American Withdrawal from Afghanistan: Historical Lessons--William O. Beeman

9/26/21, 10:46 AM American Withdrawal from Afghanistan: Historical Lessons | ICDT
https://icdt.ir/en/american-withdrawal-from-afghanistan-historical-lessons/

William O. Beeman

21 September 2021

The result of the war on Afghanistan was ineffective because the United States was not prepared to do anything that would really foster social change. Rather than actually working to understand Afghan culture and society, the United States under Republican administrations installed “plumbers” (Afghan “leaders” like Karzai and American contractors) to do the work for it , backed up by a U.S. military presence with soldiers who never learned the language, never understood the culture, and who were ineffective. The trillions of dollars spent in Afghanistan were siphoned off to contractors such as Haliburton who made billions of dollars. Afghan politicians were also corrupt and stole enormous amounts of money. In the end it was a botched effort. President Biden was right to end it .

Afghanistan is in effect a federation of tribal and ethnic groups. If the United States had started with that premise, it might have been effective, but American efforts in Afghanistan were always top-down. They never penetrated to the local level where the real power lay.

In addition, American decision-makers are blamed for invading Afghanistan and Iraq, especially Iraq which posed no direct threat to U.S. national interests and the war was waged based on false claims. The invasion of Iraq was a pretext that was concocted by the neoconservatives who wanted to completely remake the Middle East, toppling existing rulers and creating regime change where the new rulers would be friendly toward Israel and the United States. One can recognize this as a continuation of Cold War mentality where nations are either on the side of the U.S. and its allies (like Israel) or against them. The 9/11 events fed into this narrative.

The invasion of Afghanistan and the 20 year war was really a war against Islamic forces. To be sure the Taliban and Al-Qaeda (as well as ISIS/ISIL/DAESH) are extremist Islamic groups rejected by mainstream Islam, but in the naive American view, they are “all just Muslims.” President Biden has courageously withdrawn the United States from this ineffective “war on Islam.” It is not clear what will happen in the future. If another Republican becomes President and Republicans dominate in Congress, the United States could return to this ineffective policy. The justifications they will use are “protection of Israel,” and “nuclear weapons danger ”–the same themes they have used to justify U.S. military action in the past 70 years.

The Afghan army had no one to be loyal to. They certainly were not loyal to the Afghan central government , which was massively corrupt and made no attempt to reach out to, or support anyone on the local level. The United States was a source of huge financial resources, much of which was stolen through corruption. When the United States withdrew the Army naturally saw that the only effective power that was left was the Taliban, and they, quite logically, surrendered.

President Donald J. Trump is absolutely responsible for the debacle that was the American withdrawal from Afghanistan. He capitulated to the Taliban, made weak and vague agreements with them with no guarantees. He bragged that no one would be able to stop the withdrawal.

The faults of thewithdrawal are completely attributable to Trump. If he had continued as president, the same events would have occurred as took place under Biden.

The United States is indeed an unreliable partner, and has been since World War II. Alliances with the United States never last in the face of American domestic interests, and they change with eachpresidential administration. The nations of the world would be wise not to rely on the UnitedStates for anything. Most nations already know this, so they make no long-term plans with the United States.

However, I believe the Taliban will fail at governing Afghanistan through some kind of central control. As I mentioned above, Afghanistan is a federation of conflicting tribal and ethnic groups. It always has been. The Taliban are Pushtun–a minority ethnic group in their own country. A minority ruling a majority is a formula for failure of any government, and Afghanistan is no exception.

The federated governing principle of the Loya Jirga (council of regional powers) as the only effective body of national agreement shows this. The Taliban are naive and inexperienced at governing, and their extreme brand of Islam will not be an adequate basis for government. In the short term they are going to fail, and the country for a period will devolve into semi-independent regions.

Additionally, the one thing that has emerged from the American occupation is the empowerment ofwomen. The Taliban are already having difficulty dealing with this reality, which will continue–aided by international pressure. As long as women are repressed in Afghanistan the Taliban will have extreme difficulty forming any kind of effective government.

