It’s Trump vs. Everyone Else on Iran at the UN

0
344
It’s Trump vs. Everyone Else on Iran at the UN


Krishnadev Calamur

Carlos Barria / Reuters

President Donald Trump decried Tuesday what he called Iran’s “brutal” regime and said the multilateral nuclear agreement with the Islamic Republic provided its leaders with a “windfall” they’re using to “sow chaos, death, and disruption.”

“We cannot allow the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism to possess the planet’s most dangerous weapons,” Trump told the United Nations General Assembly. “We cannot allow a regime that chants ‘Death to America’ and threatens Israel with annihilation; they cannot possess the means to deliver a nuclear warhead to any city on Earth. We just cannot do it. We ask all nations to isolate Iran’s regime as long as its aggression continues, and we ask all nations to support Iran’s people as they struggle to reclaim their religious and righteous destiny.”

The U.S. might have to wait. Trump’s remarks came a day after the European Union and other signatories to the nuclear agreement announced a new mechanism to effectively bypass U.S. sanctions. The announcement, which at the moment is mostly symbolic, represents the chipping away at the U.S. sanctions regime by arguably its most important ally. It also represents a temporary political victory for Hassan Rouhani, the Iranian president, who has been vilified at home for, in the view of his political rivals, giving away the country’s nuclear program with nothing to show for it. Perhaps most significantly, it represents another rupture in U.S.-EU relations that have already been hurt by the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris climate accord, Trump’s questioning of the U.S. commitment toNATO, and his imposition of steel and aluminum tariffs on the bloc. Trump’s remarks on Iran merely highlighted the growing divisions in the transatlantic alliance.

Iran’s economy is struggling even without U.S. sanctions.

“In practical terms, this will mean that EU member states will set up a legal entity to facilitate legitimate financial transactions with Iran, and this will allow European companies to continue to trade with Iran in accordance with European Union law and could be open to other partners in the world,” Federica Mogherini, the EU’s foreign-policy chief, said after she met with foreign ministers from China, France, Iran, Germany, Russia, and the U.K. at the UN, where world leaders are gathering for the annual General Assembly. She added that technical experts from the remaining states will now meet to make the “special-purpose vehicle” a reality. Any such mechanism will likely be ready before November 4, when the oil-related U.S. sanctions on Iran go into effect. But the move will be unable to prevent the U.S. Treasury Department from sanctioning the acquisition of Iranian oil, an act that itself violates U.S. law.   

said on Twitter that the EU announcement was unlikely to prevent the sanctioning of firms that trade with Iran. “And its [sic] why payment systems aren’t enough,” he wrote. “If the EU and others are to succeed, they need companies prepared to be sanctioned. Most majors won’t be. I believe that … [small and medium enterprises] might, if properly incentivized. That’s what this effort—among others—is intended to do.”

Robert Malley, who was the lead White House negotiator of the Iran nuclear agreement, said Monday on a conference call with reporters that the U.S. and Europe clearly disagree on this issue, and it will be up to the U.S. to determine “if they really want to punish the Europeans after they devise the mechanism that in theory would be immune from U.S. sanctions.” He said the U.S. determination will be made “based on the totality of the relationship with Europe.”

U.S. participation in the JCPOA, which was negotiated by the Obama administration, was on deathwatch the moment Trump won the 2016 election. Trump had railed against the accord, calling it the “worst deal in history.” Critics of the agreement said it gave Iran too many incentives while merely freezing but not eliminating its nuclear program. Supporters of the JCPOA reject this claim. Moreover, the critics of the deal say, it did nothing to address Iran’s problematic policies in the Middle East, its threats to Israel, and its ballistic-missile programs. The accord’s supporters said the JCPOA was intended solely to eliminate the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program, and that those other issues, while significant, could be dealt with in the future.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

Krishnadev Calamur

is a staff writer at

The Atlantic,

where he covers global news. He is a former editor and reporter at NPR and the author of

Murder in Mumbai

.

Read More

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here