Obama's Iran Deal: Federal Law Violation?

In 2015, the Obama administration struck a deal with Iran to limit its nuclear programme in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions. The deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), was reached between Iran and the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council—China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US—plus Germany).

The agreement was controversial, with critics arguing that it didn't go far enough to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. In 2018, the Trump administration withdrew from the deal, citing it as the worst deal ever and imposing sanctions on Iran. This move was also controversial, with some experts arguing that it violated international law and isolated the US from the global community.

So, while there may have been disagreements over the deal's effectiveness, there is no clear indication that Obama broke federal law.

Obama's $1.7 billion cash deal with Iran

In 2016, the Obama administration secretly arranged for a plane delivery of $400 million in cash to Iran on the same day that the country released four American prisoners and implemented the nuclear deal. This was the first payment of a $1.7 billion settlement resolving claims at an international tribunal at The Hague over a failed arms deal under the Shah.

The $400 million was Iran's to start with, placed into a US-based trust fund to support American military equipment purchases in the 1970s. When the Shah was ousted by a 1979 popular uprising, the US froze the trust fund. Iran had been fighting for a return of the funds through international courts since 1981.

The deal was not solely between the US and Iran but included China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. It gave Iran access to its own frozen assets, which were held largely in foreign banks. The money that was unfrozen belonged to Iran and had only been made inaccessible by sanctions aimed at crippling the country's nuclear program.

The $1.7 billion payout was controversial. Republicans charged that the Obama administration had empowered a major sponsor of terrorism and that the cash delivery amounted to a ransom payment that violated long-standing US practice not to pay for hostages. They also argued that it encouraged Iran to hold onto its remaining American prisoners until they could get more money for them.

US officials insisted that the payment did not constitute a ransom and that there was no quid pro quo for the payment. They said the agreement on the release of the prisoners dovetailed with the resolution of parallel negotiations over the dispute of the failed arms deal.

The Iran nuclear deal

Under the JCPOA, Iran agreed to limit its nuclear program and allow international inspectors to access its nuclear facilities in return for sanctions relief and other provisions. Specifically, Iran agreed to:

• Reduce its stockpile of low-enriched uranium by 98% and limit enrichment to 3.67%, which is significantly below the level required for weapons-grade uranium.
• Cut the number of its gas centrifuges by about two-thirds.
• Not build heavy-water facilities or produce weapons-grade plutonium.
• Allow inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to access any site they deem suspicious.

In return, Iran received relief from nuclear-related sanctions imposed by the United States, European Union, and United Nations Security Council.

The JCPOA was the result of 20 months of negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 countries. Formal negotiations began in November 2013 with the adoption of the Joint Plan of Action, an interim agreement that froze Iran's nuclear program in exchange for limited sanctions relief. This was followed by the JCPOA framework agreement in April 2015 and the finalization of the JCPOA in July 2015.

The JCPOA was seen as a historic deal that would prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and increase the time it would take for Iran to develop one (known as "breakout time"). Before the agreement, Iran's breakout time was estimated to be two to three months. Due to the restrictions and monitoring measures put in place by the JCPOA, Iran's breakout time increased to at least 12 months.

However, the deal was controversial and had its critics. In the United States, the agreement was opposed by Republicans and some Democrats, who argued that it was too lenient on Iran and did not do enough to curb its nuclear program. In 2018, the Trump administration withdrew from the JCPOA, calling it a "bad deal" and reinstating sanctions on Iran. Iran responded by gradually breaching the deal's restrictions and expanding its nuclear program.

The impact of Trump's withdrawal from the deal

Trump's withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), had far-reaching consequences and was seen as a violation of international law. The deal, struck between the US, Iran, China, Russia, Germany, France, and the UK, offered Iran sanction relief in exchange for halting its nuclear production.

