran policy, including an evaluation of the deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.  To this end, the granting of approval was a pro forma act and means relatively little moving forward.

"With this certification, President Trump must now uphold the United States' obligations and renew the sanctions waivers," said NIAC president Trita Parsit.  "If not, Trump will place the U.S. in violation of its commitments and be responsible for unilaterally killing the nuclear deal."

Parsit is correct in saying President Trump can effectively kill the Iran nuclear deal in a heartbeat by not renewing sanction waivers granted by the Obama administration.  However, he misses the entire point of the Trump administration's review, aimed at finally tying together all of Iran's actions in areas such as human rights, support for terrorism, and active military campaigns against its neighbors.

This was the crucial missing link in the Obama administration's approach to Iran, willing to excuse Iran on a number of issues and delink the regime from the agreement.

Support the Assad regime as it drops chemical weapons on civilians?  Not a problem.

Busy executing thousands of Iranian citizens and political dissidents?  Go for it.

Allowing the beating and mistreatment of Iranian women for violations of moral codes, and deny them education and job opportunities?  Okay by us.

The effort to appease the regime only enabled and emboldened the mullahs, and now the Trump administration has to do the heavy lifting and hard work the Obama administration couldn't and wouldn't do, which is why this review will be so critical.

In a slap at the Obama administration that negotiated alongside the P5+1 for the deal, Tillerson said, "The Trump administration has no intention of passing the buck to a future administration on Iran."

Congress has introduced bills extending U.S. sanctions against Iran related to its alleged support of terrorism, human rights violations, and missile tests.  Lawmakers have put the legislation on pause, however, because of the impact the bills could have on Iran's presidential election scheduled for next month.

  • Should the U.S. confront Iran directly by using military force against proxies such as the Lebanese Hezb'allah and Afghan mercenaries in Syria?
  • Should Washington re-impose a broad swath of sanctions on Iran and target the commercial enterprises of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)?
  • Should the Trump administration affirmatively embrace and recognize Iranian dissident groups, such as the National Council of Resistance of Iran, and focus efforts on their inclusion back into Iran?

All these questions and more will have to be part of the White House review.

The administration is inclined to adopt a "more rigorous application of the tools at its disposal," a senior White House official told Foreign Policy, referring to sanctions policy.  Among the options under consideration: broadening U.S. sanctions to include much larger chunks of the Iranian economy linked to the IRGC.

In his remarks, Tillerson focused not only on the nuclear deal, but also on what he called Iran's "alarming and ongoing provocations that export terror and violence."

He specifically cited Iran's support for Syrian president Bashar Assad and Houthi rebels in Yemen, as well as hostility to Israel, the harassment of U.S. naval vessels plying the Persian Gulf, and cyber-attacks targeting the United States and its Gulf allies.

"Iran spends its treasure and time disrupting peace," he said.

Time is of the essence, considering the upcoming April 25 meeting between Iran and the P5+1 in Vienna for a quarterly review of the accord.

But President Trump doesn't have to tear up the deal to tighten the screws on Iran.  The agreement, which is not a treaty, provides broad leeway to signatory governments in interpreting its terms, and the Trump White House is mulling taking a much more forceful stance on enforcing the deal to the letter.

There are already signs that the Trump administration is using existing legal authorities in a more forceful manner than its predecessor.  Last Thursday, the Treasury Department imposed sanctions on Sohrab Soleimani, the brother of IRGC Quds Force chief Qassem Suleimani, for his role in abuses in Iran's prisons.  And in February, the Treasury Department also blacklisted eight IRGC-linked organizations, including an official based in Lebanon.

At the end of the review, the question of whether or not to keep the nuclear agreement may be centered not exactly on the agreement itself, but rather on whether or not the cost of keeping the pact intact is too high a price compared to the cost of not containing Iran as it expands into Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen, along with new threats to Bahrain and other Gulf states.

RECENT VIDEOS