New US Push On Iran Sanctions Signals End Of Nuclear Talks

On Thursday, the US Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctioned an international network of companies involved in the sale of hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of Iranian petrochemicals and petroleum products to end users in South and East Asia.

Several Iranian brokers and front companies in the UAE, Hong Kong, and India that have facilitated financial transfers and shipping of Iranian petroleum and petrochemical products were targeted in the new move.

“These entities have played a critical role in concealing the origin of the Iranian shipments and enabling two sanctioned Iranian brokers, Triliance Petrochemical Co. Ltd. (Triliance) and Persian Gulf Petrochemical Industry Commercial Co. (PGPICC), to transfer funds and ship Iranian petroleum and petrochemicals to buyers in Asia,” the Treasury said.

In addition to the measures by the Treasury, the Department of State designated two China-based entities, namely Zhonggu Storage and Transportation Co. Ltd. and WS Shipping Co. Ltd., for their involvement in Iran’s petrochemical trade.

Under Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Brian E. Nelson said, “The United States is committed to severely restricting Iran’s illicit oil and petrochemical sales. So long as Iran refuses a mutual return to full implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the United States will continue to enforce its sanctions on the sale of Iranian petroleum and petrochemical products.”

The Beacon said this was concluded by senior US officials in a classified briefing two weeks ago to members of the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee. The outlet cited Darrell Issa, a Republican house member, and “other congressional sources familiar with the briefing.”

Issa, a supporter of former president Donald Trump, said they “are stymied over how they get to a deal because they’ve negotiated all there was to negotiate.” Issa said Iran was “basically on the eve of getting a nuclear weapon and don’t want to be talked out of it.”

Since the confidential House briefing September 14, US officials have publicly stressed their support for continuing efforts to revive the 2015 agreement, the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), which limited Iran’s nuclear program and eased international sanctions.

A State Department official told journalists September 22 that talks had “hit a wall.” Ned Price, State Department spokesman, defended the JCPOA Monday by arguing US withdrawal had increased Iran’s “actions against our partners, the potential targeting even of American facilities and personnel…[making Iran] more aggressive, and … deadlier.”

Iran Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian restated Wednesday that Iran wanted US ‘guarantees’ of economic cushions should the US leave a revived JCPOA, as it did during Trump’s presidency in 2018 when imposing ‘maximum pressure’ sanctions.

Several US senators told Iran International that Washington should stop talks with the Islamic Republic over revival of the 2015 nuclear deal, especially considering the ongoing popular protests.

Democratic Senator from New Jersey Bob Menendez, who is the chairman Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told our correspondent that the United States should get ready for the fall of the regime in Iran, noting that the last time Iranians revolted against the government, the US did not have any plans. 

“I hope we'd be ready, and we'd have our contingencies and engagement, because we lost in the Green Revolution, we should be able to be ready for it now,” he said. 

Utah’s Republican Senator Mitt Romney also voiced his support for the popular uprising of the Iranians -- triggered by the death of 22-year-old woman Mahsa Amini in the hands of hijab police – saying that currently it is not a good idea to be negotiating with Iran on a nuclear deal. “Iran is a bad actor and providing more resources to them and relieving sanctions would be a big mistake.”

Echoing similar sentiments, Alabama’s Republican Senator Tommy Tuberville warned against further nuclear negotiations with Iran while the country is in turmoil. “We don't need to get back to that dialog with Iran. They're obviously having problems over there right now. They need to work out their own problems.” 

Calling the Islamic Republic’s authorities “dictators,” he said he is not surprised that “the Iranian regime is clamping down on Iranian protesters.”

Republican Senator from North Carolina Thom Tillis described the Biden administration's plan to go back to negotiating table with Iran as “ill-advised,” underlining that the Islamic Republic is a “state sponsor of terror” that every year “invests hundreds of millions of dollars” to destabilize the Middle East. 

He added that it is beyond his comprehension that the Biden administration “thinks it'd be wise to do anything that would bolster that leadership versus stand with the Iranian people who want change.”

Pennsylvania's Senator Pat Toomey, also a Republican, called on the Biden administration to voice very strong, clear support for the protesters, highlighting that they are “only protesting for basic human rights, and they deserve those rights.”

He told our Congressional reporter Arash Alaei that “I don't think we can get a workable nuclear deal with this regime.”

Toomey said he does not have the expertise to make a prediction about the collapse of the regime, adding that “Sadly we know authoritarian regimes are able to retain power for a long period of time even when they're not popular.”

Republican Senator Mike Rounds from South Dakota also urged the administration against negotiating with Iran right now, emphasizing that the Islamic Republic is “a terrorist state.” 

He touched upon the suffering of Iranians under the regime, saying, “Once again they're using some of those same tactics against their own people.”

Stressing that the “terrorist” regime in power in Iran is different from the Iranians who are good people themselves, he said that “we're having a difficult time in trying to find common ground with them (the regime). And that hurts our ability to have a good relationship with the people of Iran.”

Chris Van Hollen, Maryland's Democratic senator, also denounced the Islamic Republic's “vicious crackdown” on protesters as a “gross violation of women's rights and human rights,” expressing satisfaction that Washington slapped sanctions on hijab police and some security officials involved in the crackdown on peaceful protesters.

The Treasury Department said last week that its Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) isdesignating Iran’s Morality Police “for abuse and violence against Iranian women and the violation of the rights of peaceful Iranian protestors.”

