I've followed the nuclear negotiations across 3 US & 3 Iranian administrations, been on the ground at multiple negotiation rounds, and written more reports pre- and post-JCPOA than I care to tally.
Based on that, some modest thoughts on where we stand. [Thread]
The deal's demise was predicted or pronounced from the day it was reached: It wouldn't survive because Iranians would cheat. It couldn't survive because Trump's withdrawal would doom it. And now, it won't survive - or is already dead - because negotiations have stalled. 2/
Why? Tehran believes the U.S. won't/can't deliver on the sanctions relief the deal envisions. That continued escalation could leverage greater concessions. And that having survived the worst of max pressure, their economy can muddle through even without those benefits. 3/
هرچقدر پیروزی ابراهیم رئیسی در انتخابات کمرونق ۱۴۰۰ بیچالش بود، دوران ریاست جمهوری وی احتمالاً پر فراز و نشیب خواهد بود. گروه بحران در گزارش «معمای رئیسی» نگاهی انداخته به روند انتخابات و مشکلات عدیده پیش روی رئیسی در داخل و خارج. #رشتو crisisgroup.org/fa/middle-east…
۲/ پیروزی رئیسی حاصل انتخاباتی غیرآزاد و به شکل بیسابقهای غیررقابتی، نرخ مشارکت کمتر از ۵۰٪ و آرا باطله ۳.۷ میلیونی بود. برای نظام نه مشروعیت ناشی از مشارکت بالا، بلکه نتیجه انتخابات اولویت داشت تا حضور اصولگرایان در تمام مراکز اصلی انتصابی و انتخابی قدرت مقدر شود.
۳/ اشتغال، تورم، همهگیری کرونا، تظاهراتهای مردمی و صنفی صرفاً بخشی از مسائلی است که دولت رئیسی با آن روبروست. هنوز معلوم نیست که آیا حاکمیت یک دست، با پایگاه اجتماعی ۳۰ درصدی، قادر به رفع مشکلات کشور خواهد بود یا خیر.
Raisi took office as Iran's 8th president.
Marked by a reputation for repression, bereft of experience in governance, facing growing internal & external challenges, there will no honeymoon for the deep state's groomed choice.
Our new report explains 🧵: crisisgroup.org/middle-east-no…
2| With Raisi's installation, hardliners control all IRI's elected & unelected institutions. His path was paved by an election that was unfree, unfair and - even by Iranian standards - uncompetitive.
How uncompetitive? If spoiled ballots were a candidate, they'd have come 2nd.
3| Why was the system willing to sacrifice elections, which it claims as pillar of its popular legitimacy, for a non-race? Because it's wagered that closing ranks at time of uncertainty is a price worth paying - especially if it shores up 30% of Iranians backing conservatives.
Senior Israeli official tells @Reuters: "1 of the problems w/ the [JCPOA] is that it left Iran w/ a nuclear infrastructure in place which allows it - at a point of its choosing - to move ahead relatively rapidly... JCPOA puts infrastructure in the freezer or in mothballs".
2| Here's the thing: at no recent point has total denial of infrastructure been serious possibility, neither thru negotiations nor sabotage. JCPOA worked - and senior Israeli mil/intel officials noted this - bc mothballs, freezers are solid non-proliferation gains, undone now.
3| Don't take my word for it. Here's the recently-retired head of Mossad just last month [via @TimesofIsrael]
In the aftermath of the Natanz attack, Iranian hardliners are busy spilling all sorts of beans around intelligence & security. The best you can say is giving an impression that's anywhere from indiscreet to incompetent. [Thread]
2| First there's @arzakani4, perhaps best known for gloating about Iran controlling 4 Arab capitals in 2014 and giving every critic who overstates Iranian regional influence a footnote citation. bit.ly/3scyhgE
3| In an interview, he revealed that the explosion in Natanz last July was done with 300 lbs of explosives that were built into a centrifuge calibration working station that Iran had sent to Europe for repairs. It was detonated remotely by satellite.
I have nothing but respect for the @WSJ reporting team - @laurnorman, @SuneEngel and others are among the best in the game.
But goodness me does the Ed Board get it wrong. [thread 🧵] on.wsj.com/2PTerKs
2/ From day US left JCPOA, few major papers have as loudly & consistently banged max pressure drum.
"Prudence... suggests a wait-and-see attitude toward Mr Trump’s reversal", they said that May. "A year from now, the world may be safer without it".
Narrator: It wasn't.
3/ From the outset, today's editorial predictably uses the JCPOA critics' adjectives of choice - flawed, bad - to say we're going "back to the future of 2015-16".
I dunno, from a non-proliferation standpoint, that's not so shabby.