Marc Simms is an occasional blogger for Proelium Law LLP. Marc holds a MLitt in Terrorism Studies and a Masters in International Relations, both from St Andrews. His particular interests are in emerging international security issues, unconventional warfare and terrorism.
In August, US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, travelled to Vienna to discuss Iran’s nuclear activities with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN-affiliated atomic energy bureau.
In 2015, the P5+1 nations and the European Union finally agreed on a framework to limit Iran’s nuclear activities, over fears that plans for nuclear power may be part of a covert “dual-use” nuclear weapons program. The agreement was preceded by a decade of sanctions imposed by the UN on Iran, which had demanded it halt uranium enrichment programs, prevented the sale of nuclear-related technology and froze overseas assets of the Iranian state for its non-compliance.
Under the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran had limits placed on uranium enrichment capacity, levels and stockpiles of material, would redesign several facilities to prevent weapons-grade material by-products and agreed to monitoring through the IAEA’s procedures. In return, all sanctions on the Iranian state due to its nuclear activities would cease (those sanctions on Iran for sponsorship of international terrorism remain in effect).
A deal not welcomed by all
Despite the deal with Iran being notable in several aspects and generally well-received by the negotiating nations, international community at large and weapons proliferation experts, it was not universally acclaimed. Specifically, the deal has been heavily criticised by the American Republican Party and by the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as well as opposition parties. In particular, during the 2016 Republican primaries, all the standing candidates for Presidential nominee condemned the deal as “flawed” and “dangerous”.
Then nominee Trump was among those critics, saying the deal was suspiciously bad. Since becoming President, Trump’s administration has also imposed sanctions on entities and individuals linked to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and in particular companies linked to missile development. However, the administration did certify that Iran was in compliance with the JCPOA, though it was left until the last minute, causing significant speculation as to whether certification would happen or not.
Uncertainty over US position
Trump has heavily criticised Iran since becoming President while pursuing close relations with Iran’s regional rivals, and it has been reported that appointees in the National Security Council have been pushing for more aggressive actions against the Iranian government and its proxies in Syria – though so far these plans have not convinced National Security Adviser McMasters or Secretary of Defense Matthis, despite the latter’s reputation as an Iran “hawk”.
As such, it is not clear what the US government plans to do as a result of Ambassador Haley’s trip to Vienna. The IAEA will confirm Iran is mostly compliant with the JCPOA, and the areas where it is not compliant are relatively minor within the larger scheme of the agreement. Therefore, if the US was looking for justification to scupper the deal, it will not find it via this meeting.
It is possible that the US may be looking to downgrade the funding it gives to the IAEA. The Trump administration has been keen to reduce the funding it gives to the UN and related agencies, and reducing the money going to the IAEA would impact on its ability to verify Iranian compliance in the future.
Ather the successful launch of a rocket on 27 July 2017, Haley said, “The issue with Iran always comes back to mistrust. Iran’s widespread support for terrorists tells us we can’t trust them. Iran’s breaking its obligation on missile testing tells us we can’t trust them.”
Need advice?
If you’d like further information, or to discuss working with us, please get in touch
