Question Answer
Question:
We know that America is a state of institutions and that its broad outlines in international policy are governed by governing institutions and not just the person of the president. How do we explain that America concluded the nuclear deal with Iran and considered its conclusion a victory, and now Trump has come and withdrawn from it and considered his withdrawal a victory? We hope for a clarification of this matter, with thanks and appreciation.
Answer:
Yes, America's broad outlines in international policy are governed by institutions and not just the person of the president, even if the president's style is prominent in the execution of the decision. However, what was not mentioned in the question is the basis upon which these broad outlines are built; it is the deciding factor in the answer. This basis for that state of institutions is "America's interests." If interests dictate the signing of an agreement in a certain circumstance, the institutions approve it and the president approves it. If America's interests dictate the cancellation of this agreement, the institutions approve the cancellation and the president approves the cancellation. The explanation for this is as follows:
- Iran was important for maintaining the regime of the tyrant Bashar, America’s agent, until America could find a replacement. America feared the popular movements in Syria, which raised slogans of Islam and the rule of Islam. It feared that they would overthrow the tyrant and establish the rule of Islam in Syria, leading to the disappearance of American influence from the region—especially since the momentum of popular movements during 2015 was escalating and advancing from place to place. Thus, it wanted to highlight Iran’s role and remove sanctions from it so that Iran could perform the role assigned to it. America’s interest necessitated signing that agreement to remove obstacles from Iran’s path. It was an agreement that was, by all standards, humiliating and shameful for Iran. Nothing proves this more than the statements of the American president at the time. Following the signing of the agreement on 14/07/2015, President Obama delivered a televised speech in which he said: "The deal cuts off every pathway for Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon... The deal stipulates the removal of two-thirds of the centrifuges installed in Iran and storing them under international supervision, getting rid of 98% of its enriched uranium, accepting the rapid return of sanctions if any breach of the agreement occurs, and giving the International Atomic Energy Agency permanent access to inspect sites wherever and whenever necessary" (BBC, 14/07/2015). We clarified America’s goal for the nuclear deal with Iran in a Question Answer on 22/07/2015, after the Security Council ratified the agreement on 20/07/2015, saying: "...All of this indicates that America aims, through this agreement, to facilitate matters for Iran by lifting sanctions and establishing overt relations with it so that it continues to play the role that would facilitate America’s work, lighten its burdens, and cover its maneuvers with the countries and peoples in the region. Thus, Iran actually implements American policy as is happening in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, but instead of the implementation being behind a screen that blocks the view as it was, it will be behind a transparent screen or without a screen!" Indeed, that happened, and Iran played a dirty, criminal role for America’s account in these countries—in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen—where it was prominent and public under the false names of resistance and defiance and under hateful sectarian mobilization.
Thus, it was in America’s interest at the time to conclude that agreement to ease Iran’s economic situation and enable it to actively implement American plans in the region while being reassured by the lifting of sanctions. This was especially because the situation in Syria, in particular, was about to slip from American influence due to the weakness of the tyrant Bashar’s regime. The required role was for Iran to be active in defending him while being reassured by the lifting of sanctions. Bashar’s situation in 2015 was fragile and nearly disappearing. Therefore, America concluded the nuclear deal with Iran to activate its role in Syria on 14/07/2015, and then did not stop there but introduced Russia militarily after Obama’s meeting with Putin on 30/09/2015, giving permission for Russia to intervene to prevent the fall of Bashar’s regime until an American agent replacement is found.
