The Economist July 10th 2021 MiddleEast&Africa 45Both sides now accept that they could
return to the deal in a series of concurrent
steps rather than waiting for the other to do
everything first. But Iran has said it wants
America to remove all sanctions imposed
by Mr Trump. America retorts that it will
only lift those covered by the jcpoa. In
March the Biden administration imposed
new sanctions on two members of the Is
lamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. It is
those sorts of sanctions, “economically in
consequential but highly politically sensi
tive”, that are most challenging, says Henry
Rome of the Eurasia Group, a consultancy.
They include America’s labelling of the
Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist group,
and sanctions againstMr Raisi himself.
On June 30th Majid Takht Ravanchi,
Iran’s ambassador to the un, said that the
country wanted “assurances that...the us
will not, once again, withdraw from the
jcpoa”. American officials say it would be
impossible to provide such certainty, not
least because the jcpoa could not be
turned into a binding treaty without sup
port from twothirds of the Senate. Repub
licans, who make up half the assembly, bit
terly oppose the deal. In any case, Mr
Trump also showed that a president could
walk away from longstanding treaties.
Western countries have their own com
plaints. They argue that although Iran has
portrayed its breaches of the deal as reme
dial and reversible, it has also gained valu
able knowledge by, among other things,
operating advanced centrifuges and manu
facturing uranium metal (the solid form
used in reactors or bombs, as opposed to
the gaseous compound used during en
richment). The jcpoawas supposed to de
fer such activity to later years, thus slowing
Iran’s nuclear progress. America now
wants Iran to agree to followon talks that
would not only extend the deal’s provi
sionsbut also cover issues such as Iran’s
ballistic missiles and support for militant
groups in the region. Mr Raisi says those
things are “nonnegotiable”.
The impasse is especially dangerous
because Iran is determined to build up its
leverage, not only by steadily expanding its
nuclear activity, thus shrinking the time it
would take to build a bomb, but also by
threatening to make its programme less
transparent. In February Iran repudiated
several of the jcpoa’s tough inspection
provisions, such as the installation of cam
eras at nuclear sites, but promptly agreed
to a “temporary technical understanding”
with the iaeato preserve some access.
Those stopgap measures were re
newed twice but expired on June 24th,
days after the latest talks in Vienna ended.
Iran’s government has yet to decide wheth
er to extend them—and hints that it may
delete the data on cameras. The intention
may be to make America sweat, but it cer
tainly erodes trust. On July 1st Reuters, a
news agency, reportedthat Iranhad re
stricted theiaea’s access to Natanz, its
mainenrichmentsite,followingsuspect
edIsraelisabotagethereinApril.
Forallthepositivetalkemanatingfrom
Vienna, thereisalsoanxietyabouthow
high the stakes are becoming. Mikhail
Ulyanov,Russia’senvoy,saysrenewingthe
Iraniaeaunderstandingwould”avoidun
certainties which can haveunjustifiable
longlasting negativeeffects”.MarkFitz
patrick, aretiredAmerican diplomat, is
blunter:“Iranisplayingwithfire.” nFuelling up
Iran, stockpile of low-enriched uranium, tonnesSources:IAEA;
Bloomberg*JointComprehensivePlanofAction
(theIrannuclear deal)60
2008 21191715131193US/EU oil
sanctions
UN
sanctionsDonald Trump
withdraws from
the JCPOA
Ta l k s t o
revive the
JCPOAInterim nuclear dealJCPOA*
signedLebanonBegging for help
L
ebanonis“daysaway”froma “social
explosion”. So said Hassan Diab, the act
ing prime minister, on July 6th. The coun
try has been mired in a crisis that has seen
the value of the local currency plummet
and left much of the population short of
food, fuel and medicine. “I am calling on
kings, princes, presidents and leaders of
our friendly countries, and I am calling on
the United Nations and all international
organisations...to help rescue Lebanon
from its demise,” Mr Diab told a group of
foreign diplomats.
But foreign leaders are not listening.
Most do not trust Lebanon’s politicians. Mr
Diab has been serving in a caretaker role
since a devastating explosion at Beirut’s
port last August (the result of government
neglect). For nearly a year the country’s
politicians, divided by sect and notorious
ly corrupt, have failed to agree on a new
government—andfailed to make reforms
called for by foreign leaders.
Even when parliament appears to do
something right, there are doubts over itsintentions. Take its recently passed plan to
replace unaffordable subsidies for food,
fuel and medicine with a $556m pro
gramme of cash aid for the poor. In a sense
it was following the recommendation of
the World Bank, which predicted in De
cember that Lebanon’s central bank (the
Banque du Liban, or bdl) would soon lack
the reserves needed to support the subsidy
scheme. (The scheme had the bdlselling
dollars to importers of the covered goods at
belowmarket rates.) The World Bank was
right and the bdlhas been removing or
cutting subsidies this year.
The old system could have been better
targeted, as rich Lebanese consumed more
of the subsidised goods than the poor. But
the new system, yet to be implemented, is
opaque. It is not clear who is eligible for the
aid. Regardless, few people think Leba
non’s politicians will distribute it fairly.
They have a history of doling out govern
ment largesse to their relatives and sup
porters (an election is scheduled for next
year). Contracts go to the connected, lead
ing to unreliable services. It is fitting that
sweaty legislators passed the cashaid pro
gramme in an assembly without working
airconditioning, the result of a decrepit
and poorly managed power grid.
How the cashaid programme will be
funded is also an open question. The cen
tral bank could pay for it, but it is running
low on reserves and printing more pounds
would increase inflation, which is already
skyhigh. Outside funding may be an op
tion. Lebanon could, for example, use aid
that the imfis giving to poor countries in
order to help with covidrelated economic
slowdowns. The money is expected to be
delivered by the autumn. Some officials
want to reallocate loans already given by
the World Bank for other purposes.
The World Bank probably would not
mind if more of its money actually went to
directly helping the poor. But it is running
short of patience with the government. In
January the bank agreed to lend Lebanon
$246m to expand the social safetynet, in
cluding cash transfers for the poor. Feed
ing more money into that programme
would be an option—if the government ev
er implemented it. It has been stalled for
months because of a disagreement be
tween the World Bank and Lebanese politi
cians over who gets the aid and how it is
disbursed. In short, the politicians do not
like the idea of World Bank oversight.
In the coming weeks the government is
supposed to present a detailed plan on the
funding and implementation of the new
aid programme. But the Lebanese people
are not holding their breath. Poverty is ris
ing, basic services are failing and politi
cians appear more concerned with protect
ing the patronage system thatcontributed
to the crisis. Is it any wonderthatMr Diab’s
pleas have fallen on deaf ears?nNo one trusts parliament’s plan to aid
the poor