The future of global non-proliferation regime has always remained dependant on the ongoing politics between states. An undeniable combination of violent politics con-structed on political inflexibilities of states and consistently emerging incompatible behaviours of leaders always hindered the scope of global non-proliferation regime. Such trends are persistently occurring in the nuclear politics where leading state officials remain less reluctant in giving up their uncompromising attitude. There are several evidences to study the changing dynamics of nuclear politics parallel to the changing behaviours of leaders. The recent case of the United States-Iran nuclear deal and its breakup is a case in point in which President Trump decided to alter the position of Washington on the Iranian nuclear program.
The 45th President of United State of America, Donald Trump decided to change the fate of his nation by departing form a decision taken by his predecessor. On the issues of foreign policy, he introduced an updated and improved version of maintaining foreign relations. This new format of American foreign policy under the Trump administration decided to revise various decision taken by previous regimes. The withdrawal from Paris Agreement on the global climate change agenda and removal of United States from trade negotiations under Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) along with the rejection of Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) were the leading decisions taken by Trump. This article is designed to study the JCPOA’s case by examining the main driving forces which neutralized the nuclear deal between two states. There are several points parallel to the breakup of the nuclear deal which pulled out Washington and Tehran from a diplomatic cooperation constructed on a nuclear agreement.
The JCPOA is commonly known as the nuclear deal with Iran which was signed in July 2015 at Vienna. A group of states including five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (P 5) along with Germany and the European Union (EU) convinced Iran on a historical nuclear deal which was based on an interim agreement between Washington and Tehran in November 2013. The deal compelled leaders from both sides to initiate cooperative relations by ceasing their long-term hostile interaction. Apparently it was an agreement between two states but practically it changed the course of history by improving the foreign relations of both nations. Besides the Iranian and American citizens, the people around the globe appreciated this positive change between Washington and Tehran. Moreover, the deal was considered to be a commendable achievement of inter national non-proliferation regime, because Iranian officials agreed to alter their traditional stance over their nuclear program. Tehran also agreed to give access of its nuclear facilities to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In response to such flexible Iranian behaviour, the international community agreed to reform Tehran’s economic position by ceasing economic sanctions. A relief in sanctions allowed various western nations to establish eco nomic ties with Iran. Before analysing the case of the nuclear breakup between United States and Iran, it is essential to understand the overall hostile environment which emerged gradually and eventually ended on America ‘s withdrawal from nuclear agreement.
The Trump administration initially showed its hawkish attitude by signing of Executive Order 13769 which is commonly known as travel ban. Under the Executive Order 13769 (titled: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States) the Department of Homeland Security (OHS) included Iran in the list of countries which are not allowed to send their citizens to the United States. In order to rationalize this decision, the Trump administration cited various security concerns in January 2017. More determinations for standing against Iran revealed other foreign policy decisions when President Trump fostered Washington’s foreign relations with the Gulf States generally and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) particularly. Leading state officials under Obama administration had agreed to support KSA in its intervention in Yemeni conflict. Riyadh’s determination for supporting Yemen government by creating an alliance of African and Middle Eastern states received American support. In 2015, Saudi government announced its support to President of Yemen, Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi against Houthi militant movement Ansar Allah. The Houthi Shia-led movement is allegedly receiving financial and strategic support from Iran. Saudi and American governments have sever al times raised concerns of Iranian support to Houthi militants, these were denied by Tehran.
President Obama activated Washington’s support to the KSA by authorizing the US forces to provide logistic assistance to Riyadh against Houthis. Further American moves resulted in an establishment of American forces “Joint Planning Cell” with their Saudi counterparts for close coordination of military and intelligence services. The Trump administration added fuel to the fire by augmenting Washington’s support to Riyadh in its Yemini intervention. Trump additionally signed historical arms deal of $110 billion with Saudi Arabia. In March 2017, a landmark development between Washington and Riyadh diplomatic relations witnessed an arms agreement which included the sale of upgraded weapons to KSA. The arms deal was an active part of Riyadh Summit where meetings of President Trump with leading state authorities from KSA and other Arab countries-mainly the members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) took place.
