International Crisis: Iran - European Union & USA - Israel

This essay discusses the recent international crisis between Iran, European Union, USA and Israel over the 2015 Nuclear Deal. It covers the reasons of dissatisfaction for USA, reaction of Iran, role of Europe and current issues and concerns. The essay also provides strategies and approaches to resolve this critical issue.

International Crisis : Iran – European Union & USA – Israel

Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................3
The 2015 Nuclear Deal....................................................................................................................3
Claim of Israel.................................................................................................................................3
Reasons of Dissatisfaction for USA................................................................................................4
Reaction of Iran...............................................................................................................................4
Role of Europe.................................................................................................................................5
Current issues and concerns.............................................................................................................5
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................8
Reference List..................................................................................................................................9

Introduction
An international crisis has originated recently followed by the statement of the Prime Minister of
Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu in a media presence. In his statement, the prime minister has directly
accused Iran of shifting its various nuclear weapons to confidential locations. This statement has
created an international tension between these two countries.Additionally, the European Union
and the USA are also involved in this conflict. As an analyst of the Peace Institute, the writer of
this essay tries to elaborate a clearer picture of this crisis. Further, this essay also tries to resolve
this critical issue with roper set of strategies and approaches.
The 2015 Nuclear Deal
Iran had taken part in a nuclear deal in 2015 where the country had signed a long term agreement
with six of the world’s most powerful countries namely, US, Germany, UK, China, France and
Russia. The talks of this nuclear deal had started since 2013 and it was later finalized in 2015
(Kahan, 124). According to the points of the deal, Iran is supposed to produce sufficient elements
required to manufacture an atom bomb. In order to ensure that all the activities were being
conducted systematically, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IKEA) was elected.
Claim of Israel
The international conflict originated from the television show where Benjamin Netanyahu, the
prime minister of Israel had brought direct allegations towards Iran. According to Netanyahu,
Iran had made nuclear weapons which were not part of the deal. He has also claimed that the
country had hidden these weapons to maintain secrecy. He had displayed some files and
documents to support his statement (Baker, 17). However, Benjamin Netanyahu failed to
establish the fact that these data were associated with the 2015 deal. Many had thought that this
step was taken by Netanyahu to strengthen the opinion of the UK president Donald Trump, who
had been dissatisfied with the whole scenario from the very beginning.
The documents shown by Benjamin Netanyahu were from a nuclear project which had taken part
in Iran in 1999. By displaying those documents, Benjamin Netanyahu had claimed that Iran had
been hiding its operations from the international context for a very long time.

Reasons of Dissatisfaction for USA
This agreement was made back in 2015 when Barrack Obama was the president of the United
States. Current president Donald Trump had claimed that this nuclear deal is no longer relatable
for the US. There are some reasons behind this statement. Firstly, Trump thinks that US had
spent a huge sum of money in this deal and has not earned sufficient return. He had argued that,
this deal is largely a one sided transaction where the only benefitted county is Iran (Norell, 291).
In practical scenario, this statement is not valid. Iran had not received the entire amount of $150
billion spent by US as Iran had to pay several debts. Another issue which Trump has pointed at is
the fact that Iran had tested some of the ballistic missiles which was not part of the agreement.
Trump had further claimed that IKEA has not monitored the nuclear facilities led by Iran, the
way it was supposed to. Trump has further criticized some of the points of the deal which were
not long term in nature. For example, the restrictions related to research and development expires
on 2025. However, the restriction related to the manufacturing of nuclear weapons is a long term
one. In fact, Iran has also agreed to never manufacture nuclear weapons in the long term.
When the statement of Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took place in television,
Trump had supported his opinion. He further claimed that, US had known all these facts right
from the beginning. All these reasons of dissatisfaction indicate that US has enough reasons to
withdraw them from the agreement.
Reaction of Iran
Iran had reacted threateningly in response to the opinion of Benjamin Netanyahu. Iran has
claimed to maintain all the accords of the nuclear deal and has called the allegations of Israel
baseless and inappropriate (Ngaiet al. 248). Iran further stated that the documents revealed by
Benjamin Netanyahu on the television show were prepared much before the finalization of the
nuclear agreement. It was also claimed that, the reports shown by the Israel prime minister were
not supported by IKEA, the agency which has been elected to control the nuclear deal. However,
Iran is worried about the next actions to be taken by USA.