Return to the JCPOA--"Iran Deal"--Iran's Conventional Arms are Completely Legal--Interview with William O. Beeman

 

Return to the JCPOA ("Iran Deal"_--Iran's Conventional Arms are Completely Legal--Interview with William O. Beeman
https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/457474/Iran-s-conventional-arms-are-completely-legal-American-scholar       Iran's conventional arms are completely legal: American scholar By Mohammad Mazhari <https://www.tehrantimes.com/archive>   Politics <https://www.tehrantimes.com/service/politics> January 29, 2021 - 10:29 TEHRAN – Describing that depriving Iran from its defensive capabilities is a “fantasy”, an American academic says “Iran's conventional weapons are completely legal.” “The objection to them is the fantasy that Iran could at some future date use conventional weapons to deliver a nuclear warhead to Israel,” William O. Beeman tells the Tehran Times. Professor emeritus of the University of Minnesota emphasizes that “Iranian leaders will never agree to limit conventional defense in order to return to the JCPOA.” The following is the text of the interview: *Q: What is the significance of the JCPOA in these circumstances while some Arab regimes and Israel argue that the region does not need revitalizing such a deal?* A: There is a bit of a charade going on here. What Israel objects to is not the restoration of the JCPOA. Even Israel knows that the JCPOA was never necessary since Iran was already prohibited from developing nuclear weapons through the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) dating back to 1970. It was the false claims that Iran was violating the NPT in 2003 and the sanctions imposed on Iran that created the need for the JCPOA. Iran has no nuclear weapons program and is not going to develop one as long as Iran remains a signatory to the NPT. No, what Israel and the Arab states are worried about is the normalization of relations between the United States and Iran. Iran is the most powerful nation in the region. As long as Iran remains estranged from the United States, and economically weakened through sanctions, these other States believe that their own power and influence is aided. They do not want any improvement in U.S.-Iranian relations, and they don't want Iran to be strengthened economically, and that is why they oppose the JCPOA. *Q: Some advisers close to Biden like Robert Malley believe that discussing Iran's missiles won't help reach an understanding over the nuclear dispute. Do you think the U.S. will return to JCPOA without pre-condition?* A: Robert Malley is a very seasoned foreign relations expert, who has had long dealings with Iran. He is Egyptian/Syrian in family origin and knows the region very well.  Malley is right. Imposing pre-conditions on the United States return to the JCPOA is going to muddle, and perhaps totally frustrate the process. *“The objection to them is the fantasy that Iran could at some future date use conventional weapons to deliver a nuclear warhead to Israel,” Professor Beeman notes.* Iran's conventional weapons are completely legal. The objection to them is the fantasy that Iran could at some future date use conventional weapons to deliver a nuclear warhead to Israel. This is the most far-fetched scenario possible, but Netanyahu and Republican hawks in the United States have convinced low-information citizens of their countries that Iran is a month, two months, six months, from producing a bomb and attacking Israel. They have been saying this since 1990, so one would think that by now people would understand that this is a totally ridiculous accusation. So, this is going to be a non-starter in dealing with Iran. Iranian leaders will never agree to limit conventional defense in order to return to the JCPOA. But what Iran may be willing to do as a kind of precondition is to scale back its enrichment of uranium. Of course, I believe that Iran increased enrichment, not for any functional purpose, but rather to have precisely this bargaining chip when it came time to discuss returning to the JCPOA. This will be a bargaining situation, however. And this is a situation where both the United States and Iran cannot afford to lose face in these negotiations. This is not personal for Biden. If he gives up too much or gives in too easily, he will be attacked by Republicans immediately, and a good part of the American public who voted for Trump will believe these Republican attacks. Iran also has an election coming up this spring, and the success in dealing with the United States will be important in this election as well. *Q: What do we learn from Trump's presidency and his “maximum pressure” policy? Why did Trump fail to dictate his administration’s 12 terms on Iran?* A: Trump was committed to regime change in Iran, or at least to forcing Iran to come to the United States with concessions on support for external actors, reduction of its conventional weapons programs, and whatever else Trump could imagine. He wanted Iran to come begging to him, and he thought that the maximum pressure strategy would work. He was returning to the George W. Bush administration policies toward Iran. The Bush administration believed mistakenly that if enough economic pressure could be exerted on Iran, the Iranian people would rise up and overthrow their own government. A ridiculous idea, but it was very seriously promulgated by Bush, and also by Trump. People like John Bolton actively encouraged this. I should mention that royalists and other Iranians living in the United States who are opposed to the current Iranian government were actively supporting Trump in this last election because they had been told by Trump's officials that if he were re-elected he would launch a military attack on Iran and overthrow the government. Trump's policy was designed to be a strong departure from the Obama administration. If Obama was trying to improve relations with Iran, in the hopes of making progress in areas of mutual interest, then Trump definitely wanted to go in the opposite direction and show extreme hostility toward Iran to pressure Iran into doing what his administration wanted. But it didn't work. Trump knew nothing about Iran. In fact, Iran has a very robust internal economy. Iran is self-sufficient in just about everything except for specialized pharmaceuticals and specialized technical equipment. In fact, the poverty level in Iran is less than that in the United States. Iran's economy actually expanded during the two years of the Trump administration. Iran survived these Maximum Pressure sanctions. It created some very difficult economic situations for some people, but for the most part, life continued rather normally.   *Q: Is there any obvious mechanism to return to the JCPOA? Some observers suggest "compliance-compliance". What is your comment?* A: No. Too much time has passed, and although President Biden is committed to returning to the JCPOA he cannot do it without negotiations. For one thing, the sanctions against Iran are so incredibly complicated, they will take a long time to be untangled. See the Wikipedia page below. You will see that there are layers and layers of sanctions that need to be dealt with. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_sanctions_against_Iran#:~:text=U.S.%20economic%20sanctions%20are%20administered,parts%20to%20Iranian%20aviation%20companies <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_sanctions_against_Iran#:~:text=U.S.%20economic%20sanctions%20are%20administered,parts%20to%20Iranian%20aviation%20companies>. But more importantly, as I mentioned above, there is a political reality involved. If Biden just declared that the JCPOA sanctions were lifted without any concessions from Iran, he would be pilloried by Republicans, and the Democratic party would lose power in the next elections in 2022.  So, there must be negotiations. Both sides will have to make some concessions, and the other signatories to the JCOPA must also be involved.  With goodwill, this will be possible, but it will be an involved process. *Q: What are the main challenges of Biden in the future? Is America concerned about Trump's return?* A: For President Biden the massive effort in unifying the nation. The United States is very badly divided. He also has to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic which is worse in the United States than practically anywhere else. He has had a few good days thus far, and people are feeling optimistic, but it will be a difficult four years for him. And in this context, the U.S. Iranian relationship has a much lower priority than many other things. It is important, but if negotiations over the JCPOA and sanctions.are prolonged, other priorities may take precedence.

