OPENING PANDORA'S BOX

Obviously, the escalation of tensions around the Iranian nuclear program is closely related to the situation in Syria. Everything suggests that the Trump administration is trying to use the weak points of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA) as a pretext to present an ultimatum to Iran. Indeed, Tehran may actively resist to the demands to leave Syria but it will most likely have to agree with American and Israeli demands having practically no means to repel.

Trump's solution

On May 8, the U.S. President Donald Trump announced Washington’s withdrawal from the so-called ‘nuclear deal’ with Iran signed in 2015 by the six international mediators (Russia, the United States, Britain, China, France, and Germany). According to the agreement, Tehran has to considerably reduce the number of its centrifuges for uranium enrichment, as well as the volume of uranium reserves, while the IAEA representatives may conduct inspections at Iranian nuclear facilities without advance notice. In turn, the United Nations, U.S. and EU agreed to lift the previously imposed economic and financial sanctions from the Islamic Republic of Iran.

However, President Trump found many weak points in the JCPA. American leader is unhappy that the agreement limits Iran's development of nuclear weapons for a certain period only, but does not prevent the production of intercontinental ballistic missiles. Mr. Trump also believes that the agreement does not consider the expansion of Tehran's influence on the Middle East and its cooperation with terrorist organisations. Finally yet importantly, Trump believes that Iran is using the profits secured by the JCPA “to buy weapons, to carry out repression and to support terrorism.”

Israel confirmed Washington's position by presenting thousands of classified documents allegedly obtained from a “secret warehouse in Tehran” showing that Iran has lied about its true intentions regarding the development of nuclear technologies before signing the agreement in 2015. According to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, this evidence was submitted to the U.S. for review and the confirmation of authenticity. Mr. Netanyahu believes that Teheran continues the development of nuclear weapons secretly. U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called Israeli documents authentic and said that the 2015 nuclear deal was built upon lies.

Therefore, after six months prescribed by law, Washington restores all sanctions against the Iranian “regime” and even intends to tighten them. It is expected that the sanctions will also cover the countries that continue cooperation with Iran.

Interestingly, other parties to the agreement did not support the American decision. According to the joint statement of Theresa May, Angela Merkel, and Emmanuel Macron, their countries remain committed to the terms of JCPA, which is considered “important for overall security”. The EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini, also noted that the EU would continue to support the agreement. During a meeting with Trump earlier in April, Macron and Merkel tried to convince the American leader not to renounce the agreement. “We would open the Pandora's box. It could mean war,” said Macron in his interview to the German magazine Der Spiegel. Incidentally, Russia and China adhere to similar positions.

As expected, initial reaction of Iran was extremely negative. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani warned that the U.S. would regret the revision of the nuclear deal and that such a move could be a historic mistake. Rouhani also added that Iran had a plan of action in case Trump adopts any decision. Some Western media outlets immediately expressed fears that the “Iranian hawks” might become active in this situation trying to withdraw Iran from the deal, as well as from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. However, after a while the degree of statements from the Iranian leadership has largely subsided. Rouhani announced that he had instructed Iranian diplomats to begin negotiations with France, Germany, Britain, Russia, and China to evaluate the possibility of preserving the nuclear deal, while Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif planned visits to China, Russia, and Brussels.

Netanyahu’s actions

The situation around the JCPA is unfolding amidst the growing Israeli strikes on the Syrian territory. IDF targets exclusively Iranian facilities in Syria, including the Syrian airbase Tias (T-4, Homs province, northeast of Damascus), where, according to some reports, Iran has built its military base. Various sources report the death of dozens of Iranian military, the destruction of anti-aircraft systems, etc. Tel Aviv reports that all of its actions are defensive in nature, since the development of Iranian military presence in Syria directly threatens the national interests and security of Israel. By extending the “Shiite line” from Tehran through Iraq and Syria to Lebanon, Iran can directly supply weapons to the Lebanese group Hezbollah and secure access to the Mediterranean.

Therefore, the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPA most likely has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. Rather, it is directly related to the Syrian war. Apparently, both the U.S. and Israel are trying to force Iran to withdraw from Syria.

That's why the technical part of American claims to the agreement looks vague and indistinct, while the statements about “Tehran's growing influence in the Middle East and support of terrorism” sound loud and clear. That is why the European allies of the U.S. did not support Washington and urged Tehran not to make hasty conclusions and harsh retaliatory actions. Mr. Macron always makes statements about some corrections and additions to the agreement, although their essence remains undisclosed. Perhaps, because they do not concern the terms of the nuclear deal itself but the presence of Iran in Syria.

For obvious reasons, Israel is not happy with Iranian influence in Syria either. The same is true for the U.S. and its allies because this strengthens the positions of Assad and Russia. The ongoing events can also be considered a serious warning to Moscow regarding its stance on Lebanon attempting to conclude an interest-free billion-dollar deal to purchase Russian weapons. According to media reports, the Kremlin is trying to secure access of its ships to Lebanese seaports. By the way, Lebanon, which is, on the one hand, under the influence of Iran, and on the other - of Saudi Arabia, may well share the fate of Syria, Iraq or Yemen. Finally, the Gulf monarchies are always ready to help fight the “Shiite network” thanks to their weapons and just an organic dislike for Iran.

Hence, it seems that Tehran is required to step back. Otherwise, it may suffer from new sanctions, become unable to sell oil and other goods, and face social protests, which, if desired, can always turn into a new revolution. In this situation, it is very difficult for Iran to put something against the ultimatum. Any statements about Russian-Iranian or even Russian-Iranian-Turkish axis are simply not serious, as these states are certainly not allies to each other in the Syrian conflict; rather they are just situational partners. It is enough to recall the visit of the Saudi King Salman to Moscow last year and the negotiations on multibillion contracts, including arms sales. Significantly hurt by Western sanctions and other measures of influence in all geopolitically sensitive areas, Russia plays its own game in Syria and understands very well that it has no friends but only interests. For Russia, it is important to remain a factor in the Middle East; it is ready to fight and negotiate for this purpose, as proved once again by the visit of Benjamin Netanyahu to Moscow on May 9.

The result of division of Syria into spheres of influence depends on skills, potential and willingness of the involved parties to take risks. However, considering the history of previous conflicts and the strong ideology behind the positions of both Israel and Iran, the Iranian page of the Syrian conflict may well become one of its bloodiest or even fatal precedents.