However, America's view has changed currently as Bashar’s situation has become more stable. This created a different perspective for the Trump administration, especially after what America achieved directly or indirectly in Iraq and Syria against the people of the two countries seeking liberation. There is no longer a need to give Iran a primary, direct role, so the conditions have changed currently. This began at the end of the Obama era after he started giving a direct role to the regimes in Turkey and Saudi Arabia, as their conspiracy against the Syrian revolution was more severe and dangerous than the weapons of Russia, Iran, its party, and the Syrian regime, which did not break the determination of the revolutionaries. However, the Turkish and Saudi regimes enabled victories for the regime through devious methods, which caused Iran’s role to recede from its natural position where it used to manage the situation alone, ahead of Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Thus, America decided to make Iran’s role complementary and not alone in the lead. This is clear in the Astana agreements, and consequently, it was able to halt the Syrian revolution under the name of de-escalation. This is one of the reasons for America’s current announcement of withdrawal from the nuclear deal with Iran, as America’s interest necessitated withdrawal from the agreement as a prelude to new conditions that reduce the Iranian role in the region. This required Trump to exaggerate the benefit of the nuclear deal for Iran to make it appear that he wants to withdraw because this agreement, according to his claim, helps Iran obtain nuclear weapons. Accordingly, Trump claimed on 08/05/2018, when announcing the withdrawal from the nuclear deal with Iran in a televised speech, that "the continuation of the agreement will soon lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East" and that "Iran has done nothing more dangerous than possessing nuclear weapons." He continued, "The agreement was supposed to protect America and its allies, but it enabled Iran to continue enriching uranium," and added: "He is ready and able to negotiate a new agreement with it, when it is ready." He said, "After my consultations with regional and world leaders, I concluded that we cannot, through this agreement, prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb. I announce my withdrawal from the nuclear deal... The agreement does nothing to prevent destabilizing Iranian activity in the region. Within minutes, I will sign a memorandum to re-impose sanctions on Iran." Then he stood and signed it. He added, "The Iran nuclear deal was poorly negotiated. The agreement is full of flaws and we must do something about it, and the conditions set are not acceptable. By leaving the agreement, we will seek a permanent, sustainable, and comprehensive solution." "This agreement is catastrophic; it gave the terrorist Iranian regime millions of dollars" (Sputnik and Al Jazeera, 08/05/2018). It appears very clearly here that Trump intended to say incorrect words, exaggerating and terrifying people about Iran’s capabilities, in order to justify the withdrawal from the nuclear deal, without expressing the real reason, which is that America’s interest now dictates downsizing the Iranian role and reducing its role in the region, while it remains ready to implement what is requested of it by America. This is repeated in American policy; it changes and alters its policy according to its interest. Something similar happened with Russia; after Obama’s meeting with Putin on 30/09/2015 and assigning him to enter Syria to help Iran in the task of maintaining Bashar’s role, and Russia’s readiness for this role, America authorized Russia to enter. However, when Russia tried to exploit its role to appear as if it was acting independently away from America, America’s interest dictated "disciplining" Russia so that it realizes its size, leading to those military strikes! As we clarified in a Question Answer on 14/04/2018: "...The American strike is a disciplining of Russia more than it is a strike against Syrian chemical weapons. About ten sites were hit this dawn; nevertheless, some comments from military experts in the media this morning mentioned that few of those sites were chemical factories or research centers, and that most were military sites." Thus, changing American policy according to its interests is a well-known matter.
Furthermore, there is another matter dictated by America’s interest: America wants to divert attention from the Jewish aggression in the occupation of Palestine and Jerusalem. America had been preparing for some time to move its embassy to Jerusalem, but it was delaying the move while waiting for a two-state solution and the division of Jerusalem. Now, America sees recourse to a different political solution than the two-state solution, by introducing amendments, touch-ups, and other solutions it calls the Deal of the Century. This requires implementing what America previously approved by moving its embassy to Jerusalem. America wants to reduce the sensitivity of this matter, so it focused on Iran and exaggerated its role. This was evident in that conference with the insignificant rulers (ruwaybidat) on 21/05/2017 when Trump addressed leaders and representatives from 55 countries in the Islamic world to justify concluding peace agreements between the Jewish entity and the Saudi regime and other regimes, and moving toward implementing a specific solution for the Palestinian cause that America has not yet announced. The Saudi regime is promoting it and pressuring the Palestinian Authority to agree to it. That is, Trump worked to focus hostility on Iran instead of the Jewish entity occupying Palestine, the land of the Isra and Mi'raj. Saudi Arabia followed behind Trump, supporting what he said and promoting it. For this reason, America’s interest dictated exaggerating the subject of the nuclear deal as if it were not an agreement of humiliation for Iran, but rather an agreement of strength for Iran, knowing that what was included in it makes it difficult for Trump and others to find an agreement more humiliating for Iran than it.
