What is Joint comprehensive plan of action?

Trump announced US withdrawal from Iran nuclear deal in May 2018 to the shock of the entire world and to chagrin of the other five world powers (Russia, UK, China, France and Germany) who were involved in direct negotiations with the USA and Iran for the deal’s successful ratification by the UN.

The year 2015 was a remarkable year in terms of the relations between the west and Iran who traditionally had been at loggerheads with each other since the 1979 revolution. Earlier, Iran always had to bear the dismay of being cast out internationally for being a suspect of developing nuclear technologies directed at weapons development. This was even though Iran is a party to the nuclear non proliferation treaty of 1970.

In 2015, Iran and the permanent five plus one signed a nuclear deal which reversed the fate of country. This deal was called Joint comprehensive plan of action. This deal had some specific points of regulation, limitation and monitoring of the Iranian nuclear facilities keeping intact some of the embargoes that the west had placed on Iran.

The layout of the Iran nuclear deal- JCPOA

The Iran nuclear deal can be seen as a follow-up of Iran’s signing of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. It was spearheaded by the then new president of Iran-Hassan Rouhani. This deal was supported by the Iranian moderates and opposed by the hardliners inside the Iran government. This deal did not specifically prohibit missile development. It was targeted to increase the breakout time- the time required to assemble a nuclear bomb to one year or more. USA lifted sanctions after the IAEA confirmed that Iran met its commitment under an agreement with USA, Russia, UK, China, France and Germany. With regards to Uranium enrichment, Tehran agreed to keep its enrichment levels at no more than 3.67% down from 20%. Iran also agreed to keep its stockpile of Uranium under 300 kg (enriched at 3.67%). The then stockpile of Iranian Uranium was at 10000 kg.

The deal also required Iran to phase out the IR 1 centrifuges within 10 years from 2015, keeping over 5000 kg centrifuges running during this stretch at the NATANZ facility. Excess centrifuges and enrichment related facilities and infrastructure at Natanz will be stored under IAEA monitoring. Iran should not have any nuclear material at its Fordow facility for 15 years converting that site into a nuclear, physics and technology centre. The Country also agreed to limit certain R&D activities for next 8 years. World powers earlier wanted the Arak heavy water facility to be dismantled because of the proliferation risk. Then after some deliberations Tehran got the permission to redesign and rebuild a modernized heavy water research reactor at the Arak facility (under 3.67% enrichment level), after the authorities under IAEA gave final clearance. Iran also promised that it will not add any other heavy water reactor for the next 15 years. It also agreed to ship out the spent fuel and heavy water (almost 20 tonnes) outside the country to the USA via a third country. It was permitted to retain 6 tonnes of the heavy water to make medical isotopes.

A significant aspect of the deal was that Iran accepted the additional clause under the IAEA safeguards agreement under which the IAEA inspectors can visit any facility in the country whether civilian or military which they deem suspicious. If the IAEA people are stopped from entering any site, that will be treated as violation of the principles of the deal. Tehran will have a 24-day window to accept the visit request by the IAEA officials in case the body wants to examine the nuclear sites of Iran. The international inspectors are to monitor Uranium levels from all Uranium concentration plants for 25 years and they are also to keep a close eye on the centrifuges for 20 years to ensure that Tehran is abiding by the deal.

Despite this deal, US continues to enforce embargo & sanctions tied to Iran’s support for terrorism, human rights violations and missile technologies. The deal resulted in removal of sanctions against Iran’s oil and gas, petrochems, banking, ports etc. This came as a relief for Iran as it had billions of dollars to be accrued from the overseas importers of its oil like China, India, Japan, South Korea and Turkey. The arms embargo against Iran was replaced with some restrictions and will be removed after 5 years from 2015. The primary sanctions barring the citizens of USA to carry out business with Iran remain intact. It was decided that should Iran violate any clause of this deal, the original UN sanctions will snap back into place for 10 years, with a possibility of 5 years extension.

