WarSclerotic

Iran wants European powers to present it with measures by the end of May to compensate it for the United States abandoning the 2015 nuclear deal, a senior official said on Friday, and Tehran would decide within weeks whether to quit the accord.

The 2015 agreement between Iran and world powers lifted international sanctions on Tehran in return for it agreeing to curbs on its nuclear program.

Since President Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the deal earlier this month, European powers have been trying to find a way to ensure Iran still receives economic benefits to persuade it to stay in the deal. But that has proven difficult, with European firms frightened away by U.S. sanctions.

Nations that remain in the agreement meet on Friday for the first time since Trump left the pact, but diplomats see limited scope for salvaging it. British, Chinese, French, German and Russian officials will try to flesh out a strategy with Iran’s deputy foreign minister to save the deal by keeping oil and investments flowing.

“I am personally maybe not optimistic but … I am trying my best to come to a conclusion,” a senior Iranian official told reporters ahead of the talks.

EU leaders have united behind the accord, with Brussels working on measures including banning EU-based firms from complying with reimposed U.S. sanctions and urging governments to make money transfers to Iran’s central bank to avoid fines.

“We expect the [economic] package to be given to us by the end of May,” the Iranian official said. “I’m sorry to say that we haven’t [seen] the plan B yet. The plan B has just started to be figured out.”

He said European measures would need to ensure that oil exports did not halt, and that Iran would still have access to the SWIFT international bank payments messaging system.

Washington has threatened not only to reimpose sanctions but to make them even tighter. U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Monday threatened Iran with “the strongest sanctions in history” if it did not change its behavior in the Middle East.

“Pompeo was like taking a cold shower,” said a European diplomat. “We’ll try to cling to the deal, but … we’re under no illusions.”

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei set out conditions on Wednesday for Iran to stay in the deal: Unless Europe guarantees Iran’s oil sales will not be hurt, Tehran would resume enrichment of nuclear material. He also rejected any new negotiations over Iran’s missile program, which was not covered in the nuclear deal and which Iran says it will never give up.

The Iranian official said on Friday: “We don’t have enough time. We expect the [meeting] today to take a unified position against the withdrawal of the United States and compensate for the U.S. absence in the deal. If not, we would go for a ministerial [meeting] and after that if Iran is still not satisfied we would take the decision.”

The U.S. Treasury announced more sanctions on Thursday on several Iranian and Turkish companies and a number of aircraft in a move targeting four Iranian airlines.

Iran has struggled to benefit from the accord so far, partly because of remaining unilateral U.S. sanctions that have deterred major Western investors from doing business with Tehran. Some Western companies have already quit Iran or said they may have to leave because of the new U.S. sanctions.

Trump denounced the accord, completed under his predecessor Barack Obama, because it did not cover Iran’s ballistic missile program, its role in Middle East conflicts or what happens after the deal begins to expire in 2025.

While European nations share those concerns, they say that torpedoing the nuclear deal makes them far harder, not easier, to address. They have said that as long as Tehran meets its commitments, they would remain in the deal.

The U.N. atomic watchdog policing the pact said on Thursday Iran continued to comply with the terms of the deal, but could be faster and more proactive in allowing snap inspections.

France’s President Emmanuel Macron wants to complement the nuclear deal with negotiations over other issues, an idea cautiously received by Russian President Vladimir Putin during talks in St. Petersburg on Thursday.

Hamas military leader Yahya Sinwar recently admitted that his organization maintains close ties with Iran.

In an interview with Lebanon’s Al Mayadeen television on May 21, Sinwar was asked whether Hamas’ response to a new Israeli offensive would be unprecedented. “Absolutely. This is certain and beyond any doubt,” he said.

According to a transcript on the Middle East Media Research Institute’s website, he went on to explain that “our resistance in the Gaza Strip has greatly developed its capabilities first and foremost thanks to Allah, but also with the help of the righteous free men of our nation – first and foremost the Islamic Republic of Iran, which has provided the [Izzedine] al-Qassam Brigades‎ and the other factions of the resistance with a lot of money, equipment and expertise, even before the [Israeli] aggression, but especially after it.”

He said that Iran “has provided us with a lot of resources, which allowed for the great development of our capabilities.”

Sinwar went on to elaborate on the close relations Hamas has with Iran and Hezbollah, Tehran’s proxy in Lebanon, as well as with Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps.

“We have excellent relations with our brothers in Hezbollah. Our relations with them are extremely developed. We work together and coordinate and are in touch on an almost daily basis. The relations are at the best stage ever. Similarly, our ties with the Islamic Republic of Iran, with brother Qassem Soleimani [commander of the Quds Force, the IRGC’s black-ops arm] and the other brothers in the IRGC leadership are very strong, powerful and warm. Our relations with the Islamic republic are excellent,” he reiterated.