It has been noticed that America focuses on Iran as an enemy in the region instead of the Jewish entity. For example, when the recent protests occurred in Iran, America likewise focused on them and rode the wave, knowing that the Iranian role in the region is a carefully studied American policy. America’s riding of the protest wave in Iran was not intended to change the regime but for other goals that we clarified in a Question Answer on 11/01/2018, which stated: "...So why did America ride the wave and find its desire in it? This is for two important matters: First: diverting attention from Palestine and Trump’s declaration about Jerusalem and occupying the region with the subject of Iran, so that it becomes the number one enemy in the region. Consequently, the focus becomes on Iran and decreases or fades away from the Jewish entity occupying Palestine... Second: finding a justification for America’s agents in the region to remain followers of America under the pretext of its stand against Iran and America’s protection of them from the danger of Iran. Trump’s declaration about Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish entity—the people most hostile to those who believe—that declaration... slapped America’s agents on their backsides... Jerusalem is in the hearts and minds of Muslims, and the silence of those agents regarding Trump’s declaration and their remaining as agents of America, loyal to it and befriending it, is a major scandal for them... So Trump’s escalating statements against Iran were the straw they cling to to justify their remaining loyal to America as its agents despite Trump’s declaration about Jerusalem... by saying that Trump stands in the face of Iran, the arch-enemy! It is an excuse worse than the sin."
قَاتَلَهُمُ اللَّهُ أَنَّى يُؤْفَكُونَ
"May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?" (Quran, Surah At-Tawbah 9:30)
America was the centerpiece in the nuclear deal, and Europe accepted the American formulation of the agreement and was content with being a signatory to it, i.e., a party to it—satisfied with returning only with its safety! We clarified Europe’s situation during the nuclear deal negotiations in a Question Answer on 22/07/2015, then we said after that clarification: "...Thus, nothing remained for the Europeans—having realized they could not prevent the American-Iranian nuclear deal or affect American influence—nothing remained for them except to move toward Iran to obtain the spoils by winning investments and projects there as they suffer from a financial crisis. Through this, they can work inside Iran in the long term to regain European influence or some of it there alongside American influence..." Thus, Europe exploited the conclusion of the agreement and opened up to Iran commercially, so the trade balance between Europe and Iran escalated, and commercial dealing with America relatively decreased compared to before the agreement and during the imposition of sanctions. This was the third reason that made Trump hasten to cancel the agreement as a blow directed at Europe, especially from the commercial aspect. Trump announced on May 7, 2018, in a tweet on Twitter, the advancement of his decision regarding the Iranian nuclear deal from May 12 to May 8. It is noted that this advancement came because of European moves that took place in an attempt to dissuade him from withdrawing from the nuclear deal. The Al-Araby Al-Jadeed website quoted the Axios website as saying that US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo informed his European counterparts—French, British, and German—on Friday, 04/05/2018, of President Trump’s intention to announce his country’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal, and that "he rejected the understandings formulated with American negotiators during the past months regarding a possible amendment to the agreement." America did not accept to understand or cooperate with the Europeans and did not care about them, which indicates that it has other calculations and wants to distance the Europeans, not cooperate with them on this subject.
Europe realized that the cancellation of the agreement would cause it significant commercial damage as a prelude to political damage. Therefore, it exerted every effort in meeting with Trump to dissuade him from withdrawing. Macron went to America and tried to dissuade the American president from his intention to withdraw from that agreement, but he failed, and he was followed by German Chancellor Merkel. They offered concessions to America, but it did not accept. So, the European position appeared weak. Then Britain moved; it contacted Macron and Merkel, and they announced that they were insistent on the Iranian nuclear deal. Then British Foreign Secretary Johnson visited America and announced that the world is safer with the agreement than without it, and Britain began to move strongly. Trump saw fit to advance the date of his position on the agreement from May 12 to May 8 to block the path of Europe’s moves, so he announced what he announced. He gave no weight to the Europeans because the American institutions saw in these three reasons a driving interest for America to cancel the agreement.
