This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/17/us/politics/trump-iran-nuclear-deal.html

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
With a New Threat, Iran Tests the Resolve of the U.S. and Its Allies With a New Threat, Iran Tests the Resolve of the U.S. and Its Allies
(about 5 hours later)
WASHINGTON — Iran’s announcement on Monday that it expects to breach the terms of the 2015 agreement that was intended to slow its ability to develop a nuclear weapon opens a new and perilous phase of its confrontation with the West. WASHINGTON — After coming to office vowing to solve two very different nuclear crises, President Trump finds himself in a bind familiar to his predecessors: careening toward a confrontation with Iran and stalemated with North Korea.
If the Iranians make good on their threat to break through the restrictions on how much nuclear fuel they will produce, Tehran will have enough fuel to make a single bomb in less than a year for the first time since the 2015 agreement went into effect. The one-year buffer is the safety threshold that the Obama administration set and that the Trump administration has adopted to impede Iran from gaining the capability to build a nuclear weapon. Iran’s announcement on Monday that it expects within 10 days to blow past the limits on how much nuclear fuel it can stockpile opens a new and perilous phase of its confrontation with the West.
Iranian leaders appear to be testing whether the rest of the coalition that negotiated the nuclear deal — especially the big European powers — will stick with Washington. After a year of restraint, during which Iran complied with the terms of an agreement that Mr. Trump very publicly abandoned, there is a greater sense than at any time in recent years that what began as an effort to drive Iran to the negotiating table may instead push the two countries into a conflict leaders on both sides insist they do not want.
Should the Europeans break with the Trump administration and agree to help Iran weather harsh economic sanctions imposed by the United States, Tehran said, it could avoid breaking the 2015 agreement. That seems unlikely. Iran is still well more than a year away from being able to build a weapon — perhaps much longer. North Korea, by contrast, already has dozens, and appears to be adding to its arsenal at a rapid clip, according to American intelligence experts, despite Mr. Trump’s insistent wooing of the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un.
Nonetheless, the Europeans blame President Trump for pushing Iran into breaking out of an agreement that was working, as do China and Russia. And despite calls from some hawks in Washington for military action — most recently Senator Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas, who said on Sunday that attacks on tankers in the Gulf of Oman “warrant a retaliatory military strike” — Iran is betting that this time Washington will find few allies willing to escalate the confrontation, either in the Persian Gulf or by attacking the country’s nuclear facilities. It is not clear yet what Mr. Trump is getting in return. On Monday, President Xi Jinping of China, whose government has kept the North alive with fuel and aid, announced that he would make his first state visit to Pyongyang, a huge propaganda victory for Mr. Kim. Mr. Kim also met recently with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.
The message seems clear: Even if he cannot reach an agreement with Washington, Mr. Kim has other cards to play, keeping trade and relationships alive with the two powers that helped his grandfather fight the Americans nearly seven decades ago.
But while Mr. Trump sees Iran’s threats to resume nuclear production as an urgent crisis, one leading to the decision on Monday to send another 1,000 troops to the region, he is so invested in his newfound relationship with Mr. Kim that he actively dismisses evidence that North Korea’s collection of weapons and missiles is expanding.
“I don’t know,” Mr. Trump told George Stephanopoulos of ABC News over the weekend, appearing not to know about those assessments, or not to believe them. “I hope not. He promised me he wouldn’t.”
Broken promises — real, imagined and misunderstood — are at the core of both standoffs. The Iranians believe they agreed in 2015 to a 15-year moratorium on producing new nuclear fuel — and that in return they would be able to integrate themselves into the global economy.
But Mr. Trump declared the accord a “disaster” and abandoned it over the objections of many of his top advisers, his European allies, and Russia and China.
If the Iranians make good on their threat to break through the restrictions on how much nuclear fuel they will produce, by next month Tehran may have enough fuel for a single bomb in less than a year, for the first time since the 2015 agreement went into effect. (It would take it significantly longer, experts estimate, to build a deliverable weapon.)
The one-year buffer is the safety threshold that the Obama administration set years ago and that the Trump administration has adopted to impede Iran from gaining the capability to build a nuclear weapon. But leaders appear to be testing whether the rest of the coalition that negotiated the nuclear deal — especially the big European powers — will stick with Washington.