The Assassination of Dr. Fakrizadeh was a Mistake for Israel and the United States

 Iran 1, Netanyahu and Trump 0

The Israelis and Trump have miscalculated in carrying out this murder. The assassination of Dr. Fakhrizadeh was a really boneheaded, stupid stunt. The crime was undoubtedly conducted by Israel with the complicity of the United States. This assassination will not slow Iran's nuclear program (which by the way, is completely legal under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty--the NPT). It was a symbolic execution pure and simple. It was also designed to make it more difficult for President-elect Biden to negotiate with Iran. It was a failure on both counts. Whereas Dr. Fakrizadeh was historically important as a nuclear scientist, the Iranian nuclear program is by no means crippled by this. Iran has a large coterie of nuclear scientists and a robust infrastructure. Eliminating one person, no matter how "important" will not stop it. Second, rather than retaliate with some kind of military attack, the Iranians merely pushed the hot button they know will work--increasing their absolutely legal enrichment of uranium. Yes, the enriched uranium stockpiles exceed the limits specified in the JCPOA, an agreement (not a treaty) to assure that Iran would adhere to the NPT, which they still are doing. We should remind ourselves, that Trump withdrew from the agreement, The Europeans have also not been able to independently maintain the provisions of the agreement. The United States has not been attacked. Biden will be able to return to the JCPOA.

William O. Beeman--The US election has created a lot of ambiguity--Interview with Iranian Mehr News Agency

 

https://www.mehrnews.com/news/5066542/%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%AA%D8%AE%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A2%D9%85%D8%B1%DB%8C%DA%A9%D8%A7-%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%87%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A8%D8%B3%DB%8C%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%B2%DB%8C%D8%A7%D8%AF%DB%8C-%D8%B1%D8%A7-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%AC%D8%A7%D8%AF-%DA%A9%D8%B1%D8%AF%D9%87-%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA

The University of Minnesota professor said in an interview with Mehr;

The US election has created a lot of ambiguity

A professor at the University of Minnesota believes that the 2020 US presidential election has created a lot of ambiguity in the country and there is a possibility that post-election unrest will spread.