As for the reactions, they were as follows:
A. Europe is sad, full of regret and concern! German Chancellor Merkel said: "The decision of US President Trump regarding the agreement is grave and causes regret and concern." She said, "We will remain committed to this agreement and will do everything necessary to ensure Iran complies with it, and that Germany took this decision in cooperation with Britain and France." She added that "the path to a solution must be through joint dialogue" and that "Europe must take more responsibility in foreign and security policy." She emphasized that Germany "will do everything in its power to ensure Tehran adheres to the responsibilities incumbent upon it according to the nuclear deal and noted that Tehran has fulfilled them so far and said that the deal should not be questioned, but rather a broader agreement should be negotiated based on it" (DPA, Reuters, 09/05/2018). She announces Europe's disappointment for its failure before America and its concern over the results of its withdrawal from the agreement. The Europeans, as we mentioned earlier, had moved at the highest level toward America to dissuade Trump from the withdrawal decision and tried to accommodate Trump by proposing new negotiations with Iran, but he did not respond to them; rather, he surprised them by advancing the date of the announcement of his position on the agreement. Thus, the Europeans showed weakness in facing America.
Then, during the second week of May 2018, conflicting European statements appeared reflecting their disturbance and shock at America’s withdrawal. On one hand, some statements showed defiance; the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini, said, "I am particularly worried about tonight’s announcement (Trump’s announcement) of new sanctions." She said, "The European Union is determined to preserve it (the agreement). We will maintain this nuclear deal in cooperation with the rest of the international community" (Reuters, 08/05/2018). French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said, commenting on Trump’s decision, "The agreement is not dead and the foreign ministers of Britain, France, Germany, and Iran will hold a meeting next Monday (14/05/2018) to discuss the latest developments... The Iranian ballistic missile program and other issues must be discussed. But at the same time, the nuclear deal must be maintained, emphasizing that the International Atomic Energy Agency testifies to Iran’s respect for the agreement" (Al Jazeera, 09/05/2018). Britain, France, and Germany announced their unified position in a joint statement saying, "We commit to ensuring the implementation of the agreement and will work with all other concerned parties so that this remains the case, including ensuring the continuation of the economic benefits associated with the agreement for the Iranian people" (Al Jazeera, 09/05/2018). Johnson said before his country’s parliament, "Washington’s decision to withdraw from the nuclear deal does not change our position. We have no intentions of withdrawing." He said, "I urge the United States to avoid any action that could prevent other parties from continuing to proceed with implementing the agreement for the sake of our collective security" (The Guardian, 09/05/2018). These are positions showing that Europe will defy and stand firm!
On the other hand, some European statements showed retreat, flexibility, and fear for their companies. Norbert Röttgen, head of the foreign affairs committee in Merkel’s party, said, "It will be difficult to adhere to the nuclear deal without America, given that European companies that continue their commercial dealings with the Iranian side may be exposed to harsh American sanctions, and the price of that cannot be compensated." He warned, saying, "Therefore, affected companies will likely quickly retreat from their investments or withdraw from the country entirely" (Der Spiegel, 09/05/2018). French Foreign Minister Le Drian said on 09/05/2018 on the RTL channel, "Iran had agreed to impose restrictions on its nuclear activities in exchange for economic benefits that the Europeans will try to maintain... and the authorities will meet with French companies working in Iran within days to discuss how we can help their operations in Iran to try to protect them as much as possible from American measures." Thus, the Europeans expressed concern over the fate of their economic gains.
