The Iran arms embargo concession won't limit Biden's shot at a new deal

In an op-ed titled "Iran Arms Embargo Reckoning," the Wall Street Journal editorial board argues that ending the UN arms embargo on Iran was a major flaw of the 2015 nuclear deal and questions whether Biden could do anything to contain Iran at this point. Ian Bremmer and Eurasia Group's Henry Rome take out the Red Pen to explain why this discussion misrepresents the importance of the embargo and the consequences for its expiration.

So, the US presidential election is now just days away, and today's selection is focusing on a specific aspect of foreign policy that will certainly change depending on who wins in the presidential contest—namely America's approach to Iran.

You've heard me talk before about the many similarities between Trump and Biden on some international policies, like on China or on Afghanistan. But Iran is definitely not one of those. Trump hated the JCPOA, the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal, put together under the Obama administration, and he walked away from it unilaterally. Joe Biden, if he were to become president, would try to bring it back.

But this article focuses on one specific aspect of the deal—it was a concession made to Iran in exchange for the promise of curbing Iran's nuclear ambitions. There was a long-standing UN embargo that prevented Iran from buying conventional weapons like tanks and missiles and exporting arms. As a tradeoff in the 2015 agreement, that embargo was set to end—and it did—just a few days ago.

The Wall Street Journal is not happy about that one bit and the piece calls this concession a flaw of the Obama deal. It also questions whether Biden could do anything to contain Iran at this point.

So, let's get out the Red Pen.

The Wall Street Journal is not happy about that one bit and the piece calls this concession a flaw of the Obama deal. It also questions whether Biden could do anything to contain Iran at this point.

So, let's get out the Red Pen.

Number one, the Trump administration sought an extension of the embargo this past summer which was blocked in the United Nations Security Council by China and Russia. The Wall Street Journal writes that the countries that abstained in that vote—including the UK, Germany and France, "stayed silent despite Iran's history of promoting terror in Europe."

US ignored real efforts by Europe to find a compromise.

Actually, the United States ignored real efforts by Europe to find a compromise on the arms embargo this summer. Like proposing a temporary extension of the ban on Iranian weapons imports and tightening restrictions on Iranian exports. They suggested that the United States under the Trump administration stuck to an all-or-nothing stance and blew the Europeans off. So, no, America didn't get its way. But also, there was no real negotiating done here. Not even an effort.

Next, on the issue of the snapped-back sanctions themselves, the Wall Street Journal says, "this is another case when the United Nations is more obstacle than ally to US interests."

Trump disagrees with Obama's policy. That's a US problem, not UN.

That's just not the case at all. The thing is that the Obama administration created the snap back mechanism in this case—it was a bargaining chip, something the American's gave to get the Iranian's into the deal. So, the Trump administration's issue here is a legitimate grievance but what the Obama administration, not about the United Nations at all.

And finally, the editorial board asks, "How is Mr. Biden going to contain Iran's regional imperialism and support for terrorism without an arms embargo?"

Biden wants real negotiations. It'll be hard, but he has a shot.

Well, one thing here is Iran is not going to go on a tank and fighter jet spending spree like it's Black Friday at Costco, because Tehran doesn't have the cash and they also don't want more sanctions right now—and neither do Iran's allies China and Russia. Let's keep in mind, the Iranian economy is in parlous condition right now. In part because of mishandling coronavirus, but in part because the United States has pushed much tougher sanctions against Iran.

So, I mean, the ability of the Iranians to go and spend a lot on the military now is significantly less than it was when the Iranian deal was struck with the Obama administration. To the broader point of getting back to an acceptable nuclear deal—far more important than conventional arms—sure, it's going to be messy. Not at all convinced that it is going to happen. But Biden will have international support. Remember, the United States left the nuclear deal unilaterally. Every one of America's allies that were confederates in getting the deal done, opposed that from happening. And they've got a better shot at getting back than the United States does right now.

I'd also say on that introductory point about this concession being a flaw of the 2015 agreement: Deals involve tradeoffs. They are about bargaining. Keeping Iran away from a nuclear bomb was the goal, pushing that capacity off for a decade or more, and was considered a higher priority than the arms embargo at the time.

