Iran is attempting to condition US-Iran nuclear negotiations on the United States compelling Israel to halt operations against Hezbollah in Lebanon. Tying the US-Iran nuclear negotiations to the Lebanon issue not only helps Iran advance its strategic objective of preserving Hezbollah but also enables the regime to delay nuclear negotiations while reaping the economic benefits of the US-Iran memorandum of understanding (MoU). US and Iranian officials had planned to hold technical nuclear talks in Switzerland on June 19 in accordance with the US-Iran MoU. Iranian officials pulled out of the talks, citing Israel’s recent strikes in Lebanon, which they claimed violated the MoU that the United States and Iran signed on June 17. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) struck over 80 Hezbollah targets in Lebanon between June 18 and 19 in response to a Hezbollah attack that killed four IDF soldiers near Kfar Tebnit in southern Lebanon. The first clause of the US-Iran MoU calls for a ceasefire on all fronts, including Lebanon. The Iranian regime has interpreted this clause as both requiring Israel to cease operations against Hezbollah and withdraw its forces from Lebanese territory. A later clause stipulates that negotiations on a final deal can only begin after the earlier clauses are implemented. Iran’s insistence on a complete ceasefire in Lebanon is part of its effort to force an Israeli capitulation in Lebanon and thereby preserve Hezbollah, which Iran views as a key pillar of its deterrence strategy.
Iran likely seeks to postpone nuclear negotiations in order to avoid having to make concessions on its nuclear program while benefiting from the economic relief that is included in the MoU. Iranian officials have not indicated any willingness to concede on key nuclear issues, such as Iran’s highly enriched uranium stockpile and ability to enrich uranium on Iranian territory. Iranian officials likely seek to postpone discussions about these issues while simultaneously benefiting from the United States lifting its blockade on Iranian ports and issuing sanctions waivers for Iranian oil exports. A senior US official told Axios on June 17 that the negotiations process could stop in the next two to three weeks if Iran is not “serious about nuclear concessions.”
Israel and Hezbollah agreed to a new ceasefire on June 19. This ceasefire probably does not meet Iran’s demand for a “complete ceasefire” in Lebanon because Iranian officials and media have repeatedly argued that a “complete ceasefire” in Lebanon requires the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanese territory. The United States “relayed” to Iran on June 19 that Israel will not “further escalate” its attacks against Hezbollah in Lebanon. The Israeli ambassador to the United States confirmed on June 19 that Israel will abide by the ceasefire and end “offensive operations.” A senior Israeli official indicated that the IDF would respond to future Hezbollah attacks, however. The ambassador and several other Israeli officials also confirmed that Israeli forces will remain positioned in southern Lebanon and continue to operate there. Hezbollah sources confirmed the ceasefire agreement. Iran may use its interpretation of the MoU, which does not explicitly call for an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, to insist that the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon is a precondition for US-Iran nuclear talks. Iranian officials and media have continued to insist that an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon is part of the MoU. Iran repeatedly used the issue of Israeli operations against Hezbollah in Lebanon to try to delay negotiations over its nuclear program and the Strait of Hormuz prior to the signing of the MoU. | 
No comments:
Post a Comment