Recently there has been a hue and cry from the Trump administration that Iran deal is a failure in terms of controlling the nuclear ambitions of Iran. First and foremost, it is based on a false pretence that Iran will surely develop nuclear weapons, even when Iran was one of the first countries to sign the NPT treaty and Iran’s premieres have stated on multiple occasions that Iran’s nuclear programme is committed to generate nuclear energy for peaceful purposes as per Article 4 of the NPT. While many of the restrictions will be lifted after the initial 15 years period, most will continue to remain after the 15 years timeline.

The limit of operating 5060 IR-1 centrifuges at Natanz facility, limited R&D on advanced centrifuges, monitoring the civilian nuclear procurement channels, and the UNSC snap back option of implementing back the sanctions for a period of 10 years are all limited for a period of 10 years

Limited deployment of the advanced centrifuges, U enrichment at 3.67% limit, Low enriched uranium stockpile(in all forms; less than 300 kg), no U enrichment at Fordow, testing of centrifuges with Uranium only at Natanz, allowing IAEA site inspection within 24 day window; these controls will have a timeframe of 15 years. The timeline of Iranian commitment to not reprocess the spent fuel will have an unlimited timeframe.

Restrictions or controls like IAEA guidelines/safeguards under code 3.1 on early notification of projects or design changes, IAEA monitoring/access under additional protocol terms, restriction on developments by Iran which could lead to design and development of a nuclear explosive device and protocols under the NPT will have unlimited timeframe under the Iran Nuclear Deal.

The arguments put forward by Trump in support for his decision of USA withdrawal do not hold ground if read with the above observations of the various time-frames setup under the Iran nuclear deal with the six world powers. Isolation never can be answer of dealing with something as sensitive as nuclear technology or its development in the volatile middle east. Israel was the only country which was delighted by the USA decision of withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, obvious reason being that it is a staunch critic of any support to the other countries in the middle east which are Islamic. This is clearly a Israelite feature which has been harnessed earlier numerous times by the USA to keep the fissures in the middle-east deep and sustained for its own benefit. Reports of continuous reactionary violations of the JCPOA terms by Iran are gradually coming to light after the US withdrawal. On another side of the story, comes the assertion by the US administration that the JCPOA was built on lies put forth by Iran as found out in an Israeli report. Interestingly, the UK, another signatory of the deal had accepted that they were never naïve about the nuclear ambitions of Iran. A political scientist who was on the USA team in the negotiations for the JCPOA, Robert Malley, said that there was nothing new in the Israeli assertions, and that those data essentially point to the very need of the JCPOA deal with Iran.

The withdrawal of USA from the Nuclear deal with Iran has been criticised by the EU as unilateral action. EU also further said that the international deal involving 5 other world powers cannot be unilaterally scrapped off by a single country. UK ambassador to USA and French president tried till the last moment to dissuade the Trump administration from turning its back on the deal. Many critics of this withdrawal decision of the Trump regime has found signature gestures of the USA vis-a-vis Negroponte doctrine, which is a cornerstone of the strong US Israel relations in the modern world politics. This doctrine was enforced by US at the time when the UN members were condemning Israel of using their Iron dome system along with their offensive on the Gaza strip.

At such times, India should take a strong stand like EU. Even observers and participants from within the USA have stressed on the need for the deal, like Robert Malley. In such a situation, India cannot play safe in the global checkboard of diplomacy. This is because, Iran can very easily take benefits from China in gaining access to advanced nuclear technologies. It can form its own axis of sorts with Pakistan, and China and that would have serious repercussions for India in terms of security. If India can bargain for a middle ground in between Trump’s proposition and the requirements of the JCPOA, it would benefit India in two ways. India would gain confidence of Iran which forms a major source of light crude oil for India and US based firms would find India as a valuable place for its business. It is because the foreign policy conduct of a country is reflective of its internal political construct and business macro environment. This would also help India as Iran with the support of JCPOA may form a buffer against the tumultuous relation with Pakistan.

It is an unpredictable time in the geopolitics when on one hand the middle east country with not so bad track record in international diplomacy is sidelined by USA and on the other hand the volatile hermit country under Kim Jong Un has experienced cosying up of the relations with the same superpower two years after the much talked about “fire and fury” tweet. We may be entering a new era of constructive ambiguity which was heralded by Kissinger in the 1970s