On John Kerry’s reasoning and what it has to do with sanctions

The US politicians are now engaged in a huge debate on the admissibility of the nuclear deal with Iran, which was reached by that nation and P5+1 powers (the US, Britain, France, Russia, China, and Germany) on July 14. Let us recall that this agreement provides for Iran restricting its nuclear program in exchange for getting sanctions lifted.

The Obama Administration supports fully the agreement’s approval by the Congress, to be put to vote on September 17. On the other hand, the Republican majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate opposes it, arguing that the agreement runs against US interests.

Speaking in defense of this agreement, President Barack Obama said in an interview that it was an alternative to war. Meanwhile, US Secretary of State John Kerry, while speaking in New York on August 11, warned that the Iranian deal’s rejection by the US Congress would have serious implications for his nation. In particular, the head of the Department of State claimed that should the agreement with Iran fail, the EU and other foreign states might refuse to support continued sanction policy on Russia.

The Day turned to Professor Oleksandr TSVIETKOV, who teaches at the Diplomatic Academy of the MFA of Ukraine, asking him to explain just how serious may be the risks for Ukraine in case of the Iranian nuclear deal’s failure to overcome the US Congress’s opposition.

“Since Barack Obama is a ‘lame duck’ (that is, a president who is approaching the end of his tenure), he has weak influence, political and administrative as well as otherwise. Against this backdrop, America is going through a domestic political struggle which deals with future priorities, a struggle for the presidency to be won in 2016. Accordingly, we see party rivalry worsening, and it is especially keenly felt in the American Congress.

“Obama is in the position where he cannot guarantee the successful passage of the Iranian nuclear deal through the Congress. Thus, he listed his reasons for the deal, while Secretary Kerry made a statement too. Obama said, in particular: “Bombs will fall on Tel Aviv if the Iran deal is nixed...” In other words, Obama has made it clear that the failure will undermine stability in the region and increase tension. However, if the deal comes to pass, the US, according to him, will have the means of control over Iran’s implementation of its side of the agreement.

“It is common sense that this agreement is well-aligned with many parties’ geopolitical interests, including those of Ukraine. On the other hand, the US’s backtracking on this policy will give a chance to radical elements in Iran to make themselves heard. That is, the Obama administration is now going all in to get the agreement approved by the Congress.”

How should we understand the statement made by Secretary Kerry to the effect that the US will lose their allies’ support for the sanctions against Russia, should it reject the deal with Iran? What are the risks for our country from such development?

“First of all, we are talking here about American interests and that nation’s role in the world. Of course, the Iranian deal was reached by an international team (P5+1), but the US has been the obvious leader on the issue, which involves a lot of interests, including American and Russian ones.

“Russia supported this agreement, although our media say that it will reduce the oil price, but Russia sees other opportunities to increase trade with Iran that suit their global interests. They include a deepening of nuclear energy cooperation between Russia and Iran. Should the deal fail, the Russian party will find its opportunities limited as well.

“But most importantly, in terms of our geopolitical analysis, Ukraine should support the US as it strives to do the deal. Even though its first result will be a demonstration of the US’s ability to settle international crises, it is, on the other hand, in the interests of Ukraine as well, for it will increase our trade with that Islamic country. Should the sanctions be lifted, we will get additional opportunities on the Iranian market, where we can offer products that match our industrial level.

“Regarding Kerry’s dramatic statement, it followed the administration’s overall pattern. First, Obama tried to push the decision through the Congress, and then Kerry, as a member of the P5+1 group, added international context to support the president’s stance.”

It is known that all the presidential candidates from the Republican Party, including former Florida governor Jeb Bush, have sharply criticized the Iran nuclear deal. During his August 11 speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, he said that the Obama-Clinton-Kerry team “were so eager to be the history-makers, they failed to be the peacemakers.”

“Again, I see this as a case of electoral rhetoric. Even though Jeb Bush admitted the errors of his brother George, who started the war in Iraq, he still extends this criticism to the current administration, accusing it of having actually lost control over events in the region and allowed the Islamic State militants to appear. Effectively, this line of criticism targets the Republicans’ chief opponent, Hillary Clinton, who held the office of the secretary of state at that time. Bush, who was clumsy with the Iraq issue at first, has finally found a new approach and tries to shift the blame onto the current administration.

“On the other hand, the current administration sees the agreement with Iran as a crowning feat of its foreign policy, or in other words, as an important productive step made by American diplomacy in the international arena.

“One should note that the critics of the Iranian deal avoid detailed analysis of the agreement’s provisions, preferring to express generalized distrust of the Iranian side. Obama and his administration respond: read the relevant provisions, we can now control Iran’s nuclear program, so there will be more transparency about it, and failure to comply with the agreement will see the sanctions extended.”

What do you think, then, of the former US secretary of defense Robert Gates’s skeptical take on the agreement, who stated: “A deal we seem to have wanted a lot more than they do”?

“We must generally pay more attention to the importance of achieving such an agreement at all. After all, it was impossible to achieve any results for decades, and confidence was just absent. In other words, the crisis escalated. And now, we see a chance to reach understanding, to reduce threats and achieve a new level of openness, including in trade. It also gives a chance to all countries to expand their potential of peaceful coexistence and liberalized trade relations.

“The strong point of the US Administration’s explanations is that there are controls and ways to advance further in terms of positive changes, if such an agreement passes.

“Another point is that the passage of this agreement will be perceived as a victory for the Democratic Party. Therefore, the criticism of this agreement is mostly due to the need for electoral rhetoric.

“Iran is the heir to an ancient civilization, and its departure from radicalism will benefit the whole world. By now, distrust is the only force left to fuel resistance to this agreement.”