Different people can have different judgements on that one, but it is how diplomacy works.

A sector that's rapidly expanding, domotics - domus (home) plus robotics - are smart houses that manage temperature and lighting to minimize wasted electricity. For example, smart thermostats sense your presence and set the temperature according to your needs, saving 20% a year on heating bills. Watch this episode of Eni's Energy Shot series to learn how domotics save money and increase a home's value.

Even if the US, Europe, China, and India reduce carbon emissions at the rate they've promised, much climate damage has already been done. That shouldn't stop these and other countries from doing all they can to meet their net-zero emissions targets, but they also better start preparing for a world of people on the move.

Climate change will displace an unprecedented number of people in coming years, creating not just a series of humanitarian crises in many parts of the world, but lasting political, economic, and social upheaval as those of us who live on higher ground try to find a sustainable place for these climate refugees to live.

More Show less

Listen: In a wide-ranging interview with Ian Bremmer, Pulitzer Prize-winning climate journalist Elizabeth Kolbert assesses the current state of the climate crisis and answers a simple question: how screwed are we? And as the climate continues to warm at a record pace, she unpacks some of the more extreme climate solutions that some increasingly desperate nations are starting to consider. Such measures may sound like stuff of science fiction (see: injecting sulfur particles into the atmosphere or shooting millions of tiny orbital mirrors into outer space) as times become more desperate, their appeal is growing. Can we fix the planet the same way we broke it?

China is making its neighbors nervous these days. Chinese fighter jets are screaming into Taiwan's airspace. Hundreds of armed Chinese "fishing boats" are plying the disputed waters of the South China Sea. And Beijing is slashing imports from some trading partners because of disputes over political issues.

To push back against this increasingly aggressive behavior, regional powers Japan, India, and Australia, together with the US, are boosting cooperation via a 17-year-old grouping called the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or simply "The Quad." But how effectively can these four countries really work together to counter China? Eurasia Group's Peter Mumford discusses the Quad's future.

More Show less

Want to tackle climate change? If so you'll have to reach out to China, which is currently responsible for over a quarter of global carbon dioxide emissions. Beijing will certainly take your call, as climate is a huge priority for President Xi Jinping.

Xi has promised that China will go "net zero" — meaning its carbon emissions will be offset by equal amounts of either natural or tech-driven carbon capture — by 2060. Is a decade later than most of the top 10 polluting countries fast enough for the rest of the world? It is for the Chinese, who want to help but have their own ideas about how.

More Show less

When will it be safe for the world's children to be vaccinated against COVID-19? The World Health Organization's chief scientist, Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, says that vaccines are being tested in children down to the age of six or even lower, and promises that data on children will be shared as soon as it's available. She also notes that there are not enough studies on transmission in schools, and the WHO has advised governments to prioritize schools "over other things like shopping malls or cinema halls or pubs." Dr. Swaminathan spoke with Ian Bremmer in an interview on GZERO World, airing on US public television stations starting April 9. Check local listings.

Watch the episode: Vaccine nationalism could prolong the pandemic

Over the past half century, climate change has had an immense impact on the farmers who produce the food we eat. A new study by Cornell University shows that global warming has knocked 21 percent off of global agriculture productivity growth since 1965, equivalent to seven years of normal growth if humans had not polluted the planet. But not all countries have been affected in the same say. Farmers in warmer parts of the world have been hit hard as conditions grow more arid, but sub-polar regions in Canada or Siberia are now actually better for agriculture because they are not as cold as they used to be. Here we take a look at how climate has affected farming productivity growth around the world.

On Tuesday, a major US intelligence report said the top threat to America right now is China. A day later, John Kerry, the Biden administration's "climate czar," got on a plane to... China.

Such is the drama of ties between the world's two largest economies these days.

More Show less

Subscribe to GZERO Media's newsletter, Signal

The GZERO World Podcast with Ian Bremmer. Listen now.


Subscribe to GZERO Media's newsletter: Signal

Can "the Quad" constrain China?