Role of Europe
European countries like Germany, UK, France are also part of this nuclear deal. Hence, it is
evident that Europe will have a say in this conflict. Even though US and Israel have expressed
their dissatisfaction about this deal, the European countries have provided support for Iran and
the nuclear deal. According to the leaders of these European countries, the issues pointed out by
Benjamin Netanyahu were not logical as according to them, Iran had not violated any of the
conditions of the deal (Rezaei, 181). They further added that, IKEA is the reporting authority
here who is responsible for pointing the validity of the terms and conditions.
In fact, the presidents of Germany, France and Britain have all agreed upon to maintain this
nuclear deal with Iran for the upcoming years. However, it is a matter of concern for these
countries that the US president Donald Trump is strictly opposing this nuclear deal. This has led
these leaders to put efforts in achieving the additional significant factors necessary for the
successful implementation of the deal.
Britain further added that, even though they are in support of the nuclear deal, they don’t support
the fact that Iran is manufacturing nuclear weapons secretly. The European countries had also
expressed their willingness to read each of the reports displayer by Benjamin Netanyahu in order
to examine the truthfulness of the documents (Tarock, 1424). They were convinced with the fact
that, Iran had not shown any sign of violating the terms and conditions of the deal. Same was the
opinion of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Current issues and concerns
Currently the biggest issue in this scenario is the standpoint of USA. If the latest reports are to be
believed, IKEA has confirmed that Iran has not violated any terms of the nuclear deal. Iran had
taken part in Uranium enrichment operations and has also ensured that the amount of centrifuges
have remained consistent throughout the process.
However, an international tension has taken place due to the opposing of US and Israel. Things
had taken a bigger turn when the prime minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu had gone far
enough to display some documents which temporarily prove that Iran is not complying the terms
and conditions of the nuclear deal.

If US back out from this nuclear deal, it can leave a major impact on all the countries involved in
the deal. Firstly, the US congress will have to impose back the US sanctions which had been
lifted long ago(Shirvani and Siniša, 76). Further, this action of US can affect Iran negatively
leading to economic and political uncertainty in the country. This nuclear deal had increased the
oil export for Iran to a large extent. Further the deal had created employment in Iran. The nuclear
deal had also alleviated the foreign exchange market in Iran. Hence, if US back out from the
deal, it would affect Iran in various ways.
However, things can take a better turn if Europe keeps its support intact for Iran. There are
enough points for Europe to withdraw itself from the deal as in the absence of US, the deal
would lose its worth. But from the political aspect, Europe can continue supporting Iran as
Trump has been harassing the safety and security policies of Europe for a long time now to
please the voters. The three European countries along with China and Russia can increase the
trade activities between their firms and the Iranian organizations, if they keep supporting Iran
and the nuclear deal. However, there are many industries that are not willing to start trade
activities with Iran due to high amount of risks involved.
In order to find a way to stop this international tension, the following strategies and approaches
can be taken.
As the US has been showing signs of withdrawing from nuclear accord with Iran if the
‘disastrous flaws’ are not addressed by the country, it can be stated that Europe is in a condition
where it might have take charge in ensuring that Washington is less hostile at the same time,
alienating Tehran may not be an option (Kahan, 109). One of the major reasons for balancing the
condition is due to the fact that withdrawal of US may give rise to more unpredictability over the
fate of the deal, since it can be witnessed that Tehran’s opinion has been majorly changing
concerning the deal. Thus, the chances of Iran cancelling the deal, targeting the allies, or leaving
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, cannot be ignored. All these probabilities are likely to
enhance the regional turmoil significantly as well. Therefore, it is imperative for E3 (France,
Britain and Germany) to face a challenge to resonate with US by fixing JCPOA (Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action), while maintaining the fact that Iran doesn’t get dissatisfied and
decide to walk away. Additionally, another major challenge for the E3 is to ensure that the
member states of EU are also accepting their proposals (Shirvani and Siniša, 92). Since, earlier in

2018 it was witnessed that E3 recommendations were rejected by EU member states regarding
imposition of targeted sanction upon certain set of Iranian individuals involved in ballistic
missile program.
Furthermore, another major issue is that the Trump administration is not providing a string
guarantee that the Congress will respond to appeal of White House regarding avoidance of re-
imposition of US nuclear sanction, which may severely impact the JCPOA. Europe is likely to
suffer not only politically, but economically as well. With close analysis to the situation, it can
be seen that the sanctions of US are majorly extraterritorial, which would reduce the chances of
directly hitting Iran. However, the third parties having direct deal with Iran may have significant
risk. Thus, it can be recommended by the E3 that EU provides companies and financial bodies
suitable legal protection from US Department of the Treasury. The step can be taken with
inclusion of US sanctions in 1996 blocking statute in picture which is effective in shielding
European Companies from the impact of extra-territorial application of certain legislation which
are considered by any third country (Shirvani and Siniša, 76). Additionally, having alternatives
to substitute US-based financial transaction with Iran can also be considered as a significant
method by exploring dollar-clearing facilities offshore.
In regards with liberal approach of international relations, it can b e stated that the chances of EU
confrontation US concerning economy are raising. It has been noted that the EU ambassadors
have been vocal about taking measures for protecting interest of companies, if US sanctions are
being imposed on Iran. Additionally, it has been also noted that the EU extended statements of
taking suitable steps in order to retain the JCPOA. Taking in regards proposal of European
Commission regarding future operations allowance of European Investment Banks in Iran, as
well as credit agencies based in Austria, Italy and Denmark guaranteeing export to Iran,
appropriate decisions can be taken, so that Iran doesn’t walk out (Tarock, 1419). It is needed to
be taken into account that the Prime Minister Hassan Rouhani and Foreign minister Javad Sharif
stated that if certain situations arise where the US sanctions may pose barrier to legitimate trade
with Iran, that the only way Iran would be completely persuaded to maintain limits on its nuclear
program is by ensuring that all the other signatories defy US sanctions and extend their
commitment to previously set terms (Roos, 207).

