The United States responded on Wednesday to a European plan also submitted to the Iranians, reviving hopes of a return to the historic agreement on the Iranian nuclear program of 2015 from which former President Donald Trump withdrew with a bang.
“We transmitted our response to the European Union today,” which relayed it to Tehran, said US State Department spokesman Ned Price. He gave no details on the content of the US response or any concessions by the United States.
For its part, the Iranian Foreign Ministry confirmed on Wednesday that it had received a response from the United States concerning the “adjustments” required by Tehran to the proposed agreement submitted by the European Union on the Iranian nuclear file.
“Iran has started to carefully consider the opinion of the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran will transmit its opinion to the (EU) coordinator after this examination”, said the spokesman of the Iranian diplomacy. , Nasser Kanani, in reference to Josep Borrell, the head of European diplomacy who is in charge of the file.
The latter had submitted to the two parties on August 8 a “final version” of an agreement providing for the lifting of economic sanctions against Iran, including the sale of oil in exchange for drastic restrictions on its nuclear program, launching intense consultations of on either side.
Diplomatic back-and-forth
This diplomatic back-and-forth with extraordinary security stakes, since it aims to guarantee that Iran does not develop atomic weapons, is not over for all that and the outcome of the negotiations is still uncertain.
A senior US official said Tuesday on condition of anonymity that there were still “disparities” to overcome before reaching an agreement.
According to Washington, Iran has, however, made concessions on key points, including the abandonment of its request to lift the designation of the Revolutionary Guards, the ideological army of the Islamic Republic, as a terrorist organization.
US President Joe Biden made it a red line and even ordered airstrikes on Tuesday targeting pro-Iranian militia bases in eastern Syria, “affiliated” with the Revolutionary Guards.
A White House spokesman, John Kirby, said the strikes had destroyed ammunition depots in “direct response” to the Aug. 15 attack that targeted the small US contingent in Syria.
“We are not looking for escalation but we are ready to defend ourselves against any threat,” he told reporters.
Negotiations on Iranian nuclear power, which began 16 months ago, but which had been suspended and then resumed at the beginning of August, aim to save this agreement concluded with the Tehran regime by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council ( China, USA, France, UK and Russia) plus Germany.
The United States withdrew from it in 2018 under the presidency of Donald Trump, and had reinforced its sanctions against Tehran.
Since then, Iran has gradually freed itself from its obligations.
But the agreement is the subject of fierce opposition, starting with that of the Israelis, supported by the Republican opposition to President Biden.
100 billion per year
Western powers must “stop” negotiating with Iran or else risk “destabilizing” the Middle East, Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid pleaded on Wednesday.
Mr. Lapid dispatched his national security adviser Eyal Hulata to Washington this week. And the Minister of Defense, Benny Gantz, flies away early Thursday for the American capital to discuss, among other things, Iranian nuclear power, his teams told AFP.
“What’s on the table right now is a bad deal. This will give Iran $100 billion a year. This money […] will be used to destabilize the Middle East […] by strengthening Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad,” Lapid said without explaining what the figure was based on.
For their part, the Republicans in the American Congress continue to denounce a “bad agreement” which would reward Iran, which is also accused of supporting terrorism.
In Washington, in any case, they reject any notion of American concessions, affirming that it is “Iran which made concessions on important questions”.
For Suzanne DiMaggio, of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “if each party can make this appear as a victory for them, then there is a chance that the JCPOA (the English acronym for the agreement) will be restored”.