Sputnik - A group of US senators has initiated a bill which would allow the president to renew economic restrictions against Iran � a maneuver experts warn could kill the landmark Iranian nuclear deal reached in 2015. Senior Iran expert Dr. Ali Vaez warns that such a scenario may ultimately result in a military conflict breaking out between Iran and the US.





Having come to�the realization that the Trump administration isn't likely to�unilaterally terminate the Iran nuclear deal, a group of�US lawmakers led by�Republican Senator Bob Corker is looking for�ways to�encourage the president to�renew anti-Iranian sanctions, which are set to�expire under�the deal. Corker introduced a bill, titled 'Countering Iran's Destabilizing Activities Act' to�the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee late last month, and has already found bipartisan support among�many Republican and Democratic lawmakers.

Speaking to�Radio Sputnik about�the Senate initiative, Dr. Ali Vaez, senior Iran analyst at�the International Crisis Group, a Brussels-based NGO promoting conflict prevention, explained that the initiative was not unexpected in�light of�US officials' record of�sharp rhetoric toward�Tehran.

"I think the main reason is political, and it goes back to�the fact that President Trump, during�the campaign season, made a lot of�promises about�being tough on�Iran, and now he has to�be seen as�delivering on�that promise," Vaez said.
"The reality," the analyst noted, "is that President Trump has realized that tearing up�the nuclear deal [outright] will isolate the United States and would backfire on�US interests," with�the other parties to�the agreement, including the Europeans, Russia, China, and Iran itself generally satisfied with�its provisions.


Therefore, Vaez said, "the opponents of�the deal in�Washington have now switched to�Plan B: instead of�killing the deal with�a gunshot, to�kill it with�a thousand paper cuts. The way that they would do this is through�a constant stream of�sanctions, based on�non-nuclear pretexts � sanctioning Iran because of�its regional policies, or its missile program, or because of�its domestic policies, or its human rights record. That could result in�a deep erosion of�the nuclear deal in�a matter of�months or years."


"Sanctions," the expert recalled, "are obviously always the lowest-hanging fruit, and especially sanctions on�Iran, on�which there is usually bipartisan agreement in�Congress. So that's now the option that's coming to�the fore."
At the same time, Dr. Vaez stressed that if the proposed legislation were to�pass in�its current form, "it would be a violation of�the [nuclear] deal. There are some sections of�the legislation, like�Section 8, for�example, which add new conditions to�the agreement unilaterally."


Specifically, "Section 8 requires the US president to�certify that some of�the people that are supposed to�be delisted [from sanctions] based on�the calendar of�the nuclear deal about�seven years from�now will only be delisted if the president can certify that they have not been engaged in�support of�terrorism and Iran's ballistic missile program; otherwise the sanctions on�these individuals and entities cannot be lifted; that's a unilateral decision by�the United States to�change one of�its own commitments under�the nuclear deal."

"Not only would this amount to�a violation of�the deal � it would set a precedent that could start a process that could eventually unravel the deal," Vaez warned.
"The main point here is: if the legislation passes the way it is, the Iranians will probably go to�the Joint Commission [which includes Iran, Russia, China, France, Germany, the UK, the representative of�the EU and the US] and ask them to�recognize that the US has breached the nuclear deal. That could start a process which could eventually unravel the agreement."


At the same time, the expert stressed that "the Iranians also understand that part of�this game from�the American perspective is to�push them to�be the first to�take actions which would be a clear-cut violation of�the deal. If Tehran for�example was not to�give access to�IAEA inspectors, or decide to�revive their nuclear program, that would allow opponents of�the nuclear deal in�Washington to�either impose more sanctions, or move toward�killing this nuclear deal [altogether]. For that reason, I think the Iranians will try to�be seen as�the reasonable party. But this is a game that could be played only in�the short run. In the long run, it will be much more difficult to�sustain the deal under�current circumstances."


Furthermore, Vaez warned that the collapse of�the nuclear deal would greatly increase the danger of�open conflict breaking out�between the two countries. "Without any doubt, if the nuclear agreement starts eroding, we will see tensions rising. If the nuclear deal collapses entirely, then we will be back in�the same spiral of�escalation that we experienced in�the past," meaning Iran considering the revival of�their nuclear program on�the one hand, and threats of�war from�the United States and Israel on�the other.


"With more tensions, there are also other possibilities for�confrontation. There is so much friction between�Iran and the United States these days � in�the Persian Gulf, in�Yemen." The expert recalled that the channels of�communications which existed between�the two countries during�the previous administration no longer exist.
"Therefore, there is enough room for�misunderstandings and miscalculations that could easily spiral out�of control and result in�conflict," Vaez stressed.


Asked how other parties might react to�prevent things from�getting out�of control, the expert noted that "for now, leaders and other members of�the other P5+1 have come out�strongly in�support of�the deal; they have all warned leaders in�the United States against�taking steps that could undermine the nuclear deal. But rhetoric goes only so far. I think at�some stage there will be a need even for�some actions which, in�addition to�discouraging US policy makers from�undermining the deal, could deter them from [actually] taking those steps."


Ultimately, Vaez noted that the Europeans, Russia and China should make clear to�Washington that they would not comply to�US unilateral sanctions not approved by�the Joint commission. "I think that's important at�some stage to�be clearly communicated to�US policymakers � that unless there is a real justification � real reasons for�new sanctions, the rest of�the international community will not simply fall in�line because the US Congress has decided to�sanction Iran."