Trump’s maximum pressure campaign against Iran absolutely failed: Harvard researcher

TEHRAN Stephen Herzog, a researcher on the Atomic Management Project at Harvard University, says Donald Trump’s “maximum pressure” strategy to stifle Iran economically has failed as the Islamic Republic has improved economic ties with China, Venezuela and other countries. “Iran has significantly more uranium enrichment than it did before the JCPOA,” says the researcher at Harvard University’s Atomic Management Project.

Herzog made the remarks in an interview with the Tehran Times as it has become clear that Joe Biden had secured enough electoral votes to win the US presidential election.
The researcher also predicts that Iran will not accept “Biden’s word if it is possible for future US presidents to come out of the deal again with a pen.”
“The United States must consider how to assure Iran, whether legally or otherwise, that the JCPOA will remain in place in the future,” Herzog notes.
Below is the text of the interview:

Q: In 2019, the United States withdrew from a historic arms control treaty with Russia, claiming it undermines its national security interests. Do you think the move means a change in US strategy or can it simply be considered an impulsive decision by President Trump?

Answer: True, in August last year, the Trump administration withdrew from the Medium-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty of 1987. It banned the United States and Russia from carrying ballistic missiles and navigating nuclear weapons, and conventionally armed 5005500 kilometers that destabilized Europe during the Cold War.
While the administration accurately showed evidence of Russian missiles violating the treaty, they made no attempt to salvage the deal. This was a grave mistake, as the treaty had numerous benefits for international security and disputes could have been addressed.

However, I would not say the withdrawal necessarily indicates the shift of the US arms control strategy to the long-term plan. Instead, she highlights the major differences between Trump and his electoral rival, former Vice President Joe Biden. Trump also left the Open Skies Treaty and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) known as Iran’s Nuclear Dealand withdrew U.S. signature from the Arms Trade Treaty. If re-elected, it is likely that Trump will allow the expiration of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New Beginnings) with Russia. Agreements is the last remaining deal that limits the two largest nuclear arsenals in the world. But in my opinion, Trump is not necessarily against gun control, so much so that he mistakenly believes that only the values ​​of the deals he makes are. His diplomacy with North Korea that has made no progress towards denuclearization is a great example.

On the other hand, Biden will try to return to these agreements and restore predictability and normalcy in US foreign policy. On a practical level, this means that the US return to international agreements is much more likely if Biden defeats Trump in the election.

As Vice President under Barack Obama when the JCPOA was negotiated, Biden strongly supports the deal, which is part of his campaign platform.

Question: Why does Israel oppose the creation of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in West Asia, but at the same time accuses Iran of trying to produce nuclear weapons?

A: The open source consensus, as you suggest, is that Israel maintains an arsenal of approximately 90 nuclear weapons despite refusing to confirm or deny its nuclear status. Israel has also never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has agreed to give up the development of such weapons. My understanding is that the Israeli government declares that it would be willing to participate in a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East (West Asia) only as part of a wider regional peace agreement that resolves its perceived security threats . Whether it is true or not, the Israeli perception seems to be that the proposals of Iran and other states to create an area are not serious and are just an attempt to stigmatize Israel. Israel wants to link Iran, Egypt and other proponents of regional nuclear disarmament to broader peace negotiations. Likewise, further participation in the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (TPNW) would be productive steps forward.

In connection with Israel’s allegations of Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, the administration of Benjamin Netanyahu’s so-called “atomic archive” of intelligence was deeply impersonal. The only thing they did was to confirm what the international community knew long ago: there is currently no nuclear military activity in the Islamic Republic.

I do not believe that Iranian leaders are seeking nuclear weapons, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has recently determined that Tehran has no fragile material to make even a single nuclear bomb. However, Iran has taken a number of steps away from the JCPOA following the withdrawal of the Trump administration. My feeling is that Iran is trying to show Washington the costs of leaving the deal by pursuing reversible actions such as increasing the number of centrifuges on Fordow and Natanz equipment and enriching uranium above the 3.67% uranium-235 isotope content.

But unfortunately, the Iranian signal was not being evaluated by the Trump administration as a reason to return to the deal. Instead, it has been consistently seen as evidence that Tehran cannot be trusted and should be targeted with further sanctions and military threats.

Question: Iranians were loaded with missiles during Saddam Hussein’s war against Iran in the 1980s, but Tehran was not given weapons to defend itself. Now, why is Iran’s missile defense program being demonized?

A: What happened to the Iranians at the hands of Saddam Hussein’s missiles, chemical weapons and mines was a tragedy. So many civilians suffered in unforgivable human rights violations. The use of missiles by Iraq against Iranian cities in the 1980s shows that these are deadly offensive weapons.

Today, Iran continues to test and improve a large variety of ballistic missiles and navigation with different ranges. The Islamic Republic has used its missiles in recent years in attacks across Iraq and Syria (against ISIS). There are also questions raised by Europe and the US as to why, if Iran needs missiles simply for its regional defense, it has built delivery systems that are now capable of reaching most of Europe.

The Iranian government, in order to prove that its missile program as a defense, must publish a “white paper” strategy paper informing stakeholders around the world about its prevention and defense concepts, as well as the circumstances under which Iran would consider using missiles. Transparency of this nature would help avoid misperception and involuntary escalation. It would also provide a clearer understanding of Iranian views that could adapt future international dialogue to achieve peace.

Q: Is the Joint General Plan of Action (JCPOA), the official name for the Iran 2015 nuclear deal, “the worst deal ever negotiated” as described by Trump?

No, it is far from “the worst deal ever negotiated”. The JCPOA is a landmark agreement that provides Iran with a path to integration into the global economy and the pursuit of civilian nuclear energy. Meanwhile, it features a layered verification intervention regime under IAEA oversight that ensures Iran is not developing nuclear weapons. The Iran nuclear deal was a victory for all parties involved and a step towards peace in the Middle East (West Asia) and beyond.

Trump’s desire to destroy the deal because of her association with Obama is well known. In fact, Trump’s attempts to “stop Iran from taking the bomb” have been major failures. Iran has significantly more uranium enrichment than it did before the JCPOA and a reduced explosion time. Meanwhile, the “maximum pressure” campaign to isolate Iran economically has not worked, as the Islamic Republic has improved economic ties with China, Venezuela and other states. Efforts to reinstate the conventional arms embargo and fast-return sanctions have also failed.

I believe a Biden presidency will revive the JCPOA.

But this is not guaranteed, as it will be difficult for any American leader to return to the deal as long as Iran is qualitatively and quantitatively expanding its centrifuge enrichment program. If Iran can withdraw from these advances, I expect the JCPOA to return with full force. However, Iran will not just accept Biden’s word if it is possible for future US presidents to come out of the deal again with a pen. It will be essential for

The United States should consider how to assure Iran, whether legally or otherwise, that the JCPOA will remain in place in the future. Iranian officials must clearly explain what would be acceptable as security.

If Trump is re-elected, I expect a continuation of the failed policy of “maximum pressure,” perhaps through increased US secondary sanctions on foreign firms doing business with Iran. To reach an agreement with Trump, Iran will have to negotiate over its nuclear and missile programs, as well as its support for groups that the United States has labeled as terrorist organizations. But Trump and his advisers will have to end “maximum pressure” and treat Iran as an equal partner at the negotiating table. Undoubtedly, under a second Trump presidency, the survival of the JCPOA will be in question. Until a new agreement is reached, it will be up to Iran and its European parties to maintain the JCPOA. This would require Iran to reduce its nuclear developments. Joining the JCPOA offers the best path to peace.