Iran / United States: the strategy of gradual pressure

In the wake of tensions between the United States and Iran for more than a year around the nuclear, Iran has announced to overcome the limits of research and development on nuclear power. The point of view of Thierry Coville, specialist of Iran and researcher at IRIS.

After a slight relaxation and a relative rapprochement with the United States during the G7 a week ago, what explains the decision of Iran to abandon any limit in nuclear research and development?

We must remember the historical context: the United States came out of the 2015 agreement in May 2018, and until May 2019, Iran scrupulously respected the agreement. This US exit from the deal and US sanctions led to a serious economic crisis in Iran, with inflation reaching at least 40%. In spite of this difficult economic situation, Iran remained in the agreement, which was not obvious, given the seriousness of the economic crisis and criticism of radical groups in Iran, initially opposed to the agreement. of 2015, which recalled daily that Hassan Rohani in signing this 2015 agreement had fallen into a trap set by the United States.
From May 2019, Iran's policy has changed. Its leaders realized that the situation was untenable: on the one hand, the country suffered "a policy of maximum pressure" of the United States with sanctions that aim to stifle Iran economically and on the other hand, Europeans do not were not fulfilling their commitments that ensured Iran's economic benefits from the 2015 Agreement. There was a reversal of the Iranian strategy: every two months, the country decided to take gradual steps to exit the country. the agreement and thus have a way of pressure on the Americans and the Europeans to keep their commitments. Iran says it will continue this policy until Europeans act to limit the impact of US sanctions on their economy. The United States is still opposed to a limitation of sanctions against Iran, the Iranian leaders have seen no reason to change policy, it is in their eyes their only means of pressure. Iran has therefore continued to take action: today the abandonment of the limits in research and development and in two months perhaps, the enrichment of uranium to 20%.

With the mediation of Emmanuel Macron during the G7 and the line of credit proposal to Iran, to what extent can France play the role of mediator and intermediary? Does it have the means to defuse the tensions between Trump and Rohani?

French mediation was a good thing: France was the only country to get involved among the signatories of the agreement, to try to reduce tensions. Since early June, there has been a lot of effort, especially from the French president who made contact with Iranian President Hassan Rohani. This mediation was effective because the French and the Iranians managed to establish a framework that could allow possible negotiations between Iran and the United States, which are at the source of all the problems. There was progress at the G7 in Biarritz with the arrival of the Iranian Foreign Minister or Donald Trump who seemed to agree to the French proposals.
But mediation depends on the extent to which France can bring the points of view closer together. On the Iranian side, the course of possible negotiations with the United States is clear: first, a suppression or a decrease of American sanctions; secondly, the obligation for negotiations to be held only within the framework of 5 + 1, the original framework of the agreement. French mediation therefore has no chance of working if the United States does not accept a reduction of sanctions: there is a blocking on the side of the Americans, who continue their policy of maximum pressure, which does not give any result for the moment, since Iran refuses to negotiate directly with the United States a "big" agreement that would include a renegotiation of the 2015 Agreement, the Iranian Ballistic Program and Iran's role in the region. There may be two different points of view confronting each other in the US administration, between advocates of maximum pressure politics, and President Trump, who seemed willing to deviate from this policy to negotiate directly with the Iranians.

Tehran hoped to put pressure on European countries to take concrete measures to counter US sanctions. Does Iran have enough support on the international stage to make its voice heard? What about the future of the agreement in these conditions?

If we take the 5 + 1 that signed the agreement with Iran, the United States came out in May 2018, but there are still five countries, all of which are for Iran to stay in the agreement. But for Tehran, the 2015 deal is a give-and-take, involving limiting the development of their nuclear program in exchange for economic benefits. The Europeans did nothing to ensure that Iran had the economic benefits of the agreement. By contrast, Russia has expanded its economic exchanges with Iran and China has continued to buy Iranian oil, unlike European countries. Tehran is therefore supported by the five countries remaining in the agreement, but only Russia and especially China are its true allies. French mediation has slightly changed the European strategy, allowing European countries to become more involved, but this remains ineffective in countering US sanctions.
In the end, Europe, China and Russia continue to support Iran, but concretely it is mainly China that has allowed Iran to stay in the deal by buying oil. If China had not been there, Iran would surely be out of the deal.