...
By Tom O'Connor
Deputy Editor, National Security and Foreign Policy
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
The latest eruption of unrest in the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran has pushed President Donald Trump to consider scrapping a memorandum of understanding (MoU) reached weeks ago as a means of advancing peace with the Islamic Republic.
The MoU saw some initial success in alleviating some of the most urgent pressure points faced by Washington and Tehran, namely by lifting dueling blockades of the Strait of Hormuz energy trade choke point and extending a ceasefire announced in the sixth week of the conflict on April 7.
But the deal reached on June 17 left core issues on the table to be negotiated in follow-up talks that have yet to be resolved as mutual mistrust prevails and both parties dispute the content of their arrangement.
Read More
Trump Calls Strikes on Iran ‘Retribution,’ Issues New Threat13 min read
Trump Spurns Europe and Israel to Embrace A Rising NATO Ally in Middle East7 min read
How Iran Built One of Modern Warfare’s Most Effective Weapons9 min read
"The MoU deferred some of the most contentious issues between the U.S. and Iran—including the nuclear file—while prioritizing an easing of economic disruption," Naysan Rafati, Iran senior analyst at the International Crisis Group, told Newsweek.
"In principle, that's a reasonable approach," Rafati said. "In practice, it risks dueling interpretations of what's been agreed and multiple points of failure."
...
Remembering the JCPOA
The Trump administration's efforts to secure a deal with Iran have drawn comparisons to former President Barack Obama's successful negotiating of the nuclear deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in July 2015. The deal lifted sanctions against Tehran in exchange for comprehensive curbs on its nuclear program but was scrapped by Trump during his first term in May 2018.
As the 11th anniversary of the JCPOA signing looms next week, the MoU appears to be headed toward a similar fate. Yet the two agreements differ substantially.
"The JCPOA was a granular but mostly single-issue agreement," Rafati said. "It focused on a core bargain of nuclear restrictions for sanctions relief."
"That it took years of intense negotiations to complete underscores the challenge in striking a broader understanding that not only addresses proliferation concerns, but also covers regional issues, all against the backdrop of deep mistrust, fitful engagement and the specter of renewed hostilities," he added.
Unlike the MoU arranged in relative haste in the throes of conflict, the JCPOA also secured the backing of major powers, including China, France, Germany, Russia and the United Kingdom. Only Israel openly opposed the deal, as it has the MoU, while Arab states in the Persian Gulf region, then skeptical of the JCPOA, are now pushing for a new agreement after coming under direct Iranian attack.
But while the JCPOA was broadly hailed as a triumph of diplomacy in the face of conservative critics in both Washington and Tehran, its steady collapse since the U.S. exit has only emboldened hard-line skeptics.
"In addition to addressing the nuclear proliferation threat posed by Iran, the JCPOA showed that Iran and the U.S. could reach a mutually satisfactory solution over real issues by diplomacy," Alan Eyre, a former U.S. State Department official who served on the JCPOA negotiating team, told Newsweek.
"Conversely, President Trump's 2018 unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA showed, to Iran at least, that U.S. commitments achieved through diplomacy cannot be trusted, which makes any subsequent bilateral negotiations that much harder," Eyre said.
...
How the MoU Collapsed
Suspicions toward U.S. commitments has been persistently broadcast by Iranian analysts, even as they portrayed the MoU as a sign of Iran's successful leverage in the face of an existential threat.
Some argued that, without a final deal, Iran may cede its position of strength, much as it did upon refusing an initial ceasefire plan during an advantageous phase of the Iran-Iraq War in 1987.
The vagueness of the MoU has ultimately proved to be its greatest vulnerability, with the U.S. and Iran in dispute over clauses on key issues like the release of billions of dollars of frozen Iranian assets, the call for a parallel ceasefire between Israel and the Iran-aligned Hezbollah movement in Lebanon, the degree to which Iran would retain some degree of control over Strait of Hormuz traffic and the U.S. pledge to withdraw troops from the Islamic Republic's immediate proximity.
And with little movement on any of these fronts, intermittent clashes continued. A potentially decisive moment came Tuesday when three tankers transiting the Strait of Hormuz were attacked and, while Iranian officials have not claimed direct responsibility, they have argued that the vessels were operating without transponders via unauthorized maritime routes.
Following a new round of U.S. strikes that Central Command (CENTCOM) claimed to hit more than 80 military targets, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) announced operations allegedly targeting 85 U.S. military facilities in the region.
Trump, currently attending a NATO summit in Turkey, warned Wednesday that the U.S. would "probably hit them hard again tonight," and may even opt to "just finish the job."
New strikes were reportedly shortly thereafter in Iran's southern coastal province of Bandar Abbas.
...
Forecasting More Failure Ahead
But the U.S. path to a decisive victory remains unclear, and Trump himself acknowledged that he did not anticipate a prolonged conflict—one that could come to hurt Republicans' prospects in the upcoming midterm elections.
The killing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who is set to be buried following a massive five-day funeral procession, and destruction of significant Iranian military capabilities in the opening stages of the war displayed U.S.-Israeli military superiority.
Yet the struggle to capitalize on these initial wins in the face of a deeply entrenched Islamic Republic capable of imposing costs on both U.S. partners in the region and global energy markets wreaking havoc on public opinion toward an already unpopular conflict has exposed Washington's vulnerabilities as well.
These vulnerabilities served as a key factor in the White House's push to secure the MoU in the first place.
"The U.S. administration entered into the MoU when it realized US/Israel military success alone had been insufficient to achieve its strategic goals and even worse, had caused Iran to shut down the Strait of Hormuz," Eyre said. "In short, it entered the MoU to re-open the SoH, even though it meant 'kicking the nuclear can down the road.'"
"The MoU was in essence a belated but realization of the significant strategic blunder the U.S. made when starting a war on Iran," Eyre said.
In the weeks since its signing, the strategic situation has changed little and hopes for a lasting peace agreement have only faded.
"The current U.S. goals are to cut its losses and get maritime traffic through SoH back to, or at least close to, pre-war levels," Eyre said. "The primary Iran goals are to re-establish strategic deterrence by establishing operational control of the SoH, so as to decrease the possibility of future attacks."
"It is highly unlikely Iran and the U.S. will reach any type of nuclear agreement."
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines