#OTD in 2018, President Trump announced that his administration was withdrawing the U.S. from the Iran nuclear deal.
It was a massive gamble. It was a failed gamble. But should be an instructive gamble. 🧵👇
2/ Trump had criticized the agreement on the campaign trail, but held off for over a year from pulling the plug, in part because senior members of his team believed the deal continued to serve U.S. non-proliferation interests.
3/ In Autumn 2017, Trump refused to certify the agreement - though still holding off withdrawal.
"We will not continue down a path whose predictable conclusion is more violence, more chaos, the very real threat of Iran’s nuclear breakout", he said.
More on that shortly.
4/ By May 2018, and despite months of negotiations with the Europeans that culminated in visits by all three E3 leaders arguing in favour of building on the existing deal rather than jettisoning it entirely, Trump withdrew anyway.
5/ Decision made, the Trump administration proceeded with what came to be known as the "maximum pressure" strategy, primarily associated with restoration of pre-JCPOA sanctions, then their expansion and layering - some 1,500 or so, across every major sector of Iran's economy.
6/ The impact was real. Iran's economy, already blighted by mismanagement and corruption, now saw its trade limited and key exports like oil drop sharply. GDP growth went negative - though by mid-2020 it was stabilizing the tailspin. [@Worldbank]
7/ Now, sanctions are a tool, not an ends. And a few weeks after the U.S. withdrawal, the Trump administration laid out its objectives: Finally, a chance for critics of the JCPOA to deliver the "better deal" they insisted was possible.
Here are those (unmet) demands.
8/ What ensued was predictable: U.S. continued to ratchet up pressure, Iran responded on the nuclear & regional fronts, leading to more pressure, leading to more provocation, leading... well you get the picture. And what off-ramps came were missed. bit.ly/3N1y8rl
9/ Now, let's set aside the fact that not one of these goals were achieved - indeed, in many cases problems were made worse - and focus on the nuclear issue.
For within Trump's big gamble on fixing everything was that one big thing wouldn't change.
It was a very bad call.
10/ The JCPOA is an arms control agreement. It is not based on naivety about other aspects of Iranian policy where concern is shared by European and regional allies, but on prioritization of those concerns where the shadow of a nuclear crisis clouds everything else.
11/ Some, like Trump's NSA, insist that flaw in the policy was that maximum pressure didn't go far enough; that regime change was and is the only real solution.
If you find yourself digging in a hole you've made, stop complaining about the shovel.
12/ In past year, #ViennaTalks have been aimed at triaging the situation by reviving the nuclear deal as a nuclear deal. The logic of this approach, all the more important after Trump's experiment, is that fixing one very big thing - the non-proliferation concern - is critical.
13/ And all the more critical given that over past 3 years, expansion of uranium stockpiles, increase in enrichment rates, deployment of new centrifuges, R&D has put Iran's nuclear program on the cusp of breakout capability [WSJ chart].
14/ If you want to know why this is concerning, let former Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu explain:
15/ Now, the good news is that a year of diplomatic effort have crafted a framework for fixing Trump's folly. It increases inspections, cuts the stockpiles, reduces enrichment rates, and lengthens breakout time. European allies are certainly ready to roll:
16/16 The magic bullet approach of fixing everything has proven magical thinking. Question now is whether Washington & Tehran can overcome remaining obstacles to undo the damage, and do what should have been obvious: a good deal you build on is better than no deal at all.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
When President @realDonaldTrump takes office in January 2025, the #Iran his administration will face will be, relative to four years earlier, weaker on several fronts, and changed on several others. 🧵
2/ Domestically, absence of major protests for ~2 years cannot obscure deep gap between state and society.
Social, cultural, political and economic discontent persist, while government's default remains repression over any meaningful reform to address them.
3/ Regionally, setbacks to Hamas & Hezbollah have weakened parts of IRI "Axis of Resistance", though others continue to pose a threat to Israel/U.S. interests. Meanwhile, prospect of retaliation for Israel's 26 Oct attacks - and counter-strikes in response - remain significant.