Mehr News Agency , International Group - Amir Mohammad Ismaili: The recent US election has been marked by many ups and downs, and while both candidates consider themselves the winners of the presidency, the media is reporting on Joe Biden's victory. This is despite the fact that Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed election fraud and theft of popular votes.

On the other hand, tensions, conflicts and unrest have occurred in the United States following the escalation, which has further increased the likelihood of internal riots. We spoke with Professor William Beiman to investigate the scale and nature of the unrest.

Professor William Bayman is Professor and Head of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Minnesota, USA. He is a well-known international researcher on the Middle East and the Islamic world, especially Iran, the Persian Gulf region and Central Asia. Bimen also chaired the Middle East Division of the American Anthropological Society from 2005 to 2008. The text of the conversation is as follows:

How do you assess the current turbulent situation in the United States?

Joe Biden has already won enough electoral votes (in the complex process of our election) and can be called President. Trump is trying to challenge the election in court, but it can almost be said that he will not win. This weekend we will see if there is a strong public reaction from Trump supporters or not, but for now we have seen some reactions.

Joe Biden won the most popular votes in history and received more than 74 million votes. This removes many ambiguities about the future of the United States, but leaves many ambiguities unanswered.

* Some experts believe that the United States is on the verge of internal unrest and insurgency. what is your opinion?

Riots can still happen, but no real riots have taken place since Tuesday's election. Trump supporters have tried to protest the vote count. They are protesting against the millions of votes sent by mail instead of in person.

How long does it usually take for challenged votes to be approved?

It takes about two weeks or more to approve these votes. During this time, Trump supporters may be trying to create unrest, so we have to wait and see how things go.

Q: How do you think the political and security structure of the United States will react to any possible unrest?

The United States has unusual restrictions on the use of the military. The National Army (Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard) is legally barred from interfering in internal affairs unless requested to do so by state governments. Each state has a section of the National Guard that can be mobilized by state governors; Therefore, any military intervention is in the hands of the state governors, not the president. There are also local police, police stations and the Federal Bureau of Investigation that can only intervene in federal crimes. Trump may try to enlist in the military, but he will not succeed.

News ID 5066542

 

Professor William Beeman: Biden could lift Trump's sanctions on Iran immediately

 

https://www.tahlilbazaar.com/news/52777/Professor-William-Beeman-Biden-could-lift-Trump-s-sanctions

Professor William Beeman: Biden could lift Trump's sanctions on Iran immediately

TEHRAN(Bazaar) – William O. Beeman, Professor Emeritus of University of Minnesota, says If the United States returns to the JCPOA they will have to also lift the sanctions relief specified in the JCPOA.

In an interview with the Bazaar, Beeman also says, “There must be talks about whether the U.S. will return to the JCPOA or not in advance of this.”

Following is the text of the interview:

Bazaar: Joe Biden, in an article published on CNN, presented a three-stage policy against Iran. Accordingly, he presented the three phases of nuclear talks, regional issues, the missile issue and human rights under one package. The important issue here is timing. That is, whether Biden considers the nuclear issue independent or links it to missile and regional issues. If such a connection is made, the probability of reaching an agreement with Iran is close to zero. On this basis, it is argued that he may seek to consider each issue separately and independently in possible negotiations with Iran. What is your assessment of Biden's policy toward Iran?

Beeman: We can't know exactly what Joe Biden will do. But it will have to be a political calculation. He can't just reverse Trump's withdrawal from the JCPOA without creating an issue that Republicans will use against him. Therefore if he does anything with regard to Iran, he must show that he has “improved” on the agreement. If I were advising him, I would suggest that he condition returning to the JCPOA and eliminating sanctions on Iran firmly agreeing to additional talks on the other two issues. But he hasn't asked me. Nevertheless that would be, I believe, the safest course for him politically.

Bazaar: Biden has repeatedly spoken of returning to the JCPOA during his election campaigns. But there has been no talk of lifting sanctions on Iran. What is the reason for this, and will it lift nuclear sanctions in return for Iran's return from reducing its JCPOA commitments?

