US special envoy’s mission impossible to restore Iran nuclear deal

Robert Malley, the US special envoy on Iran, may well be on a wild goose chase as he tours the region for the second time in the space of a few weeks, seeking to consult with regional allies on the prospects of bringing Iran, as well as the US, back into the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — the 2015 nuclear agreement of which he was a lead negotiator and architect.

After months of dithering, a new Iranian negotiating team — formed after hard-liner Ebrahim Raisi became the country’s president — agreed on a date to resume talks in Vienna. On Nov. 29, the interlocutors will meet again to restart negotiations, but there is little hope that the gap that separates the two sides — mainly the US and its European allies versus Iran with backing from Russia and China — can be closed.

But there is another dimension to the stalled talks: Israel. Just like his predecessor, Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett is, in principle, opposed to the JCPOA and any understanding with Tehran. In fact, he has refused to meet with Malley, who instead saw Defense Minister Benny Gantz, Foreign Minister Yair Lapid and top security officials. Lapid reportedly told the US envoy that Tehran was not interested in rejoining the agreement and was only trying to buy time.

Ironically, Malley may hear the same words from other regional allies. The reality is that Tehran’s credibility is close to zero. It has problems with all its neighbors. From Yemen to Iraq and from Lebanon to Syria, its proxies are disrupting attempts to settle regional conflicts. It is not only Iran’s unchecked nuclear activities that are worrying its neighbors, but also its long-range missile program and its drone attack system, which has been used in the targeting of Saudi airports and oil facilities, as well as the recent attempt on the life of Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa Al-Kadhimi.

Iran’s hard-line stance has been emboldened by the belief in Tehran, and the rest of the region, that the US is slowly abandoning the Middle East. The so-called pivot to Asia mantra of President Barack Obama has reached its climax with the recent and embarrassing US withdrawal from Afghanistan. America’s allies — and foes — have read this withdrawal as a sign that Washington is no longer a reliable ally and that countries in the region must now chart their own foreign policy line in a way that protects their immediate interests.

The reality is that Tehran’s credibility is close to zero. It has problems with all its neighbors.

Osama Al-Sharif

Israel and a number of Gulf countries now see their national security interests aligned. Iran, with its nefarious regional agenda, is a common threat to all. Restoring the JCPOA may not be a goal that will safeguard the long-term national interests of the region. Malley will have a tough time arguing to the contrary.

Since Donald Trump withdrew from the agreement in 2018, Tehran had breached most articles in the nuclear deal. Iran is now boasting that it has produced 210 kg of uranium enriched to 20 percent and 25 kg to 60 percent, a level that no country, apart from those with nuclear weapons, is able to produce. The burning question is: If Tehran continues to claim that its nuclear program is peaceful, why does it breach red lines to reach enrichment levels that make it capable of producing military-grade nuclear weapons?

The original JCPOA, which a number of countries want to expand and amend, was a good interim agreement despite Netanyahu’s complaints. And Trump made a big mistake by unilaterally walking away from the deal without consulting his allies. But now we find ourselves at this vague juncture where Iran insists on complete unconditional removal of all US sanctions, while the Biden administration hopes to expand the deal — anathema to Iran’s hard-liners.

Malley’s challenge is a complex one. On the face of it, it is the restoration of the deal at any cost. But, in reality, little can be achieved when the issue is part of a larger problem; that is, Iran’s regional agenda and its proxies. Restoring the deal should lead to a wider relief and progress on other issues, such as the war in Yemen, and Iran’s involvement in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. But that is easier said than done. For Malley, the conflict resolution expert, the task is huge. The US has talked about other options, but that too is risky when Washington hopes to limit its involvement in the region’s conflicts. A military option is a dire and an unpredictable one for the US.

Iran’s leaders must get the message that they have a choice: Either be accepted by the region as a normal country that is willing to respect its neighbors or be treated as a pariah state for many years. The second option will only make the lives of millions of Iranians more difficult. Tehran’s nuclear ambitions will be challenged eventually and the price that will be paid will be hefty indeed.