Did Iran violate its agreement with the US? Depends on who you ask

Recently, Iran ran missile tests. The purpose of those tests differs depending on who is talking, on what one is reading and sometimes on both.

Some contend that Iran is in clear violation of its agreements under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (“JCPOA”) signed last year by the Islamic republic and the “P5+1” (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council – China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, plus Germany). 

{mosads}Others, including Iran, take the position that it is honoring its JCPOA commitments because the missile tests did not test the capabilities of delivering a nuclear weapon.

Unsurprisingly, the Trump administration vocally denounced those tests. Headlines cheered or jeered the administration as news stories hypothesized as to the new U.S. approach to Iran. 

Indeed, the next several months likely will prove out that approach and whether it is novel. For now, it may be worth stepping back to see how divergent President Trump’s approach is from that of his predecessor.

Last week, after news of the Iranian missile tests surfaced, National Security Adviser Michael Flynn put Iran “on notice.” What they’re put on notice of was initially left to the imagination. 

Not one to shy away from words thrown across social media, Iran’s foreign minister took to Twitter to issue an official “on notice of what?” to Flynn’s announcement.

To ratchet up the tension, President Trump tweeted early Friday that “Iran is playing with fire – they don’t appreciate how ‘kind’ President Obama was to them. Not me!” 

Facebook feeds across the country were dominated by posts weighing in on imminent war with Iran. From a policy perspective, the legitimate question is where our relationship with Iran is headed.

For years, the United States has balanced a series of complex sanctions against Iran that seeks to harm the Iranian government and its Revolutionary Guard Corps while doing as little damage as possible to ordinary Iranians. 

The United States has levied sanctions against Iran in connection with its nuclear weapons program, and, separately, in connection with Iran’s ballistic missile activity.

The regulations detailing these sanctions are complex and even experts can disagree on the meaning and intent of certain provisions.

So it should not be shocking that there is confusion among the American public when one news headline suggests that the Obama administration was too lenient by not tearing up the JCPOA after Iran’s missile tests and another suggests that the Trump administration is taking a tougher stance on Iran by these newest sanctions.

Stepping back, the Trump administration’s admonishments of Iran were eerily similar — at least in content — to the ones announced just about a year ago after the dust had settled on the signature pages of the JCPOA. President Obama denounced similar tests while announcing new sanctions on Iran. 

At that time, Iran’s missile tests, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is tasked with policing the JCPOA, did not violate the agreement. 

Likewise, the Obama administration’s sanctions against Iran did not appear to violate America’s JCPOA commitments. They chided Iran because of its missile tests and not because of attempts to advance its nuclear program. 

Similarly, although the IAEA has not yet weighed in on Iran’s latest missile tests, it does not appear that the Trump administration’s sanctions would violate those agreements either. 

Of course, the tenor of the denouncements by President Obama and President Trump were quite different.

Substantively, the Trump sanctions are similar to the Obama sanctions except Trump issued sanctions against individuals and entities in China, Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates for help offered with Iran’s missile program.

Although Iran does not have a long history of trustworthiness on the geopolitical stage, many experts predict that two key sanctions lifted under the JCPOA by the United States will cause Iran to stay true to its commitments. 

First, the United States lifted most of its so-called “extraterritorial” sanctions aimed at stopping foreign companies from conducting business with Iran. Sanctions against Iran’s oil and gas industries were particularly critical.   

Second, Iran’s commercial airfleet is among the oldest in the world and without parts and components to fix aging aircraft, Iran eventually may need to shut down commercial flights or risk planes falling out of the sky. 

The U.S. licensing policy shift with respect to sales of commercial aircraft and related parts to Iran makes it more likely that Iran can fix that problem within the next decade. It is that shift in licensing policy that is believed will keep Iran honest with its JCPOA commitments.

As of now, the difference between the two administrations appears to be one of messaging.

President Obama took an approach that, depending on the headline, was either deferential to the Iranians or diplomatic in dealing with Iran because of key considerations in our relations with the other members of the “P5+1.” 

Once again, depending on the headline, President Trump is either marching us to an imminent war with Iran or staying the course with respect to the most complex sanctions regime that our country has.

Nevertheless, Trump could take a lesson from Obama and realize that our actions under the JCPOA will cause long-lasting effects in our relations with the other P5+1 countries. 

After all, it could not have been simple for the U.S. to negotiate a joint agreement with Iran and with two countries against which it manages separate sanctions (Russia and China). 

Our world leaders would do well to play nice in the sandbox because aging planes — with Iranians and Americans on them — falling out of the Iranian sky does not play well for approval ratings here or in Tehran.

In any event, it is a new world order. Fasten your seat belts. We might be in for turbulence.

Lawrence Ward is an attorney at Dorsey & Whitney LLP where he helps government contractors, aerospace and defense and other companies involved in international trade understand and comply with various complicated U.S. regulatory schemes in a cost-effective manner.

The views of contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.