Israel is trying hard to prevent JCPOA revival: Professor

the professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania said in an exclusive interview with ILNA that "the Biden administration is vividly aware that Washington left the agreement and it is trying to correct that."

You can read the full story bellow:

1. During the negotiations, Washington accused Iran of wasting time but they have not responded to Iran’s response to the European Union draft yet. It seems that the exchange of answers is getting taking too long. What is your evaluation of this matter?

The Biden administration, like the EU mediator Josep Borrell, feels that Iran’s responses to the EU draft Borrell submitted to the parties have made reaching an agreement more difficult. They have not specified all the reasons but it appears they believe Iran is seeking termination of both inspections and sanctions in ways unacceptable to the U.S.  The Biden administration does want the deal reinstated, so it is trying to find responses that might have some hope of restoring movement toward agreement. That is proving hard to do, and it is not made easier by the fact that the Biden team does not want to appear too soft on Iran prior to the 2022 American midterm elections.

2. Some believe that since the beginning of the new round of negotiations, the Biden administration was hesitant to make necessary decisions and present negotiation initiatives to advance the negotiations, and now, as the congressional elections are approaching in November, they are under pressure. How do you evaluate this proposition?

As just indicated, the Biden administration is indeed finding it difficult to identify positions that have good prospects of making a deal likely; and though most voters in America are not and will not be focused on the Iran nuclear agreement, the administration does not want to give Republicans ammunition to use against Democrats by appearing ineffective against what many see as the dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran.

3. Josep Borrell, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs, some time ago expressed his optimism and mentioned that we are only millimeters (inches) away from reaching an agreement, but yesterday he said that reaching an agreement in a short period of time is not possible and the chances of convergence between the parties have decreased. What is your assessment of the events that are taking place?

High Representative Borrell is in a better position than almost anyone to judge the prospects of negotiations, and his judgment that, after appearing to converge, the parties are diverging due to the Iran responses is probably correct. Iranian leaders may well believe that the oil and gas shortages caused by the Russian-Ukrainian war give them fresh leverage to avoid making concessions that the U.S. feels are essential.

3. Although Israel is not a member of this agreement and negotiation, it has repeatedly admitted that even in the event of an agreement, it will use all its means to prevent the progress of Iran's nuclear program. What is the basis for this selfishness? Why are these interventions not dealt with by international institutions? And how much do you approve of Israel’s pressure on the Atomic Energy Organization and the US government?

Leaders of virtually all Israeli parties have long felt, for good reasons, that Iran is the greatest threat to Israel’s existence in the region. They believe that Israel cannot afford to rely on international institutions to safeguard not just its interests but its survival. Their interventions are, however, clearly making reaching an agreement more difficult, because that is precisely what they hope to achieve. They want to see an economically and diplomatically embattled Iran, not a strong one.

4. In a situation where America, despite its silence, is trying to escape from the growing internal pressures and show Iran defeated, what behavior should Iran put on its agenda? What is Europe's duty towards this American behavior?

I have seen no evidence of growing internal pressures in America to show Iran defeated. Most American leaders and voters are far, far more concerned about other issues.  European leaders clearly regard Iran’s responses as the obstacle to further progress in the talks right now. This suggests Iran would be wise not to impose requirements—like, reportedly, guarantees that sanctions will be lifted permanently no matter what Iran does, and resistance to continuing inspections—that most of the world judges to be one-sided and obstructionist.

5. How necessary is it for the other parties to the agreement to repeatedly remind America that Washington is the party that has left the agreement and emphasize that it should back down from its illogical demands?

The Biden administration is vividly aware that Washington left the agreement and it is trying to correct that. I am not sure what “illogical” demands you are asking about. Most observers outside of Iran believe that the Biden administration’s positions were moving the talks closer to a mutually beneficial outcome, until the most recent Iran responses to the EU draft.

6. Iran has announced that in order to prevent a repeat of the 2018 incident (Trump withdrawing from JCPOA), the United States must give a guarantee for the withdrawal of the parties from this agreement. How reasonable do you think this demand for Iran is?

It is not reasonable if it does not include guarantees concerning Iran’s behavior.  Reasonable agreements involve mutual guarantees.

7. What is your prediction of the result of the efforts to revive the JCPOA? To you, if the parties agree, how long will it take until we see the revival of the JCPOA?

I doubt the agreement will be revived so long as international energy shortages lead Iranian leaders to believe they have economic and diplomatic leverage worth trying to exploit for a deal more heavily in their favor than the Biden administration will accept.  The Biden administration believes it can help the world deal with the global energy, food, and shipping issues caused by the Russian-Ukraine war without making concessions to Iran beyond those it deems reasonable.

8. In your opinion, what are the effects of reaching and not reaching an agreement on the energy market? In case of not reaching an agreement, what are the implications for Europe given the fact that it has lost its major energy market (Russia)?

That is very much the central question at the moment, as Iranian leaders appear to believe that Iran’s role as a potential energy supplier means that European leaders will pressure the U.S. to meet Iran’s terms.  So far, however, that is simply not happening.  Instead, European and American leaders are actively pursuing what they regard as a range of other promising options for meeting Europe’s energy needs.

10. The head of the International Atomic Agency in a situation where we are on the verge of reaching an agreement has ignored the provocative actions of Israel such assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists and conducting sabotage in Iranian nuclear sites, and has made accusations against Iran based on allegations made by Israeli. This is despite the fact that Iran has repeatedly allowed access to agency experts within the framework of the NPT and JCPOA provisions, and the peacefulness of Tehran's nuclear activities has been confirmed 14 times by IAEA. However, the Israeli regime, despite having a nuclear arsenal, has not accepted any framework for its nuclear programs and is not willing to allow access to agency officials. How do you evaluate this double standard? Do you agree that IAEA is acting as an obstacle to reaching an agreement?

Israel is indeed trying very hard to prevent an agreement by a wide range of means that include violent actions. The IAEA might well be more critical of Israel’s activities, but I doubt that it's doing so would affect reaching an agreement one way or another.  The IAEA matters for the agreement chiefly in terms of whether continuing inspections will be allowed. It is, however, entirely understandable that Iranian leaders would trust the IAEA more if it expressed opposition to Israel’s efforts to disrupt negotiations, and greater trust by all involved is always beneficial for reaching agreements.