B. As for the Iranian position, relative calm is clear in it to some extent, as well as a lack of inclination toward Europe. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani described Trump’s decision as "psychological warfare and economic pressure." He said, "We will not allow Trump to win the psychological war and economic pressure on the Iranian people." He said, "His country’s remaining committed to the nuclear deal without America is conditional on Iran ensuring within weeks that it will obtain the full benefits of the agreement with the guarantee of the remaining parties. We will wait a few weeks before implementing this decision; we will talk with our friends and allies and with the remaining parties to the nuclear deal with whom we are holding discussions. The whole matter depends on ensuring our interests; if they are secured, we will continue with the agreement, but if the agreement is just a paper that does not guarantee the interests of the Iranian people, then a clear path will be before us" (Official Iranian Television, 09/05/2018). The Speaker of the Iranian Shura Council, Ali Larijani, said: "Europe previously succumbed to American pressures, which led to the withdrawal of many of its companies from Iran under previous international sanctions between 2012 and 2015... We cannot place much trust in their statements about maintaining the agreement, but the matter is worth testing for several weeks so that it is clear to the world that Iran tried in every way to reach a peaceful political solution" (Deutsche Welle, 09/05/2018). Iran is not confident in the Europeans' positions and their firmness, and it is afraid for its interests; if sanctions are applied, it will be harmed.
C. As for Russia, it did not unify its position opposing Trump with the European positions; it announced its position independently. Its Foreign Minister Lavrov stated: "Russia is deeply disappointed by Trump’s decision... There are not and cannot be justifications for canceling the agreement which has shown its full effectiveness... and Moscow is ready to continue cooperation with other parties to the nuclear deal and it will also continue to develop its relations with Iran" (Al Jazeera, 09/05/2018). It speaks shyly about cooperation with other parties, i.e., the Europeans, and did not contact them, as they decided to meet and negotiate with Iran without it. So the Russian position became critical; it can neither go along with America on this subject because that contradicts its interests and its policy toward Iran, nor can it go along with the Europeans who are working to strain relations with Russia so that America does not use it against them to isolate them.
D. As for China’s position, its special envoy to the Middle East, Zhong Xiaosheng, said that "all parties participating in the nuclear deal with Iran must adhere to it and use dialogue and negotiations to resolve the dispute, and that his country is ready to strengthen cooperation between all countries that signed the agreement" (Xinhua, 09/05/2018). This is a vague, general statement by which China did not align itself with the European countries opposing the withdrawal from the agreement; rather, it equated the American and European positions with this statement. China cannot be relied upon due to the weakness of its international positions toward America, and it only thinks of its commercial relations with it.
Conclusion:
Trump did not announce his withdrawal from the agreement because the nuclear deal was a victory for Iran, for Iran’s interest, or to elevate Iran’s status. Rather, the reality of the agreement, as it was in Obama’s time, was a humiliation for Iran and a shameful concession in its nuclear project. However, Trump announced the withdrawal from the agreement because America’s interest now dictates it due to the three factors mentioned above:
A. The need for the Iranian role, especially in 2015, no longer exists now as it did in 2015.
B. Exaggerating American hostility toward Iran, especially before Saudi Arabia and its like, so that this hostility with Iran replaces the state of hostility with the Jewish entity.
C. Disciplining Europe, especially from the commercial aspect, as it exploited the agreement by opening up commercially to Iran and reducing its commercial relations with America.
Indeed, America and the West, like their predecessors among the disbelievers and polytheists, do not respect a covenant nor keep a contract; rather, they break covenants and treaties every time and do not fear Allah. Where are they from the values and rules of Islam that necessitate fulfillment of contracts and covenants? Allah (swt) says:
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَوْفُوا بِالْعُقُودِ
"O you who have believed, fulfill [all] contracts." (Quran, Surah Al-Ma'idah 5:1)
Truly, how much humanity is in need today—after the disbelievers have spread corruption on earth, oppressed the servants, and destroyed crops and livestock—how much it needs the Islamic State, the "Rightly Guided Khilafah," which fulfills contracts, preserves covenants, and spreads justice, security, and safety among the people. So come, O Muslims, to establish it, for in it is honor, sovereignty, and glory. The Messenger of Allah (saw) spoke the truth when he described the Caliph as a protection for the Ummah from every evil, weakness, and humiliation:
إِنَّمَا الْإِمَامُ جُنَّةٌ يُقَاتَلُ مِنْ وَرَائِهِ وَيُتَّقَى بِهِ
"The Imam is but a shield, behind whom you fight and by whom you are protected." (Narrated by Muslim from Abu Hurayrah)
27th of Sha'ban 1439 AH 13/05/2018 CE