During the interview, Sinwar went out of his way to show that there is no daylight between Hamas and the Iranian regime.

Hamas and Iran, both of which seek Israel’s destruction, maintained very close ties in the past, but the relationship soured when Hamas refused to support Iran’s ally, Syrian President Bashar Assad, in the civil war in Syria. Gaza’s rulers began trying to mend fences with their Iranian patrons in early 2015, after finding themselves in dire straits following a 2014 war with Israel. In 2017, Hamas officials admitted Tehran was once again the Islamist group’s biggest backer.

Many have attributed the improvement in the two’s relations to the resurgence of Assad’s regime.

“It’s very hard to trust the Iranians. There’s a very radical regime in Tehran. During the nuclear agreement negotiations, they kept saying that it doesn’t change anything, they’ll remain anti-American, anti-Israel, anti everyone who doesn’t agree with their revolution,” former U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman sums up the views of the opponents of the 2015 nuclear agreement, essentially reflecting the sentiments coming out of the Oval Office over the last year.

These sentiments led U.S. President Donald Trump to make a dramatic decision two weeks ago and withdraw from the agreement, effectively reimposing tough sanctions on Iran.

Lieberman, in Israel to celebrate the opening of the new U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem, concedes that Trump has surprised everyone and came through for Israel and the Middle East. Lieberman, it seems, is not sorry that the candidate he supported in the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton, ultimately lost to Trump.

Q: You’ve seen quite a few presidents over the course of your career. Do you think that Trump is the most pro-Israel president you’ve encountered?

“So far he’s been extremely pro-Israel. It’s still early in his presidency. For the time I’ve followed U.S.-Israel relations and certainly during the 24 years I was in the Senate, some presidents are closer to Israel and some are not, usually in the term of every president there are some disagreements between the prime minister of Israel and the president of the U.S. But I would say that President Trump is really off to a very strong pro-Israel start.”

Q: Do you think there’s more to come?

“We’ll see. The decision he made to take the U.S. out of the Iran nuclear agreement was a really critically important decision, for the U.S., first of all, it’s the right decision, but it’s also the right decision for our allies in the region, namely Israel and the Arab countries.

“Now the important question is what’s next and to make sure that the European countries aren’t successful in convincing President Trump to essentially water down his decision by adding [sanctions] exceptions. We need to remain tough because that’s the way to get Iran to come to the table and negotiate a better agreement or suffer the consequences. A very powerful alliance is now emerging in the Middle East between the U.S., the Arab world and Israel one side, with Iran and its allies on the other side. I would put my money on the U.S., the Arab world and Israel to prevail in a conflict, if it becomes a conflict.”

America fell in love

As an American, Orthodox Jew and an enthusiastic Zionist, Lieberman has always held hawkish views and expressed his concern for the welfare and security of Israel. But Lieberman was also a Democrat who served 24 years in the U.S. Senate, often acting as the voice of reason for both parties, even at risk to his own political career.

Thus, for example, in 1998, when disturbing details began to emerge about the illicit relationship between then-President Bill Clinton and White House intern Monica Lewinsky, Lieberman gave a courageous address before the Senate, criticizing the Democratic president. In his address, Lieberman accused Clinton of being an embarrassment and of having failed as a role model, calling for “some measure of public rebuke and accountability.”

Republicans, who were looking for any legitimacy to launch an impeachment, welcomed Lieberman’s words with glee. For Clinton, it was a little less welcome. But Lieberman stuck to his guns, becoming the absolute antithesis of Clinton, as well as America’s moral compass.

When then-Vice President Al Gore ran for president in 2000, he quickly realized that he needed someone like Lieberman at his side, to prove to the American public that his ticket puts ethics ahead of political considerations.

And so, in the summer of 2000, Lieberman made history by becoming the first Jew to be nominated by a major party for the position of vice president. While the Gore-Lieberman ticket didn’t win (over a few hundred votes in Florida), the race itself turned Lieberman into a household name. Lieberman proved that a public servant’s religious faith can be an asset rather than a liability, and America fell in love.

Lieberman has always had long term foresight, and he was even willing to openly support the war in Iraq, which cost him the Democratic nomination for Senate in 2006 (he won the seat anyway as an independent). But because of his long-term vision, he was shocked when President Barack Obama agreed to restrict Iran’s nuclear activities for a set time, which would allow them to renew their nuclear efforts at full speed within 10-25 years.

Q: If Republican candidate John McCain had won the 2008 election instead of Obama, would he have negotiated a better nuclear agreement with Iran?

“I think that if McCain had been elected in 2008 he never would have negotiated an agreement with Iran like Obama did. He was very critical against the agreement, and he voted against it.”