However, he said repression is already brutal in Iran without a nuclear deal, “So the idea that entering an agreement would cause the Iranian regime to be more brutal in its crackdown doesn't make sense to me.” “A nuclear armed Iran is worse for the US and our allies than a non-nuclear Iran,” he said, implying support for revival of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). 

Grossi is due to sit down later this week with Mohammad Eslami, head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, after the two met Monday on the side-lines of the annual conference of the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna. Alongside a picture of the two shaking hands, Grossi tweeted that “dialogue has restarted with Iran on clarification of outstanding safeguards issues.”

Monitoring ‘safeguards’ commitments of state signatories of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty is a central IAEA function but in Iran’s case has become entangled in negotiations to revive the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement, the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action).

Whereas Tehran has argued the IAEA ‘safeguards’ probe into the uranium traces, relating to work before 2003, should be dropped as part of JCPOA revival, the United States and three European JCPOA signatories have said it must continue until Iran’s answers satisfy the agency.

Grossi told the IAEA annual conference that the investigation was “not going to go away.” Eslami told the conference the probe was based on “false, baseless information,” referring to its origins in allegations made by Israel in 2018 at the time President Donald Trump pulled the US out of the JCPOA and imposed ‘maximum pressure’ sanctions on Iran.

‘Baseless allegations’

Iran’s foreign minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian told al-Monitor Sunday that Tehran was “ready to provide answers” over the uranium traces, found at three sites undeclared as nuclear-related, as long as the agency behaved “technically” rather than politically.”

Abdollahian reiterated that Iran expected the agency to drop “baseless allegations” before the JCPOA could be restored, and called for “political will to close the case.” He repeated Iran’s claim of a precedent from 2015, when the IAEA produced a ‘final’ report into possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program before 2003.

The foreign minister also pointed out that with the JCPOA restored, the agency would have access to the Iranian nuclear program “beyond safeguards.” Under the 2015 agreement Iran to implemented the ‘Additional Protocol,’ which added to the IAEA’s monitoring powers and obliged Tehran to accept the IAEA access needed to vouchsafe JCPOA implementation.

Grossi, who referred Monday to the “need to find a common solution,” may accept that the greater agency powers under a restored JCPOA could help the agency investigate the uranium traces. He told NPR in an interview in late August: “If the IAEA is allowed to do our inspection work, we are going to get there – I’m pretty confident.”

On another challenge facing JCPOA talks, Amir Abdollahian told al-Monitor that “some progress” had been made in recent weeks in messages exchanged with the US over Tehran’s demand for ‘guarantees’ it would be cushioned economically should Washington subsequently withdraw from a restored JCPOA.

On regional tensions, Amir-Abdollahian said he last week had discussions with Iraqi foreign minister Fuad Hussein over next steps in Baghdad-mediated contacts designed to return to “normal” Iran-Saudi Arabia relations with reopening of embassies. Formal ties were broken off in 2016 after protestors in Tehran attacked the Saudi embassy following the Saudi execution of Shia cleric and opposition figure Nimr al-Nimr.

While the administration has taken some steps to show its support for Iranians protesting for freedom, it still remains committed to reviving the 2015 nuclear accord (JCPOA), which would give the Iranian regime billions of dollars in sanctions relief.

Critics say that in the current situation when the Iranian government is killing protesters, lifting sanctions would simply provide a huge financial windfall to the regime to suppress the people, and to carry on with its malign regional policies.

In fact, those who were opposed to the revival of the JCPOA now have further reason to question the administration’s policy of nuclear talks with Tehran.

State Department spokesperson Ned Price on Monday tried hard to respond to this quandary during his daily briefing.

“Both are a national interest of ours. These are core to our interests and to our values. So of course, we are committed, President Biden is committed, to seeing to it that Iran is never in possession of a nuclear weapon,” he said, referring to President Joe Biden’s stated policy of not allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons and supporting the demands of protesting Iranians.

But under tough questioning by reporters, it became apparent that the spokesperson faced a difficult challenge, amid increasing calls for a tougher policy toward Iran.

The administration insists that reviving the JCPOA is part of not allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. But the deal’s sunset clauses will run out in less than a decade and Iran would be free to expand its nuclear program, while earning money free of sanctions.

The second argument the administration presents is that the nuclear challenge Iran poses is the most dangerous and the revival of the JCPOA will address that. However, it agrees that Iran also poses other dangerous challenges to the United States and its allies, such as its support for militant proxies around the region that are already dominating Iraq and Lebanon and building a military infrastructure in Syria.

While reviving the JCPOA would temporarily stop Iran’s progression toward a nuclear bomb, the sanctions relief will allow it to amplify other dangers it poses to the region and US national interests.

A relevant historical example would be US arms limitation talks with the Soviet Union, by which successive administrations tried to harness the arms race while calling for freedom and democracy in the Communist empire. But those talks were not contingent on providing tens of billions of dollars to Moscow in sanctions relief.

Ned Price also highlighted that the administration eased sanctions on sending software and hardware to Iran to provide Iranians free access to the internet after the government severely restricted connectivity. In that context, however, he was careful to distinguish the Biden Administration form its predecessor by saying, “We are helping people around the world, including in Iran, access personal telecommunications technology. This, of course, is not a regime change policy.”

Iranian officials, including foreign minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian have accused the US and the West of fomenting or supporting the protests, trying to argue that the popular demonstrations are not genuine and engineered from abroad. In an interview with Al Monitor the foreign minister went as far as calling hundreds of videos showing violence against protesters “fake”.