Tangle - The Iran Nuclear Deal negotiations.

Episode Date: April 4, 2022

For the past several months, the Biden administration and the European Union have been negotiating to reinstate the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, informally known as the Iran Nuclear Deal. Plus, a question about the Republican Party platform.You can read today's podcast here.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here.Our podcast is written by Isaac Saul and produced by Trevor Eichhorn. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, Ari Weitzman, and produced in conjunction with Tangle’s social media manager Magdalena Bokowa, who also created our logo.--- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tanglenews/message Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Based on Charles Yu's award-winning book, Interior Chinatown follows the story of Willis Wu, a background character trapped in a police procedural who dreams about a world beyond Chinatown. When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight.

Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle Podcast, the place where you get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking without all that hysterical nonsense you find everywhere else. I am your host, Isaac Saul, and on today's episode, we are going to be talking about the Iran nuclear deal, some of the talks and negotiations going on right now, and what they mean. As always, before we jump in, we'll start off with some quick hits.

We have seven of them today, which I think is an all-time record. Lots of important news going on out there. First up, U.S. employers added 431,000 jobs in March as the unemployment rate fell to 3.6%, just above the 50-year low of 3.5% before the pandemic. The nation has now recouped 20.4 million, or 93% of the 22 million jobs lost early on in the pandemic. 4 million, or 93% of the 22 million jobs lost early on in the pandemic. Number two, six people were killed and 12 were injured in a mass shooting in downtown Sacramento early Sunday morning. Number three, at least two people were killed and 15 were injured after Israeli forces raided a Palestinian refugee camp in the West Bank following a string of deadly attacks inside Israel that left 11 people dead. Number four, Amazon workers voted to unionize at a Staten Island warehouse, the first unionization of its kind at Amazon. Number five, Tesla CEO Elon Musk announced that

he had purchased a 9.2% stake in the social media platform Twitter. Number six, former President Donald Trump has endorsed Sarah Palin in the Alaska House race to replace Representative Don Young, who died last month. Number seven, Ukraine accused Russia of deliberate killings of civilians in cities around the capital of Kyiv, including Bucha, saying the bodies of 410 civilians have been found. The Iran nuclear deal may be saved after all. Remember, this is Joe Biden's pet project. He desperately wants a win. He helped negotiate this deal as vice president, but his predecessor, Donald Trump, pulled America out. Demonstrating stunning foreign policy incoherence, the Biden administration fervently pursues a nuclear deal with Iran.

This is delusional and dangerous. For nearly a year now, we have been hearing all about the effort that the U.S. has been putting into restoring the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. We've been told how important it is, that time is of the essence, that the Iranians are being stubborn, but that we are getting closer to restoring the agreement President Trump killed back in 2018. For the past several months, the Biden administration and the European Union have been participating in negotiations to reinstitute the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, informally known as the Iran

Nuclear Deal. The EU is coordinating the talks between Iran and other signers of the original 2015 deal, which include Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China. Iran has refused to directly negotiate with the United States, even though the two are the principal parties to the agreement. A brief refresher, we covered these talks last year. The Iran deal was signed in 2015, and the rough outlines of it were designed to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear capability. Iran had to cut its stockpile of enriched uranium, the key ingredient in nuclear weapons, and also allowed the International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA, to have regular access to and conduct inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities. In exchange, the U.S. and other European nations lifted economic sanctions on Iran that freed up

Iranian money frozen in overseas accounts. Former President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the deal in 2018, citing its shortcomings. That didn't allow the inspection of military sites, that the so-called sunset provisions allowed the deal to expire, that it didn't address Iran's ballistic missile program, and that it did nothing to limit Iran's influence in the Middle East through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, which funds paramilitary groups, proxy groups, and terrorism across the region. Trump also accused Iran of cheating on the deal. Trump replaced the deal with a so-called quote-unquote maximum pressure campaign that included crippling sanctions on Iran. The Trump administration also leveled airstrikes against Iranian leaders, including

the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani and the United States' alleged approval of the assassination of a nuclear scientist. So, what is happening now? Iran has continued to enrich uranium while simultaneously denying that it is planning a nuclear bomb. Experts have warned that Iran could be weeks away from having the requisite uranium to fuel a nuclear weapon. The UN Atomic Watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, has said it has not found any evidence that Iran is making a nuclear bomb, which would still take months after acquiring enough uranium. Meanwhile, Iran has continued to fund proxies and terrorism in the Middle East, and its attack on U.S. facilities in Iraq and personnel have increased over the last few years.