Should the Europeans break with the Trump administration and agree to help Iran weather harsh economic sanctions imposed by the United States, Tehran said, it could avoid breaking out of the 2015 agreement. That seems unlikely.
Nonetheless, the Europeans blame Mr. Trump for pushing Iran into violating an accord they all thought was working. And despite calls from some hawks in Washington for military action — most recently Senator Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas, who said on Sunday that attacks on tankers in the Gulf of Oman “warrant a retaliatory military strike” — Iran is betting that this time Washington will find few allies willing to escalate the confrontation, either in the Persian Gulf or through attacks on the country’s nuclear facilities.
It is a huge game of chicken, and a miscalculation on either side could easily provoke a conflict.It is a huge game of chicken, and a miscalculation on either side could easily provoke a conflict.
Now Mr. Trump faces two immediate challenges: making the Persian Gulf safe for oil shipments and keeping Iran from edging toward the bomb-making capability that incited the crisis of a decade ago. Neither will be easy. Now Mr. Trump faces two immediate challenges when it comes to Iran: making the Persian Gulf safe for oil shipments and keeping Iran from edging toward the bomb-making capability that incited the crisis of a decade ago. Neither will be easy.
“Unfortunately, we are heading toward a confrontation,” Iran’s ambassador to Britain, Hamid Baeidinejad, warned CNN’s Christiane Amanpour on Monday.“Unfortunately, we are heading toward a confrontation,” Iran’s ambassador to Britain, Hamid Baeidinejad, warned CNN’s Christiane Amanpour on Monday.
But it is also part of the unwinding of Mr. Trump’s promise that he would restore respect for American power to the degree that adversaries would give up their nuclear weapons programs, starting with North Korea, to be followed by Iran. That view may be a calculated one, intended to peel the Europeans away from Mr. Trump. But the past few weeks have cast doubt on Mr. Trump’s campaign promise that his occupancy of the Oval Office would so restore respect for American power that adversaries would give up their nuclear weapons programs.
Nearly two and a half years into his presidency, Mr. Trump’s high-profile diplomatic effort with North Korea has stagnated, and Kim Jong-un, whom the president improbably declared a friend who will make good on his promises, is assessed by American intelligence agencies to be adding to the North’s arsenal while the clock ticks. On Monday, President Xi Jinping of China announced that he plans to visit North Korea this week, his first trip there as president. On Iran, the theory was that once he abandoned the Iran deal and reimposed sanctions, Iran would crack. By some measures the sanctions worked: Iran’s economy has shrunk 4 percent, its currency has cratered and its inflation rate soared.
At the same time, Mr. Trump’s gamble that Iran would crack once he abandoned the Obama-era nuclear deal and reimposed sanctions has failed to pay off, at least for now. But rather than crack, the Iranians escalated, leaving Mr. Trump without any easy options.
Instead the Iranians escalated, leaving Mr. Trump without any easy options. That is in part because the confrontation erupted so quickly, and in part because Mr. Trump is paying the price for having alienated so many other participants in what was once an international coalition to isolate Iran’s leaders.
“The U.S. seems to have embarked on its ‘maximum pressure’ campaign with few allies and little forethought as to unintended consequences or how to respond if key assumptions — e.g., that Iran will implode or succumb and enter talks on U.S. terms — prove false,” Brett McGurk, Mr. Trump’s former special envoy for the global coalition against the Islamic State, wrote recently.“The U.S. seems to have embarked on its ‘maximum pressure’ campaign with few allies and little forethought as to unintended consequences or how to respond if key assumptions — e.g., that Iran will implode or succumb and enter talks on U.S. terms — prove false,” Brett McGurk, Mr. Trump’s former special envoy for the global coalition against the Islamic State, wrote recently.
He added: “Those assumptions are now highly questionable at best, which means the entire policy foundation as articulated by Trump has eroded. Iran appears to have made the strategic decision (not surprising) to resist economic pressure and respond asymmetrically, not directly against us.”He added: “Those assumptions are now highly questionable at best, which means the entire policy foundation as articulated by Trump has eroded. Iran appears to have made the strategic decision (not surprising) to resist economic pressure and respond asymmetrically, not directly against us.”