With the killing of Hizbollah's leader, Iran & its "Axis of Resistance" have suffered the biggest in a series of setbacks that began mounting late last year. And for the third time since April, what was seen as IRI's regional strengths underscore its strategic vulnerabilities. 🧵
2/ After Hamas's attack on 7 October and the start of Israel's military campaign in Gaza, the "Ring of Fire" approach of mobilizing against Israel on multiple fronts - notably from the north - we started to see a more concerted counter-Axis campaign that had three main elements.
3/ The first was an uptick in operations against IRGC personnel, especially in Syria. That culminated in April with the killing of several senior IRGC commanders, to which Iran responded with an overt and direct military attack against Israel.
For 10 months, the specter of a regional conflict has loomed over the Middle East. Haniyeh's killing in Tehran now threatens to realize a scenario all sides have worked assiduously to avoid: A major multifront showdown b/w the Axis of Resistance and Israel/U.S. 🧵👇
2| Iran likely sees Haniyeh's killing a worse affront than the April strike in Damascus that prompted it to launch a direct aerial assault on Israel. It once again exposed intel lapses, took place on home soil, and targeted a high-level visitor on @drpezeshkian's inauguration.
3| Moreover, it upended any notion of the April exchange having deterred Israel from targeting Iran directly (at the time, Israel responded with a pinpoint strike near a nuclear facility, more to signal vulnerability than inflict damage).
The first round of #Iran's presidential elections created a lose-lose-lose dynamic.
Here is how: 🧵👇🏼
1. The establishment was hoping that by allowing a slightly more competitive election, it could boost turnout and claim that its wounded legitimacy has recovered. The participation rate fell by 8% compared to 2021, marking a real embarrassment for the leadership.
2. The reformists brought out the big guns and tried their best to mobilize their base. Pezeshkian adopted a non-confrontational and traditionalist approach to grab votes from the conservatives. Yes, he ended up leading, but it simply was insufficient.
در دهه گذشته من با اتهامات متعدد و متناقضی روبرو شدهام. از دست نشانده آمریکا تا حامی جمهوری اسلامی تا آلت دست انگلیس. من عموماً به تهمتهای بیاساس که هدفی جز تخریب شخصیت ندارند واکنش نشان نمیدهم.
اما این بار پاسخ میدهم چراکه با سطح سخیفی از روزنامهنگاری مواجه هستیم.
2| من در سال 2012، زمانی که مذاکرات هستهای در حال شکل گیری بود، به گروه بحران پیوستم. آن دوران مصادف شد با فشردهترین و مستمرترین تعاملات دیپلماتیک بین ایران و ایالات متحده در سه دهه گذشته. حضور 5 کشور دیگر و مجموعهای از مسائل بسیار فنی را هم به پیچیدگی قضیه میافزود.
3| در گروه بحران ما همیشه دیدگاههای همه ذینفعان و بازیگران درگیر در یک بحران را - چه آنهایی که با آنها موافقیم و چه آنهایی که با آنها موافق نیستیم - در نظر میگیریم. و این اصل نه تنها در مورد ایران، بلکه در مورد تمام کشورهایی که ما روی آنها کار میکنیم صادق است.
Over the past decade, I've been called an American agent, an Iranian regime sympathizer and a British stooge.
I usually choose to dismiss such defamatory nonsense.
But on this occasion, I'm going to respond, because this is straight up hatchet journalism.
2 | When I joined @CrisisGroup in 2012, it was just as the nuclear negotiations were taking shape - the most sustained, intensive diplomatic engagement between the US & Iran in over three decades. Add to that 5 other nations and a highly technical set of issues.
3| Our analytical work has always been informed by the perspectives of all relevant stakeholders - those with whom we agree, and those with whom we do not. That holds true for each of the conflict situations @CrisisGroup covers, including Iran.