Trump's decision to withdraw from the deal was closely aligned with Israel and Saudi Arabia, who shared the view that Iran had used its sanction relief funds to develop ballistic missiles and support foreign militias. However, this decision alienated the US from the global community seeking to combat the proliferation of nuclear weapons and went against the recommendations of his European allies.

The withdrawal put pressure on the Iranian regime to alter its course of malign activities and ensure that Iranian "bad acts" were no longer rewarded. It also sent a clear message to Iran and its regional proxies that their actions would no longer be tolerated.

The impact of the withdrawal was felt across the region and beyond. Here are some of the key consequences:

• Regime change in Iran: Trump's decision was seen as an attempt to bring about regime change in Iran. While there was evidence of deep popular anger in Iran against the regime, it is unclear if increased American efforts to sanction Iran's economy would be enough to topple the regime from within.
• Adoption of a regime change policy: The US implicitly or deliberately adopted a policy of regime change in Iran, putting it on a collision course with Tehran.
• Loss of trust: Iran's leaders found it hard to trust that Washington could keep its word, making diplomacy between the two countries difficult.
• Punitive action: With diplomacy becoming more challenging, the US foreign policy toolbox was left with punitive action, taking the form of more aggressive economic sanctions.
• Confrontation and military hostilities: Iran responded to the US withdrawal by firing rockets at Israeli positions in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, to which Israel responded by bombing Iranian targets in Syria. This indicated that Tehran would go after US partners and use its military options in the region to hurt its adversaries.
• Impact on Iraq: The timing of Trump's withdrawal decision was particularly detrimental for Iraq, which was recovering from the fight against ISIS and dealing with stabilization and reconstruction. Iraq was stuck in the middle of the confrontation between the US and Iran, and the next Iraqi prime minister would face pressure to end the US military presence and take Iran's side.
• Diplomatic and economic feud: Trump's decision prompted a diplomatic and economic feud with Europe, as well as with China and Russia, as they stood by the deal despite the US withdrawal.
• Nuclear proliferation: The US withdrawal could trigger a chain of events leading to the unraveling of the multilateral agreement. If Tehran left the deal and resumed high-level nuclear enrichment, it could accelerate nuclear proliferation in the region and potentially trigger an Israeli or US military response.
• Gulf fissures: The varied responses to the US decision on the Iran nuclear deal reflected the intra-Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) division, complicating US reliance on the organization as a key bulwark in confronting the Iranian challenge.
• Impact on Turkey: Turkey, which had close trade and energy ties with Iran, was put in a difficult spot. Reimposed sanctions would hurt its economy, and if Iran decided to pursue nuclear weapons, Turkey would face the challenge of an arms race in the region.
• Consequences for Afghanistan and Pakistan: Trump's decision had deep consequences for Afghanistan and Pakistan, both strategically and economically. They would need to navigate their relationships with Iran and Saudi Arabia carefully and could be forced to choose sides if the rivalry between the two countries heated up.
• Damage to the US economy: The US withdrawal eroded Washington's credibility, even among its traditional allies, and strained America's diplomatic partnerships. It also damaged the US economy as companies doing business with Iran faced severe consequences.
• International isolation: The unilateral withdrawal showed the international community that the US might be an unreliable partner, leading to fraying at the edges of the post–World War II world order.

The deal's impact on global nuclear non-proliferation

The Iran Deal, or the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), was a landmark accord reached between Iran and several world powers, including the United States, in July 2015. The deal imposed significant restrictions on Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. The deal was designed to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and to block all pathways to a nuclear weapon.

The impact of the deal on global nuclear non-proliferation was significant. Firstly, the deal extended the "breakout time" for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. Before the agreement, Iran's breakout time was estimated to be two to three months. However, with the deal in place, it would take Iran 12 months or more to gather enough fissile material to build a weapon. This meant that the international community had more time to respond if Iran decided to pursue a nuclear weapon.