 Q: So if McCain was president there would be no agreement, and Iran would have forged ahead with its nuclear plans unhindered?

“Who knows what would have happened, but frankly that would have been better than entering a deal that simply required Iran to pause its nuclear program, later having a clear path toward a legal nuclear weapons program, which is not much of an achievement at all. What the president has said, and he’s right, what has to happen is that Iran needs to stop developing nuclear weapons altogether, and if it does, there is a possibility of sanctions being lifted and hopefully better relations with the West.”

Q: Trump’s decision to pull out of the agreement has removed Iran from the global trade market, because anyone that does business with Iran will now be punished. So why is Europe so optimistic about salvaging the nuclear agreement?

“It comes down to a very simple choice, as the U.S. moves toward reimposing full sanctions on Iran – so-called secondary sanctions – the businesses of the world have to decide whether they want to do business with Iran or with the United States. When we put those sanctions back on, they can’t do both.”

“It’s a very easy choice. We have a multi trillion dollar economy, and the Iranian economy is four of five hundred billion and any global business needs access to America and America’s financial system.”

“I think no matter the government leaders’ posturing in Europe, effectively, their businesses are not going back in. These sanctions could be much more effective if they specifically cover the energy sector so that European businesses and businesses from elsewhere that have been working in Iran will feel that they have to pull out.”

Lieberman says that Trump’s recent decision to withdraw the U.S. from the nuclear agreement and reimpose the sanctions is an enormous success for the organization he heads – a bi-partisan organization named United Against Nuclear Iran, which aims to ensure that Iran remains isolated until it abandons its nuclear aspirations altogether.

“What we have focused on is making sure that businesses are observing the sanctions that the U.S. adopts, and publicly shaming them if they violate the sanctions. Together with others, we’ve had a good effect on businesses. Even after the Iran nuclear agreement was executed in 2015, very few European businesses wanted to do business in Iran.”

 Q: What were your first thoughts when you heard the U.S. Embassy was being relocated to Jerusalem?

“This is something that I worked on a lot in the 1990s with colleagues from both parties in the Senate. The bill [mandating the relocation of the embassy] finally passed in 1995. What I thought, and what all my colleagues though, was that this was the way to correct a historic injustice. The United States, as is the custom in international law, locates our embassies in every other country in the world, in the city that the host country designates as its capital, except in Israel – our close and dear ally.

“From the U.S. perspective, as a great power, we were allowing ourselves to be essentially intimidated by fears of what would happen if we did the right thing, which was to treat Israel the same way we treated every other country in the world when it came to the capital city and the embassy.”

“President [Bill] Clinton insisted on this waiver that went in, and he and the two succeeding presidents suspended the effectiveness of this clear, strong congressional mandate to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and move our embassy there, until President Trump.

“I must admit, when I heard that President Trump was thinking about this and had made the announcement, I was really thrilled and extremely grateful.

“To speak frankly, I was someone who supported Hillary Clinton in 2016, I’m a registered Democrat and I’ve known the Clintons for a long time, but all credit goes to President Trump for having the courage and the confidence.

“We have to be grateful to President Trump for keeping his promise and making this change, which really is significant in the history of modern Israel and in the 3,000-year history of Jerusalem.”

Q: You’ve been a stalwart supporter of religion as a positive force in public service. How do you keep that vision alive now that everything is so politicized?

“It’s a real concern of mine. The American people, in their private lives, are religious and they care about values. But in the public life of our country we’ve gone in another direction, and it’s not good for us. We have to go back to history and what matters. It would be better for ourselves, our families, our communities, our county, if we have some norms and values that we hold dear and try to live by.

“In the Torah, the Israelites experienced what happens when you have liberty but no law in the time of Noah. But in Egypt, under Pharaoh, they experienced law without liberty. Clearly what you need is a balance of liberty and law, and that’s how you achieve justice. That’s the way and the mission that we were all given on Mount Sinai with the Ten Commandments.”

Q: Do you think Israel is a good example of coexistence between religion and democracy?

“Yes. The Torah, just like the American Constitution, contemplates that throughout history, we will be trying to realize the ideals of the Ten Commandments, and the law, better and better. Israel really is a beacon of the rule of law and equal opportunity and human rights, generally speaking. There continue to be points of tension between religion and the state, but that’s where leadership comes in, and that’s where Israel can really be a light unto the other nations. I’ve always felt that Israel distinguishes itself because it has a national purpose and a sense of community.”

Q: Are you contemplating going back into politics?

“No. I think my days of elected office are over. But one never knows about appointive office. But I have to say, I’m really very blessed in the life I’m leading. I was 40 years in elected office, but I’m very happy where I am. But I’ll always have my hand in politics. My wife says that politics is a disease for which there is no cure. I think I’m afflicted.”