Beeman: If the United States returns to the JCPOA they will have to also lift the sanctions relief specified in the JCPOA. So there must be talks about whether the U.S. will return to the JCPOA or not in advance of this. There were additional sanctions imposed by Trump after the U.S. withdrawal. Biden could lift those immediately. If I were in his position, I would claim that the additional sanctions were not achieving anything, and that they created a humanitarian crisis in Iran and in the region, so lifting them would be a wise move.

Bazaar: The Democratic Party announced in a statement during the presidential election campaign that it would no longer pursue a policy of regime change in Iran. Is this policy still pursued when Biden came to power or was it just a propaganda issue?

Beeman: Yes. The policy of regime change has been a part of the Republican Party platform since George W. Bush. I believe the Democratic Party should stick to their promise and specifically abandon this policy. 

Bazaar: In general, what changes will Biden's Middle East policy have compared to Trump?

Beeman: There may be more pressure on Israel to abandon the settlements. There will be a movement away from MBS and the Saudi Arabian regime. The United States has military facilities in Qatar and Bahrain, and there will be continued efforts to protect them. The United States will also likely continue withdrawal from Iraq.

۱۹ آبان ۱۳۹۹ - ۰۹:۴۳

 

William O. Beeman: Europeans have to deal with U.S if Trump re-elected

 

William Beeman <wbeeman@umn.edu>	9:34 AM (3 hours ago)
to bcc: Anthropology, bcc: Erica, bcc: Kamran, bcc: Alizadeh, bcc: Amanat, bcc: Babayan, bcc: Betteridge, bcc: Canby, bcc: Carter, bcc: Chehabi, bcc: Clark, bcc: Daryaee, bcc: Ekhtiar, bcc: Ernst, bcc: Esfahani, bcc: Farhad, bcc: Garrison, bcc: Gocheleishvili, bcc: Gruber, bcc: Harper, bcc: Hashemi, bcc: Khafipour, bcc: Komaroff, bcc: Kurzman, bcc: Lerner, bcc: Lewis, bcc: Lob, bcc: Losensky, bcc: Manz, bcc: Marashi, bcc: Matthee, bcc: Payne, bcc: Potts, bcc: Shakhsari, bcc: Shayegan, bcc: Sheffield, bcc: Spooner, bcc: Sternfeld, bcc: Stolper, bcc: Just, bcc: Landau, bcc: Steve, bcc: Jamal, bcc: NIAC, bcc: PhD, bcc: Mike, bcc: Cyrus, bcc: Behrad, bcc: Women, bcc: Jim, bcc: to:, bcc: skipauld@gmail.com, bcc: barkerpaul987@gmail.com, bcc: barrotgail@gmail.com, bcc: me, bcc: Marybruceking6@gmail.com, bcc: patcathcart@gmail.com, bcc: Alisonwclement@yahoo.com, bcc: hooblercurtis@comcast.net, bcc: kdahl@npca.org, bcc: jdarznik@cca.edu, bcc: charlieq22@yahoo.com, bcc: hekbia@indiana.edu, bcc: oakopening@gmail.com, bcc: jffox77777@aol.com, bcc: idahowriter@aol.com, bcc: ray@frieden.org, bcc: allgaughan@yahoo.com, bcc: rabeahjan@gmail.com, bcc: jeanettegny@earthlink.net, bcc: jygritzner@yahoo.com, bcc: hansbrad@gmail.com, bcc: mhegland@scu.edu, bcc: rpcvw488@gmail.com, bcc: jmholehan@gmail.com, bcc: thomas_huf@yahoo.com, bcc: persiskarim@sfsu.edu, bcc: reakeech@hotmail.com, bcc: klobetm@hawaii.edu, bcc: jkrauskopf7@comcast.net, bcc: jklmk@comcast.net, bcc: larimerr@gmail.com, bcc: limbertjw@hotmail.com, bcc: jlorentz@shawnee.edu, bcc: kmacleod1@cox.net, bcc: marydmarks9c@gmail.com, bcc: dan.mcconochie@gmail.com, bcc: femoskol@wisc.edu, bcc: andymott@communitylearningpartnership.org, bcc: ken.opin@gmail.com, bcc: alexpatico@aol.com, bcc: orickp@gmail.com, bcc: ecposey@aol.com, bcc: kpransky48@comcast.net, bcc: mrahbar@utk.edu, bcc: tomricks28@yahoo.com, bcc: brosen1500@gmail.com, bcc: jjsalamack@aol.com, bcc: wsawyer@thecalebgroup.org, bcc: dschermer@farmtel.net, bcc: seiderse@asme.org, bcc: mshannon@ehc.edu, bcc: cspeake@mcn.org, bcc: wm.spielberger@sbcglobal.net, bcc: spurlock6@comcast.net, bcc: spurlock8@gmail.com, bcc: aht1964@yahoo.com, bcc: gerard.torma@nordson.com, bcc: globalmaddy@gmail.com, bcc: robb.walt@outlook.com, bcc: rwangsness@cfl.rr.com, bcc: wangsneg@yahoo.com, bcc: yalebush@gmail.com, bcc: urbana.kristin@gmail.com, bcc: art@artfox.us, bcc: Nasrin.rahimieh@uci.edu, bcc: Barbara, bcc: Barbara, bcc: Cyrus, bcc: cyrus, bcc: John, bcc: Amir, bcc: Damon, bcc: Catharine, bcc: Roxanne, bcc: RI-ME