Thus, it can be stated that potential issues which may arise to create conflicts can be substantially
reduced. However, by taking into account the announcement of Donald Trump, it can be
observed that he has warned other countries who may volunteer to help Iran may be strongly
sanctioned as well (Roos, 201). Maximum pressure strategy is utilized as a major tool by the
Trump administration. Therefore, it can be stated that appropriate steps are needed to be taken
from part of European countries to draft a plan in order to protect JCPOA from withdrawal of
US. The focus should be on certain packages of incentives aimed at persuasion of leaders of Iran
that the benefits of the complaints of JCPOA are overpowering the potential retaliation costs. It
is essential that the E3 sustains its unified position, as shared in current times, in order to figure
out a way independent of US to continue with the nuclear deal. Thus, re-ignition of crisis of
nuclear in the Middle East can be averted potentially as well (Samore et al., 43). Thus, the doors
for the US may significantly remain open to return to JCPOA if one may needs to come back. It
is needed to be taken into consideration that in several occasions Trump has demonstrated that
the US may prepare to reconsider rejoining agreements which were previously abandoned by
him. Hence, it may happen that reconsideration regarding rejoining the JCPOA remains
persistent as well.
However, it is not to be ignored that the chances of US capably utilizing its position to snap back
at the current situation. Even though it is recognized that re-imposition of unilateral sanction
considerably breaches the JCPOA, the resolution mechanism may gradually provide an edge to
US as well. In accordance with the Commission chaired by EU concerning JCPOA, it was
recognized that in case of disagreements in implementation, the complaining party can turn to
Security Council of UN (Adebahr, 34). It is on the basis of vote of Security Council that a
resolution can be concluded. Since, US enjoy veto power insecurity Council; theoretically, US
can be stated to be in an advantageous position.
Conclusion
In regards with the above mentioned discussion, it can be stated that the collapse of JCPOA is
likely to have severe economic as well as political impact on an international level. Since the
relationship between US and Iran continue to worsen, it has become primary responsibility of the
European countries to act accordingly in order to bring out the best suited solution. While one of

the options that the countries may opt for is to look for alternatives and substitutes for trades in
Iran, it may also leverage on addressing the nuclear crisis responsible for political turmoil in
Mediterranean. However, direct confrontation to US may not be a suitable or feasible solution
for the countries. Therefore, focusing on mutual bargaining to attain a solution to existing
scenario can be most suitable. Intervention of globally recognized body like UN can be stated to
be the most apt solution.
Reference List
Adebahr, Cornelius. Europe and Iran: The Nuclear Deal and Beyond. Routledge, 2017.
Baker, Peter. "Trump recertifies Iran nuclear deal, but only reluctantly." New York Times 17
(2017).
Kahan, Jerome H. "Revisiting the Iran nuclear deal." Orbis 61.1 (2017): 109-124.
Ngai, Sing Bik Cindy, and JesperFalkheimer. "How IKEA turned a crisis into an opportunity."
Public Relations Review 43.1 (2017): 246-248.
Norell, Magnus. "A really bad deal: the Iran nuclear deal and its implications." European View
14.2 (2015): 285-291.
Rezaei, Farhad. "Iran's Ballistic Missile Program: A New Case for Engaging Iran?." Insight
Turkey 18.4 (2016): 181.
Roos, Bas. Mulitimedia in digital diplomacy: A case study of the Iran nuclear deal and the ttip.
BS thesis. 2017.
Samore, Gary S., et al. "The Iran nuclear deal: A definitive guide." (2015).
Shirvani, Tara, and SinišaVuković. "After the Iran Nuclear Deal: Europe's Pain and Gain." The
Washington Quarterly 38.3 (2015): 79-92.
Tarock, Adam. "The Iran nuclear deal: winning a little, losing a lot." Third World Quarterly 37.8
(2016): 1408-1424.