While a deal is reportedly on the verge of being sealed, there is one major sticking point remaining, the U.S. designation of IRGC as a foreign terrorist organization. The Revolutionary Guard is Iran's most powerful security force and is tasked with maintaining order domestically and running military operations abroad with the primary goal of preserving the Islamic political system in Iran. Terrorist designation is the first time the U.S. government has marked any branch of a foreign military that way. Removing the designation is opposed by many Republicans, a few Democrats, and some close foreign allies like Israel. The U.S. has accused the IRGC of killing hundreds of Americans,

and its elite Quds forces have supported proxy forces fighting in Syria and across the Middle East. The IRGC also complicated talks by claiming responsibility for a missile attack in northern Iraq this month that targeted an Israeli compound and landed near a U.S. consulate under construction, according to the Wall Street Journal. There have also been reports that the IRGC was targeting former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and other U.S. officials for killing Soleimani. In a moment, you'll hear some arguments about rejoining the deal as well as delisting the IRGC as a terrorist organization. Then my take. You can find a link to our previous coverage in today's newsletter.

First up, we'll start with what the right is saying. The right is generally opposed to reviving a deal, arguing that it will hurt the United States' standing globally. Some say the dynamics have changed since the war in Ukraine began. Others argue that the IRGC should remain on the terrorist list regardless. In the New York Times, Brett Stevens said a year ago the deal may have made sense, but now it would make us meeker and weaker. Tehran has responded to Donald Trump's decision to walk away from the original 2015 deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA, by enriching uranium to ever higher levels of purity, bringing it increasingly close to a nuclear bomb or at least the capability to build one quickly,

Stevens wrote. Barring a new deal that puts limits on enrichment, Iran seemed destined to cross the nuclear finish line sooner rather than later. But today, we live in a different world. It's a world in which Russia and China, parties to both the JCPOA and the current negotiations, are definitely not our well-wishers, and a world in which Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates wouldn't answer Joe Biden's phone calls in the midst of the greatest geopolitical crisis of the 21st century. Maybe the administration needs to think through the broader implications of a new deal a little more carefully before it signs on again, Stevens wrote. With or without the deal, Moscow will be able to build nuclear power plants in Iran, irrespective of the sanctions over the war in Ukraine. And Beijing, which in 2021 signed a 25-year, $400 billion strategic

partnership with Tehran, will be able to conduct a lucrative business in Iran with little concern for U.S. sanctions. Combined with February's No Limits Friendship Pact between Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, an Iran deal represents another step toward a new anti-democratic tripartite pact. In the Boston Globe, Jeff Jacoby said it was good the deal may be imploding. Almost from the outset, Iran had violated several of the restrictions imposed by the deal and or related U.N. Security Council resolutions, Jacobi wrote. It test-fired a nuclear-capable ballistic missile and declared it would accept no limitations on its missile development. Obama had pitched a deal as one that would encourage Iran to get right with the world, but that never came close to happening.

The Islamic Republic intervened in Syria's civil war in support of the murderous Bashar Assad, armed Houthi rebels in Yemen, seized two U.S. Navy vessels and humiliated their sailors, called repeatedly for the extermination of Israel, and continued to subsidize terrorist groups. Meanwhile, Iran has issued a fresh reminder that it remains committed to spreading terrorism and violence across the Middle East, he added. On Sunday, Iran fired a barrage of missiles over its border into northern Iraq, striking near the U.S. consulate site in Erbil. This was a deliberate act of belligerence, a violation of Iraqi sovereignty, and an act of aggression against the United States. Writing in the Jerusalem Post, Seth J. Fransman observed that the consulate is