Secondly, the deal included unprecedented monitoring and verification measures. International inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) continuously monitored Iran's declared nuclear program and verified that Iran was complying with the deal. The IAEA had access to Iran's nuclear facilities and supply chain, allowing them to detect any suspicious activity or attempts to divert fissile material to a secret location.

Thirdly, the deal addressed specific concerns about Iran's nuclear facilities, including the Arak IR-40 reactor, Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, and the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant. Iran agreed to limit its enrichment activities, reduce the number of centrifuges, and ship out enriched uranium. These measures ensured that Iran could not produce highly enriched uranium or plutonium for a nuclear weapon.

The deal also had broader implications for global nuclear non-proliferation. It demonstrated the effectiveness of diplomacy and peaceful means in addressing nuclear proliferation concerns. It showed that through negotiations and inspections, it was possible to constrain a country's nuclear program and reduce the risk of nuclear conflict. This set a precedent for dealing with similar issues in other countries.

Furthermore, the deal highlighted the importance of international cooperation and consensus. The involvement of multiple countries, such as the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council) and Germany, along with the support of the European Union, contributed to the success of the deal. This cooperation sent a strong message to other countries that the international community was committed to non-proliferation efforts.

However, the deal also faced challenges and criticisms. Some argued that the deal only delayed Iran's ability to build a nuclear weapon rather than completely preventing it. There were concerns about the deal's "sunset provisions," which lifted certain restrictions on Iran's nuclear program after a set period. There were also concerns about Iran's compliance and the effectiveness of the monitoring measures.

Despite these challenges, the Iran Deal represented a significant step forward in global nuclear non-proliferation efforts. It demonstrated the potential for international cooperation to address nuclear threats and the importance of diplomacy in resolving conflicts peacefully. The deal's impact extended beyond Iran, shaping the global approach to nuclear non-proliferation and setting a precedent for future agreements.

The deal's impact on Iran's economy

The Iran deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), was an agreement to limit Iran's nuclear program in return for sanctions relief. The deal was struck between Iran, the US, China, Russia, Germany, France, the UK, and the European Union.

The deal was implemented in 2016, and it had a significant impact on Iran's economy. Here are some key ways in which the deal affected Iran's economy:

• Oil Exports: The JCPOA led to a reduction in Iran's oil exports, which were a major source of revenue for the country. By October 2019, Iran's crude oil production had fallen, and Bloomberg reported that only 260,000 barrels per day were being exported. This reduction in oil sales also led to a significant fall in Iran's foreign exchange earnings.
• Gross Domestic Product (GDP): Iran's GDP contracted by an estimated 4.8% in 2018 and was forecast to shrink further by 9.5% in 2019, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The decrease in GDP indicates a decline in the overall economic output and activity in the country.
• Unemployment: The unemployment rate in Iran increased from 14.5% in 2018 to 16.8% in 2019, according to the IMF. The reinstatement of US sanctions disrupted various sectors, including energy, shipping, and finance, contributing to the rise in unemployment.
• Inflation: Inflation in Iran soared, affecting the purchasing power of Iranians. The IMF estimated inflation to be around 30.5% in 2018, and it was projected to reach 35.7% in 2019. The World Bank noted that inflation was particularly high for food items, with meat products becoming significantly more expensive.
• Currency Devaluation: The Iranian rial, the country's currency, lost about 50% of its value against the US dollar on the unofficial market since the US abandoned the nuclear deal. This devaluation made imports more expensive and contributed to shortages of imported goods, including essential items such as baby diapers.
• Foreign Investment: The reinstatement of US sanctions caused foreign investment in Iran to dry up. Companies and countries doing business with Iran faced the risk of US sanctions, leading to a decline in foreign investment and economic opportunities for Iran.
• Standard of Living: The combination of reduced oil exports, GDP contraction, rising inflation, and unemployment resulted in a decline in the standard of living for Iranians. Protests erupted in November 2019 due to economic hardships and were brutally suppressed by the authorities.

Frequently asked questions