With Pompeo's rise, uncertainty deepens for Iran nuclear deal

[webfact]

With Pompeo's rise, uncertainty deepens for Iran nuclear deal

By Arshad Mohammed, John Irish and Robin Emmott

 

CIA Director Mike Pompeo arrives at the FDD National Security Summit in Washington, U.S., October 19, 2017. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas/File Photo

 

WASHINGTON/PARIS/BRUSSELS (Reuters) - It is unclear how Mike Pompeo becoming U.S. secretary of state may affect the Iran nuclear deal given that there is only one voice that counts in President Donald Trump's administration: his own.

 

Trump's choice of the Central Intelligence Agency director to replace Rex Tillerson means an Iran hawk who fiercely opposed the 2015 pact as a member of Congress will now be in charge of the U.S. diplomacy trying to strengthen, and perhaps save, it.

 

Former U.S. officials and serving European officials were at a loss to gauge how the switch would affect negotiations between the United States and three European powers - Britain, France and Germany - that are also parties to the agreement.

 

Some said Washington may take a harder line under Pompeo and the Europeans may be under more pressure to offer concessions, while others suggested his views on the deal have evolved and he may be better placed to influence Trump to keep it.

 

U.S., British, French and German officials are due to meet on the deal in Berlin on Thursday.

 

"Any officials negotiating with the Europeans right now will get a much more aggressive set of requirements from Pompeo," said Richard Nephew, a former White House and State Department official who worked on Iran during the Obama administration.

 

"The odds of them coming up with a thoughtful compromise by May just got a lot longer," he added.

 

Trump on Tuesday singled out the Iran nuclear deal as one of the main differences he had with Tillerson.

 

"I think it's terrible, I guess he thinks it was OK," Trump said.

 

Trump delivered an ultimatum to the European powers on Jan. 12, saying they must agree to "fix the terrible flaws of the Iran nuclear deal" or he would refuse to extend U.S. sanctions relief on Iran that it calls for. U.S. sanctions will resume unless Trump issues fresh "waivers" to suspend them on May 12.

 

The crux of the July 2015 pact between Iran and six major powers - Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States - was that Iran would restrict its nuclear programme in return for relief from sanctions that have crippled its economy.

 

Trump sees three defects in the deal: its failure to address Iran's ballistic missile programme; the terms under which international inspectors can visit suspect Iranian nuclear sites; and "sunset" clauses under which limits on the Iranian nuclear programme start to expire after 10 years.

 

He wants all three strengthened if the United States is to stay in the deal.

 

In a Jan. 13 cable, the State Department sketched out a path under which the three European allies would simply commit to try to improve the deal over time in return for Trump keeping the pact alive by renewing sanctions relief in May.

 

TRUMP "IS WHAT MATTERS HERE"

 

Other European officials and former U.S. officials said Pompeo's rise, if he is confirmed as secretary of state by the Senate, might have a more ambiguous effect on the negotiations and that, in any case, Trump's views are paramount.

 

"All our work is going into delivering a credible package that is sellable to Trump," said a European diplomat on condition of anonymity. "He is what matters here."

 

While Pompeo was a fierce critic of the deal, called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), as a congressman, he tempered his views when testifying before Congress in January 2017 to seek confirmation as CIA director.

 

"Pompeo was a hawk on Iran. However, my understanding is he doesn’t want the deal to disappear," said a former senior U.S. official. "People should not jump to conclusions."

 

Many of Trump's top national security aides, like Tillerson, have argued that the United States is better off with the Iran nuclear deal than without it. That stance was echoed on Tuesday by the U.S. general who heads the U.S. military command responsible for the Middle East and Central Asia.

 

Former U.S. officials suggested that, as the administration nears a planned summit meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un about Pyongyang's nuclear programme, it could rethink its stance on the Iran deal.

 

European diplomats saw some chance Pompeo may have more influence over Trump than Tillerson, who antagonized the U.S. president by reportedly calling him a "moron" and who differed with Trump on Iran and other issues.

 

"If Pompeo is that hawkish, then in reality all it is the affirmation of Trump’s policies. It’s Trump’s line," said a another European diplomat. "Hopefully he’ll have the mandate that Tillerson didn’t have."

 

(Writing by Arshad Mohammed; editing by Yara Bayoumy and Jonathan Oatis)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-03-14

[Boon Mee]

The Iran nuke deal was a really bad deal to begin with.  Pompeo will be an improvement from the 'get along/go along policies of John Kerry & Tillerson. 

[Guest]

Trump and Pomelo seems to be quite keen to go war with Iran, along with Netanyahu. It's not the best time to have hot-heads leading the countries. 