Further changes in the American Greater Middle Eastern policy annoyed Iranian officials. Exclusively, an enhanced format of US-Israel relations raised Iranian anxieties exclusively in May 2017 when Trump proclaimed internationally that he is a big fan of Israel. At the same time, Trump tried to ensure the neutrality of United States in the Israel-Palestine negotiations. Later on, Trump regime categorically accepted Jerusalem as a capital of Israel which not only angered Muslim states including Iran, but also triggered a reaction from international community. In order to further isolate Iran in the world politics, Washington planned to unilaterally withdrew from JCPOA which was recognised as positive development by Jewish leaders of Knesset.
In view of abovementioned factors, the diplomatic gulf between Washington and Tehran compelled representatives of both nations to resume their traditional toxic inter action. which in fact was started from the American side under Trump. On May 08, 2018, Donald Trump announced his decision of pulling his country from the nuclear deal with Iran. In a White House address the plan of re-imposing economic sanctions on Tehran’s oil sector was publicized. The sanctions had been lifted as the part of nuclear agreement, but this was considered an American violation of the deal. President Trump said “We cannot prevent an Iranian bomb under the decaying and rotten structure of the current agreement,” he further explained his position by saying “I am announcing today that the United States will withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal.”
No doubt, the Iranian government was complying with the deal by dismantling a huge part of its nuclear program in addition to pro viding IAEA’s inspectors’ access to its nuclear facilities, but Tehran was unable to uphold America ‘s expected satisfactory levels. The nuclear deal scrapped by Trump effected the worldwide scope of non-proliferation campaign. The promotion of non-proliferation efforts around the globe primarily was designed to stop the spread of nuclear weapons in the international system. The deal was seen as an appreciable achievement because it forced Tehran to control its nuclear dream by reducing the stockpile of enriched uranium by 97 percent. It stopped Iran from operating its Arak facility which was used to make plutonium that fuel a nuclear bomb. Additionally, it permitted the IAEA to play its investigatory role effectively by inspecting Iranian nuclear sites. In these circumstances, it is impossible to visualize a nuclear Iran equipped with nuclear armed. In short, it was extremely difficult for Iran to build a nuclear bomb in the presence of a nuclear deal designed by United States and negotiated by its P 5, plus Germany and EU.
The Trump administration failed to rationalize the decision of with drawing from nuclear deal. Neither President Trump, nor his allies sup porting his decision (mainly Israel and Saudi Arabia) were successful in finding any evidence regarding Iran’s violations of deal. Washington’s observations behind the denial of deal was based on two points. First of all, American officials were anxious about the scope of their cooperation with Iran, because the deal was lacking a permanent foundation. It was a temporary agreement and the phase of relaxation of economic sanctions was for ten years after the signing of deal. Secondly, various issues relevant to Iran besides its nuclear program were real worries of United States. Tehran’s ballistic missile program and its sup port to various militant groups and smooth working in the Middle East were the main security concerns of Washington. So, the Trump administration decided to act by not com promising everything on nuclear deal. It was observed by Washington that the nuclear deal signed between two-sided state officials did not resolve all the problems between Washington and Tehran. The nuclear deal is designed to exclusively cover the nuclear portion by leaving rest of the issues resolved.
Such moves of the United States under Trump administration enhanced Washington ‘s role in the Muslim world, but it left worst impacts on Iran which is expected to be a nuclear power in future. The withdrawal from nuclear pact is a part of American geo-strategic calculation of Middle Eastern region which will definitely serve Washington ‘s greater Middle Eastern policy. The Trump administration will no doubt achieve the desired results by denying the signed nuclear agreement with Iran, but it will leave negative impact on international non-proliferation regime which is primarily designed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Moreover, it will pose a serious question on American nonproliferation campaign and its Middle Eastern directions.
