And when asked “Is the deal in danger of collapsing?” Zarif answered, “No, the deal is in place. But if one side does not comply with the agreement then the agreement will start to falter.” Hardly a warning that the U.S. better get rid of the non-nuclear sanctions quickly, or else.
And the U.S. reaction to the Iranian criticisms? Here is what Secretary Kerry said:
The United States is not standing in the way and will not stand in the way of business that is permitted with Iran since the (nuclear deal) took effect. We’ve lifted our nuclear-related sanctions as we are committed to do and there are now opportunities for foreign banks to do business with Iran….We have no objection (to) foreign banks engaging with Iranian banks and companies, obviously as long as long as those banks and companies are not on our sanctions list for non-nuclear reasons.
That the Iranians are not in the catbird seat was also demonstrated by the administration’s reaction to hints from Iran that it would retaliate if the U.S. government went along with the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court that frozen Iranian assets can be used to satisfy judgments against Iran. The decision concerns claims by more than a thousand American survivors or relatives of victims of terrorist attacks attributed to Iran.
Iran called the decision a form of theft and in a letter to the secretary general of the UN said, “The Islamic Republic of Iran holds the United States government responsible for this outrageous robbery, disguised as a court order, and is determined to take every lawful measure to restore the stolen property and the interest accrued to it…. The Islamic Republic of Iran reserves the right to take appropriate lawful action, including necessary and proportionate countermeasures, to restore and protect the rights of the Iranian people against such persistent unlawful conduct by the United States. ”
Notice, though, that no mention was made of using the nuclear deal as possible leverage.
As for the U.S. reaction, it was left to State Department spokesman Mark Toner to simply state, “We believe the U.S. laws and the application of those laws by the courts of the United States comport with international law.”
One wonders why the Obama administration was so malleable during the nuclear negotiations. Perhaps it was the advent of the current presidential campaign and President Obama’s desire not to come under criticism from candidates of both parties that forced a change. In any event, as events unfold we will know whether there is any substance to the hope that, at long last, the Obama administration has found its spine.