https://www.ilna.news/Section-politics-3/976770-europeans-have-to-deal-with-if-trump-re-elected-expert  

Europeans have to deal with U.S if Trump re-elected; Expert

The United States has threatened to punish any nation that uses dollars or dollar transfers to aid Iran," an American scholar whose specialty is the Middle East told ILNA.

William Beeman who is professor of anthropology at the University of Minnesota talked about the U.S Presidential election and the results of that election to the international community. He says “Everyone is waiting for the U.S. presidential elections before taking definitive action.” Adding that if Trump wins, European has to find some way to deal with him. Right now the JCPOA is in stasis, and it could stay that way, but it would be rendered useless.

 

Below is Beeman's interview with ILNA news agency:

Q: Can US diplomacy head off conflict between the US and Iran?

A: There are many things that can lead to war, but not these futile "Snapback actions" on the part of the United States. These have been completely rejected by every other nation, and the UN has ruled that the United States cannot make them incumbent on other nations, because Trump withdrew the United States from the JCPOA. So the United State has failed in trying to enact these actions. Additionally, the United States had already sanctioned everything possible in Iran, so there was no room for Trump to do more.

 

Q: Europe has not fulfilled its obligations of JCPOA. Why did this happen?

A: The Europeans would like to fulfill their obligations, but they are hamstrung by the United States because of the dominance of the U.S. Dollar in international trade. The United States has threatened to punish any nation that uses dollars or dollar transfers to aid Iran. The Europeans tried to create another financial transfer system to bypass the U.S. restrictions, and it was implemented, but it was so minuscule that it had no effect. Russia and China are also trying to develop alternative transfer systems that would bypass the dollar.

 

Q: EU Chief reaffirms commitment to keep JCPOA alive. Will the EU Keep the JCPOA Alive?

A: It is still alive, and if Biden is elected, it will be available to be renewed. Everyone is waiting for the U.S. presidential elections before taking definitive action. The United States has done all it can, and has been rebuffed by the International Community. 

 

Q: Some believe that with Trump's victory, we will see Europe turn to the United States and destroy JCPOA. What is your opinion?

A: If Trump wins, this might happen, but only because four more years of intransigence on the JCPOA will render it effectively ineffective. If Trump wins, Europeans will have to find some way to deal with him. Right now the JCPOA is in stasis, and it could stay that way, but it would be rendered useless.

What people continually forget is that Iran and all other nations (except Israel, Pakistan, India, North Korea and South Sudan) are bound by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which is a real treaty, not just an "agreement" like the JCPOA. Iran is in full compliance with the NPT, and so Iran cannot proceed to any kind of nuclear weapons development without withdrawing from the NPT. This has been talked about in Iran, but I don't see it happening.

Foreign Minister Zarif has just laid out a set of conditions for Iran to return to discussions with the U.S. over the JCPOA. If Biden wins he will have a similar set, and discussions could begin again. If Trump wins, nothing will happen. 

 

Q: Is Donald Trump going to win the US election?

A: At present he is losing. The question remains whether he would leave office if he lost, or would try to retain power through some kind of coup. We are worried about this in the United States. Our strange election system makes it possible for Trump to win the election even if he loses the popular vote. So the calculus of voting is very complex, usually coming down to the vote in a very few selected states where the vote will be close. Those are the states to watch.