Iran Rejects Trump's Bad Proposal

It is no surprise that the Iranian government saw this proposal as a bad deal for them.

As expected, the Iranian government appears to be rejecting the administration’s proposal:

"The proposal that the Americans have presented is 100% against our interests ... The rude and arrogant leaders of America repeatedly demand that we should not have a nuclear programme. Who are you to decide whether Iran should have enrichment?," [Khamenei] added.

The administration’s proposal was sure to be rejected, and the U.S. side must have known that this would be the Iranian response. While the proposal apparently allows for a brief period of low-level enrichment, the U.S. was insisting that Iran could not have enrichment on its soil at the end of the process. Iran considers domestic enrichment a national right and something that it cannot give up under any circumstances. It should be obvious why a belated humiliation is no better than an immediate one.

There was a bit of confusion early this week about the administration’s position when the details of the proposal were first reported, but this was mostly the fault of the Axios report that made it seem as if the U.S. had made a major concession when it hadn’t. As always, the devil was in the details. The administration proposed that Iran would become part of a regional consortium and under that arrangement there would be no enrichment inside Iran. Low-level enrichment would be permitted during the transition period, but only because it would take a few years to build the new facility. Zero enrichment remained the goal, and it would just take a little while to get there.

It is no surprise that the Iranian government saw this proposal as a bad deal for them. The proposal requires them to abandon something that they have had for decades and that they have struggled to keep at considerable cost. Because they have claimed domestic enrichment as their right, they could not give it up without betraying their country to foreign powers. No self-respecting government would agree to these terms.

When Trump confirmed that he was still demanding zero enrichment, some reports said that he was “undercutting” the administration’s proposal. He wasn’t really undercutting anything. He was clarifying that the administration’s position remains as extreme and hardline as ever. Among other things, Trump was telling other Iran hawks that they had nothing to worry about.

Some supporters of the original nuclear deal have been hoping that the Trump administration would be wise enough to conclude a good nonproliferation agreement with Iran. Unfortunately, there was never much reason to expect that they would do this. Their hostility to the original agreement is intense, and the only kind of agreement that would be acceptable to them is one that Iran cannot endorse.

The administration has been threatening “grave consequences” for Iran if it doesn’t agree to U.S. demands. It is always possible that the White House is bluffing, but in this case we should not dismiss the threat as an empty one. Trump has never been interested in a negotiated agreement that benefits both sides. He has always wanted capitulation, and he seems likely to lash out if he doesn’t get it. That can’t be allowed to happen.

Attacking Iran would be wrong and stupid. The U.S. has no legitimate reason to bomb Iran, and our government should oppose an Israeli attack as well. Americans need to tell our representatives and the president that we reject an attack on Iran. It is not in U.S. interests, it is illegal, and it will only make things worse.