 

Syria war is ongoing, Ukraine could escalate further.. and soon war with Iran?

 

Russia already said that it will shoot American soldiers, if USA keeps bombing their troops in Syria.  Too many wars ongoing and something will go badly wrong.

[Samui Bodoh]

3 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

The Iran nuke deal was a really bad deal to begin with.  Pompeo will be an improvement from the 'get along/go along policies of John Kerry & Tillerson. 

There are differing opinions on the merits of the deal; this is one of those issues where good people can disagree.

 

However, once the USA has signed a deal, it should stick to it. If US presidents don't honour the work done by their predecessors, who would ever make a deal with the USA again? I sure wouldn't.

 

Perhaps it is time for the Trump Administration to look ahead to the future rather than trying to dismantle everything Obama did. Walking to the future facing backwards rarely produces good policies...

 

[boomerangutang]

It's like returning from a jungle trek.  One the way to the trekking point, it's a decent road (obama, Kerry and their policies).  On the way back, because of a bridge washing-out (Trump election), the trekkers (Americans) are forced to take a crappy deeply-rutted road (Trump's presidency) with wash-outs and precipitous near-tumbles into steep canyons.  How soon until we'll be home? ....to decency, democracy, non-divisiveness, truth, safety?

[simple1]

59 minutes ago, Samui Bodoh said:

There are differing opinions on the merits of the deal; this is one of those issues where good people can disagree.

 

However, once the USA has signed a deal, it should stick to it. If US presidents don't honour the work done by their predecessors, who would ever make a deal with the USA again? I sure wouldn't.

 

Perhaps it is time for the Trump Administration to look ahead to the future rather than trying to dismantle everything Obama did. Walking to the future facing backwards rarely produces good policies...

 

Well said

[ezzra]

1 hour ago, oilinki said:

Trump and Pomelo seems to be quite keen to go war with Iran, along with Netanyahu. It's not the best time to have hot-heads leading the countries. 

 

Syria war is ongoing, Ukraine could escalate further.. and soon war with Iran?

 

Russia already said that it will shoot American soldiers, if USA keeps bombing their troops in Syria.  Too many wars ongoing and something will go badly wrong.

You only have to look at Iran's unstoppable expansion  in other countries they don't even have borders with, and the list is long, their economy is in the duldrume and people are complaining but the Ayatollah's junta is bent to rule the mid east at any cost of money or lives and the sooner they will know that now, there's someone who is watching them like a hawk, that  maybe put the fear of god in them....

 

[Scott]

Post removed.

[StraightTalk]

1 hour ago, ezzra said:

You only have to look at Iran's unstoppable expansion  in other countries they don't even have borders with, and the list is long, their economy is in the duldrume and people are complaining but the Ayatollah's junta is bent to rule the mid east at any cost of money or lives and the sooner they will know that now, there's someone who is watching them like a hawk, that  maybe put the fear of god in them..

It was the British and French (secret Franco-British pact) who created these artificial borders in the first place!

The Ayatollah merely removed US and Western influences/cultures in his country; Their current poor economy situation is inflicted by Western governments including Israel.

USA and Israel are set for another war... 

 

[tonbridgebrit]

Mike Pompeo is head of the CIA, and he's got something against Iran. Making Pompeo the new Secretary of State is a disastrous move.  Iran is not a threat and danger to world peace. But America is moving closer to fighting a war against Iran.  America is moving closer to World War Three.

[Grouse]

We should sell Typhoons to Iran, not Saudi 

[Morch]

2 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Mike Pompeo is head of the CIA, and he's got something against Iran. Making Pompeo the new Secretary of State is a disastrous move.  Iran is not a threat and danger to world peace. But America is moving closer to fighting a war against Iran.  America is moving closer to World War Three.

 

I don't know that Iran is a threat to "world peace", but it is certainly a threat to ME peace. This has nothing much to do with how Pompeo sees things. And even if the US was to have a war with Iran, it's quite a stretch to jump from that to WWIII. Obviously, if there will be a WWIII it will not be the US moving closer to it, but supposedly the world in general.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

We should sell Typhoons to Iran, not Saudi 

 

Being contrarian is all very well, but...

 

BBC appeals to U.N. over 'collective punishment' of its journalists by Iran

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-iran-journalists/bbc-appeals-to-u-n-over-collective-punishment-of-its-journalists-by-iran-idUSKCN1GO00B

 

2011 attack on the British Embassy in Iran

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_attack_on_the_British_Embassy_in_Iran

 

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazanin_Zaghari-Ratcliffe