President Trump is expected to provide sanctions waivers for countries involved in civil nuclear cooperation with Iran pursuant to the 2015 nuclear deal, the Washington Examiner has learned.
The administration is expected to reimpose sanctions against Iran starting Nov. 5, but to the dismay of conservatives, those sanctions won’t bite as deeply as they hoped.
Specifically, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will grant waivers from U.S. sanctions that would otherwise have interfered with civil nuclear cooperation with Iran that was permitted under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, as the nuclear deal is officially known. The 2015 agreement allowed Iran and leading European powers to “seek cooperation and scientific exchange in the field of nuclear science and technology” while overhauling some of the Iranian facilities that have been used for military purposes.
The sanctions will snap back pursuant to Trump’s decision to walk away from the deal, but the waivers will make it less painful for countries in Europe in the area of civil nuclear power.
“It’s about converting existing infrastructure for purely civilian use, taking it from whatever military program was budding before to a purely civilian nuclear program,” a source familiar with the decision told the Washington Examiner. “It’s good that those projects are able to continue.”
But the waiver is sure to draw criticism from Iran hawks on Capitol Hill, some of whom warned against the policy as rumors of the waiver spread.
“I also urge the United States not to waive any sanctions aimed at penalizing foreign individuals, entities, or governments engaged in civil nuclear cooperation with Iran,” Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said Friday.
Pompeo demurred when asked about the waiver during a Friday morning press call.
“We are not allowing the continued work to develop nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons systems in Arak and Fordow,” he said in response to a question. “We will provide on Monday a complete explanation of what we’re going to do with the continued efforts to prevent those facilities from doing the things that put the world at risk through proliferation, and we’ll give you all the detail. It’s a long and complex answer, but we’re happy to provide it to you on Monday morning.”
The civil nuclear waiver stoked frustration among the most hawkish critics of the Iran deal, who doubt that U.S. efforts to distinguish between civil and military nuclear cooperation will prove effective. Richard Goldberg, who helped write the relevant Iran sanctions legislation as a Senate aide, called the decision “the kind of flawed appeasement logic” he’d expect from the architects of the Iran deal.
“Maximum pressure should come with maximum isolation, particularly in nuclear and missile sciences, to slow any regime attempt to advance its weapons program,” Goldberg, now a senior fellow at Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told the Washington Examiner.
Not all Iran deal critics denounced the waiver, in part due to an expectation that the administration would allow only limited cooperation pertaining to three facilities: the Arak Modernization Project, which focuses on the regime’s heavy-water reactor; the Fordow fuel enrichment facility; and safety upgrades at Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, which the United States and regional partners fear could suffer a “Chernobyl-scale” nuclear catastrophe due to outdated and poorly deployed technology.
“Arak is fine, nuclear safety is fine,” David Albright, founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, told the Washington Examiner. “Fordow is really kind of irritating to have to accept, because we know that that’s where they wanted to make weapons-grade uranium and they were designing the plant to do that until they were caught, redhanded in 2009. So, it’s kind of a tainted facility.”
European advocates of the Fordow waiver argued that it would have the advantage of “keep[ing] the centrifuge people focused on non-nuclear [weapons grade] enrichment,” Albright explained.
Goldberg raised additionally the question of why the administration is permitting in any nuclear-related activity.
“Allowing this cooperation to continue rather than demanding complete dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure is a continuation of the Obama administration’s failed policies,” he continued. “We are not in the JCPOA anymore, Secretary Pompeo called the deal fatally flawed, yet the State Department policy is to support the deal’s implementation? Something doesn’t compute.”
Goldberg criticized the move even though he has worked closely with the administration throughout the U.S. withdrawal from the nuclear deal. Other Iran hawks offered a more sympathetic assessment.
“[The civil nuclear waiver] was for the U.S. to withdraw from the JCPOA, but not to kill the JCPOA,” a senior Republican Senate aide suggested. “Even though they say maximum pressure, it’s actually kind of a balancing act.”
In other words, the administration appears to be imposing “maximum pressure” within the limits of avoiding Iran’s immediate withdrawal from the nuclear deal. “The question is, is JCPOA on life support?” the aide asked. “And if it’s on life support, why are we keeping it on life support?”
Goldberg has been a leading supporter of a maximalist strategy to put pressure on Iran, including through a crackdown on the “often overshadowed” civil nuclear cooperation.
“These steps, alongside a sustained financial warfare campaign, could be enough to convince the supreme leader that his regime’s only chance of survival is behavioral change,” he wrote in an August column for Foreign Policy. “Of course, it is equally possible that Iran will bet against Trump’s ability to trigger regime collapse through a maximum pressure campaign, and talks will not occur. With people protesting in the streets, a falling currency, and sanctions pressure not even close to maximum levels yet, that just might work out better for long-term U.S. national security.”
Pompeo confirmed Friday that some countries will receive “temporary” waivers to purchase oil from Iran, while Treasury Secretary Mnuchin opted for a crackdown on Iranian banks that is more limited than some Iran hawks favored. Those waivers could be seen as evidence that the administration is trying to force Iran to change its behavior without provoking full regime change.
“And I think it’s a defensible policy, to be honest,” the Senate aide said. “Obviously there are certain senators who would like to see much stronger policy. But we’re better off than we were.”