Iran has almost never directly taken on American forces, knowing what the result would be. Instead, it has used proxies like Hamas, the Palestinian organization judged by the United States to be a terrorist operation, while also launching cyberattacks and building missiles that could reach American allies but not the United States. Compounding the problem is the emerging confrontation in the gulf. Even the Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam B. Schiff, no friend of Mr. Trump’s, says the evidence is overwhelming that Iran was responsible for the attacks on the tankers.
In striking the 2015 nuclear agreement, President Barack Obama was betting that he could gradually encourage Iran to moderate that behavior. The effort failed — the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, keeper of the nuclear program, turned its attentions elsewhere. But the agreement deprived Iran of a pathway to a nuclear weapon for another 15 years or so. Securing the gulf for oil tankers would require enough naval vessels and reconnaissance capability to monitor just about every ship passing close to Iran’s shores.
Mr. Trump has taken the opposite approach, trying to force change by choking off every last source of oil revenue. He abandoned the nuclear accord so that he could reimpose sanctions — while his administration insisted that Iran must still adhere to the accord. And Mr. Trump has prematurely claimed victory, declaring that Iran is “a different country” since he began to crack down.
Mr. Trump has few easy options as he confronts the challenge of keeping tanker traffic moving through the Persian Gulf while also facing Iran’s provocative nuclear stance.
Securing the gulf requires enough naval vessels and reconnaissance capability to monitor just about everything passing close to Iran’s shores.
“That requires a coalition,” said John F. Kirby, a retired rear admiral who participated in the tanker wars of the 1980s and served as the State Department spokesman during the negotiation of the Iran deal. “We don’t have enough ships to do it ourselves.”“That requires a coalition,” said John F. Kirby, a retired rear admiral who participated in the tanker wars of the 1980s and served as the State Department spokesman during the negotiation of the Iran deal. “We don’t have enough ships to do it ourselves.”
Whether the United States can convince allies to supply additional ships may be a test of how big a price Mr. Trump has paid for alienating the other nations that were part of the 2015 agreement and that also fear Iran’s move to a bomb.Whether the United States can convince allies to supply additional ships may be a test of how big a price Mr. Trump has paid for alienating the other nations that were part of the 2015 agreement and that also fear Iran’s move to a bomb.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo suggested on Sunday that China, among others, should help with that task, since it is so dependent on oil from the Middle East. But it is far from clear that China, Russia or the three European powers that negotiated the nuclear accord alongside the United States — Britain, France and Germany — are willing to join in that effort.Secretary of State Mike Pompeo suggested on Sunday that China, among others, should help with that task, since it is so dependent on oil from the Middle East. But it is far from clear that China, Russia or the three European powers that negotiated the nuclear accord alongside the United States — Britain, France and Germany — are willing to join in that effort.
But the longer-term challenge is whether the world will still unite around the idea that Iran cannot be trusted with anything more than a token nuclear capability. As these dramas play out, no one is watching the Iran confrontation more carefully than Mr. Kim in North Korea. He has played Mr. Trump much more skillfully than the Iranians have, engaging him first in a feel-good summit meeting and then, for a year, rejecting the administration’s definitions of “denuclearization.”
With Monday’s announcement, Iran has made it clear that it plans to increase the pressure, first by producing more uranium, then by gradually ramping up the enrichment level of the nuclear fuel, pushing it closer and closer to bomb grade. Mr. Trump, for his part, turned down a request from Mr. Kim to end sanctions in return for dismantling only a part of the North’s nuclear infrastructure. But he has backed away from threatening what he once called fire and fury, and Mr. Kim may well be betting that as long as Iran dominates the headlines and the White House’s attention, he can keep producing missiles, fuel and weapons.
Tehran appears to be betting it can do that, gaining leverage over the West, without prompting a military response. That was a close call in Mr. Obama’s time, when plans were drawn up for such an attack. In the Trump era, it is as unpredictable as a president who says he does not want another war in the Middle East, but periodically threatens one.