not in the center of the city, which meant that the consulate had to be specifically targeted. is not in the center of the city, which meant that the consulate had to be specifically targeted. This is an Iranian attack on the U.S. and Iraq, Frantzman wrote. Tehran readily took credit for that attack. Its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a paramilitary organization designated as a terrorist organization by the State Department, said it was meant as a message to Israel. Victoria Coates and Robert Greenway, who worked in the Trump administration to get the IRGC terror designation, said Biden must keep them there. The terrorist list is one of the most powerful tools in our national security arsenal, a designation by the State Department and other agencies that not only economically isolates the entity in question, but also imposes sanctions on any other group that provides it with material support, which can be anything from food and shelter to armaments, they wrote. In essence, the designation imposes penalties on companies

doing any sort of business with the sanctioned entity and opens these companies to an increased risk of civil litigation on the part of the entity's victims. In the Trump White House, we had voluminous historical and contemporary evidence of the group's terrorist activities and evidence that those activities had expanded following the signing of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. For example, in 2011, the IRGC participated in a plot to bomb a Georgetown restaurant to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States, an attack that, if it had not been foiled by the FBI, would have also killed scores of innocent American civilians, they added. In 2015, a senior Iranian diplomat who was also a member of the IRGC was expelled from Uruguay's capital for planning an attack near the Israeli embassy that would

have killed both Israeli diplomats and Uruguayan citizens. In 2018, authorities in Belgium, France, and Germany arrested several IRGC operatives, including a credentialed Iranian diplomat, in a plot to plant a bomb to disrupt a political rally in Paris that would have killed scores of innocent civilians, including Americans. Alright, that is it for what the right is saying, which brings us to what the left is saying. So the left is supportive of reviving a deal and also cautions that much has changed since 2015. Some argue that Trump's withdrawal from the deal has put us in a weaker position. Others argue that designating the entire IRGC as a terrorist group is untenable.

In the Los Angeles Times, Dalia Dasakai said a lot has changed since 2015. Based on Charles Yu's award-winning book, Interior Chinatown follows the story of Willis Wu, a background character trapped in a police procedural who dreams about a world beyond Chinatown. When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. Trump's withdrawal from the 2015 deal and the subsequent Iranian nuclear violations and military

escalation have altered the region for the worse. Several challenges thus remain even if the Vienna negotiations succeed, she wrote. From the start, neither the Biden administration nor the new hardline Iranian leadership under President Ebrahim Raisi has been in a hurry to negotiate. Both sides face considerable domestic opposition to reviving an agreement. A revived deal might exclude some important issues such as missiles, which have become a dire military threat on their own even without being linked to nuclear capabilities. Had a nuclear agreement been in effect since 2015, perhaps the signatories could now be building on it to address such concerns rather than starting over. A second challenge is that the Israeli-Iranian escalation may become more difficult to contain

this time around, Cairo. If Israel does not believe a renewed agreement sufficiently constrains Iran's program or considers the timeline too short, attacks could continue even if Iran complies. A third challenge will loom if these talks succeed. There may be no more do-overs. If the next American administration again withdraws from the agreement, or if Iran violates its terms based on the provided economic relief is not sufficient, the agreement will almost certainly not be salvaged again. Mistrust could be too high. Dylan Williams, the vice president of the lobbying group J Street, wrote a letter to the Washington Post arguing that the Trump administration's policies were wrong. administration's policies were wrong. In 2018, President Donald Trump made a calamitous foreign policy decision, withdrawing from the highly successful Iran nuclear deal, Williams wrote. The agreement was working. Nuclear material was shipped out of Iran, enrichment activities were restricted, and inspectors were given unprecedented access to verify compliance. Mr. Trump's abandonment

of the agreement and his maximum pressure approach were utter disasters. That policy strengthened Iranian hardliners, unleashed Iran to enrich nuclear fuel to unprecedented levels, and stoked tensions between the United States and Iran. John R. Bolton, Mr. Trump's one-time national security advisor, now wants to sabotage a new agreement under the pretense of constitutional concerns, Williams wrote. A majority of Israel's security experts have repudiated the maximum pressure approach. Tamir Pardo, former director of the Mossad, called the U.S. withdrawal from Iran a strategic mistake. Gadi Eisenkot, former chief of staff of the Israeli Defense Forces, said abandoning the deal brought Iran to the

most advanced position today with regard to its nuclear program. Aaron Haliva, head of Israeli military intelligence, asserted that the Iran deal is better than the no-deal scenario. Congress would be wise to heed the words of these experts and ignore the reckless advice of anti-diplomacy hawks such as Mr. Bolton. Jason Rezaian, an Iranian-American journalist once held prisoner by Iran, said both sides of the IRGC argument are wrong. Fortunately, there is a third option, he said. When the original blanket designation was first announced by the Trump administration, I wrote about my opposition to it. Among other

things, it was too broad and criminalized the hundreds of thousands of Iranian men who did their mandatory military service in the IRGC. As with so many Trump policies, it was ill-conceived and clumsily implemented by people with little practical experience on relevant matters. But, as I also argue, that didn't mean the idea was without merit. While the IRGC is a branch of the Islamic Republic's conventional military, it also is an insidious presence. It has been integral to the weakening of Iranian civil society, spreading its tentacles into virtually all sectors, from construction to media production, and using its power to abuse citizens and destroy anything it perceives as competition, Rezaian wrote.

The IRGC has also aided the Assad regime in Syria, worked to destabilize Iraq, and abducted dissidents in other countries. Now, President Biden has the opportunity to hone in on a more practical and effective approach that could actually yield positive results, listing specific individuals and entities within the IRGC. This would include the Quds Force, which the United States says is responsible for providing left and the right's take, which brings us to my take. So if you go back and read my writing about this a year ago, I was sort of leaning towards the position I've come to now, but said clearly then, quote, I'm resisting the urge here to make a claim about what the best path forward is, I'm not entirely sure. The primary issues we are

weighing seem to be the same. Would we rather have Iran with a well-funded network of proxy groups and more influence in the Middle East, or have them be further away from a nuclear bomb? If they get a deal and get sanctions lifted, they have more money to exert disruptive influence. If they don't get a deal, then they push forward on nuclear development and could soon have the leverage of an arsenal. I think there are very good arguments on both sides of this. I'm a Jew who has both a reverence and a critical view of Israel, but it's impossible not to feel antagonistic toward a leadership that views Israel as a cancerous tumor. So my personal primary concern are both containing Iranian leadership and not

doing too much damage to the people of Iran. What I don't think is really disputable anymore, at least as far as what has happened, is that withdrawing from the deal in 2018 was a mistake. Trump made plenty of good points for that withdrawal, and I actually wrote supportively about his reasoning. But he was wrong, and I was wrong too. Iran has now bulldozed its way to a nuclear weapon and increased its attacks on U.S. forces and allies, both directly against the primary goals of Trump's sanctions. Even though some Iran-funded groups have retreated in places like Syria, State Department spokesman Ned Price estimated that between 2019 and 2020, the number of attacks

against U.S. personnel and facilities in Iraq by Iran-backed groups went up 400%. Israel's top security officials, even those who oppose a deal, seem to agree that Iran's actions are more dangerous and aggressive now than they were when Trump withdrew. On the other hand, major news outlets have said that Iran was weeks away from obtaining the requisite uranium enrichment to build a nuclear bomb at least a dozen times in the last decade or two, so I'm unsure how seriously to take those warnings. But it's also true that the path forward is much less certain than it was four years ago. The war in Ukraine really has changed things in so much as Russia is now using its position in the talks to try to negotiate itself out of sanctions. And Iran is clearly going to align itself more closely with Russia and China and whatever this

new world order is. It's also true that while the Biden administration has promised a new deal would be longer and stronger, nothing we've heard so far indicates that's going to be true. At a minimum, though, a deal could extend Iran's breakout time and buy us some time to navigate what is happening in Ukraine and return to these developments a few months or years down the road. As for what to do about the IRGC, I like Jason's take. It was very Tangle-esque, with concessions that both sides were wrong in their absolutism, and each side had powerful arguments worth taking to a conclusion.

Designate some members of the IRGC terrorists, but don't designate all of them. We have the intelligence to make informed determinations about who should be classified, so I say let's use it. Without knowing what a deal looks like, I can't say for sure whether it's a good thing, but I can say for sure that the no-deal world has not made us, Israel, or other folks in the Middle East any safer, and it certainly hasn't tamped down Iran's proxies or nuclear ambitions. Given that this was supposed to be the whole point of withdrawing from the deal and putting in this maximum pressure campaign, we should be inclined to change whatever position we're in now. All right, that is it for my take, which brings us to our reader question.

This one is from Nathan in San Diego, California. He asked, what are Republicans running on for the midterms? Is there a clear policy platform? Okay, so short answer, no. That's not really meant to be a criticism of Republicans. It's just the truth. The party has been very cagey about its platform over the years, mostly because a lot of what it stands for is containing progressivism and Democrats, but also because they don't agree on a lot of stuff. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with this, and certainly it has proven to be a strong political play. Senator Rick Scott, the Republican from Florida, recently unveiled a party platform that was widely panned and then directly shot down by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Perhaps the ambiguity was best summed up by McConnell, the leader of the party in Congress, who was asked about their agenda if Republicans regained control and responded this way, quote, that's a very good question and I'll let you know when we take it back. Now, that may not bother most voters, but it's not my preference of governance, like, hey, we're running and when we win, we'll tell you what we're going to do, but it is also consistent with the last decade or so. That being said, I think there are obviously a few general thrusts we're seeing that are coming out now and consistent with past years and the Trump presidency. So, education policies centered on parental rights and more control of curriculum obviously is top of mind right now, ramped up border security, opposition to COVID-19 mandates

around vaccines and masks, and containing quote-unquote big tech. Then I'd expect some traditional conservative priorities like restricting immigration more broadly, cutting taxes, implementing anti-abortion laws, and an emphasis on free market capitalism. I'm sure free speech issues will also play heavily in the 2022 midterms, but those are the issues that I think you can pretty much take it to the bank Republicans are going to run on. Next up is our story that matters. Maryland Governor Larry Hogan said that he is no longer going to require college degrees for many state jobs as a quote, common sense way to address the labor shortages and provide greater opportunities for skilled workers. Critics said the decision will lower standards for important government jobs, but it has reignited the ongoing debate about the value of higher education.

Hogan's announcement made hundreds of job openings immediately available to Marylanders without a four-year college degree, but who have experience or training in other areas. Hogan said the move was the first of its kind in the country, and the Washington Post has a story about it. There is a link to it in today's newsletter. posts a story about it, there is a link to it in today's newsletter. All right, next up is our numbers section. The estimated amount of money Iran has in frozen foreign assets is about $100 billion. The percentage of registered voters who want a binding Iran nuclear deal is 36%. The percentage of registered voters who want a non-binding Iran nuclear deal, like the one we had in 2015, is 18%. The percentage of registered voters who said

they did not want any deal is 20%. The percentage of registered voters who said they had no opinion or didn't know is 26%. The percentage of Republican voters who said they wanted no deal is 35%. is 35%. All right, real quick, in case you missed it, on Friday, we published a subscribers-only newsletter edition that compared members of Congress to your typical American. We looked at salary, age, race, religion, immigration status, benefits, and more. You can find a link to the piece in today's newsletter and in the episode description, and you can read a free preview of it, even if you aren't subscribed, but you should still subscribe. ReadTango.com slash membership. It gets you access to all sorts of premium content like this that doesn't show up on the podcast. All right, everybody, last but not least, you have a nice day story. A couple

in Canada is taking welcoming refugees to a whole new level. Brian and Sharon Holowychuk, that is a very Canadian name, are converting their 15,000 square foot Vancouver Island resort property into a landing spot for Ukrainian refugees. The couple says it is attempting to house as many as 100 refugees and already has 19 people booked. Brian's grandparents are Ukrainian immigrants, which was part of his motivation to help. He and Sharon bought the oceanfront property, which is surrounded by wildlife, to convert it into an art gallery. But now those plans are on hold. We're in a position, in a place, in a time,

where we could help make a bit of a difference. And I thought, you know, it's time to stand up and be counted, Brian said. Global News has the story, and there's a link to it in today's newsletter. All right, everybody, I hope you had a great weekend. That is it in today's newsletter. All right, everybody. I hope you had a great weekend. That is it for today's podcast. As always, if you want to hear more from us, you can go to readtangled.com, click around, see our articles, and also subscribe to support our work.

In the meantime, we'll see you back here same time tomorrow. Peace. Our newsletter is written by Isaac Saul, edited by Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, Ari Weitzman, Peace. Diet 75. For more from Tangle, subscribe to our newsletter or check out our content archives at www.readtangle.com. We'll see you next time. beyond Chinatown. When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+.