National

More than a month after Venezuelan National Assembly leader Juan Guaidó claimed the interim presidency, recognized by the U.S. and dozens of other nations, the country remains in a dangerous stalemate.  

The big picture: The opposition and its international backers, notably the U.S., were hoping that the effort to provide humanitarian assistance would prove a turning point. Instead, it did little to shift the dynamics. Without third-party mediation aimed at a mutually acceptable compromise, the country appears set for a protracted crisis. 

Background: The Feb. 23 gambit was aimed at exposing Maduro as impotent (if he couldn’t prevent the entry of aid), oblivious to his people’s needs (if he tried to), or hanging by a thread (if the military balked at his orders to stop it). In that regard, it failed.

While the government once again used force against civilians, further eroding its credibility, the opposition failed to achieve its goals: Humanitarian aid did not reach the people, and the small number of security force desertions highlighted the government’s resilience more than its frailty. 

The episode ended in a draw, but, given that Maduro was on the defensive, a draw was a government win.

What’s next: If Maduro refuses to step down and the anti-Maduro camp insists that he does, the crisis will endure. 

This won’t be optimal for the government, which could well stay in power but find it increasingly difficult to govern for lack of resources. 

But the pain will be felt chiefly by others: ordinary citizens who will suffer the devastating effects of a crumbling economy and oil sanctions, and Venezuela’s neighbors, who will face a growing influx of refugees.  

Two unfavorable scenarios could result: steady aggravation of the country’s misery, with no plan for recovery; or renewed interest in a perilous foreign military intervention that could sow chaos in a country awash with weapons and armed groups.

The bottom line: To avoid either of these outcomes, third-party mediation will be required to appeal to more pragmatic forces among those sympathetic to former president Hugo Chávez and those on the opposition side. The optimal outcome would be an inclusive transitional government comprising Chavistas and the opposition, as well as the military, followed by free and fair elections under a neutral electoral body with international monitoring. 

Robert Malley is president and CEO of the International Crisis Group.

Venezuela stalemate calls for third-party mediation, monitored elections

Without compromise, the country appears set for a protracted crisis.

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro speaks to businessmen during the presentation of Venezuela's nation-brand in Caracas on February 11, 2019. 

Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro speaks in Caracas, on Feb. 11, 2019. Photo:  Federico Parra/AFP via Getty Images

World

Venezuela

Expert Voices

More than a month after Venezuelan National Assembly leader Juan Guaidó claimed the interim presidency, recognized by the U.S. and dozens of other nations, the country remains in a dangerous stalemate. The big picture: The opposition and its international backers, notably the U.S., were hoping that the effort to provide humanitarian assistance would prove a turning point. Instead, it did little to shift the dynamics. Without third-party mediation aimed at a mutually acceptable compromise, the country appears set for a protracted crisis.

The decision by key European countries to set up a special purpose vehicle (SPV) called INSTEX (Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges), announced on Thursday, marks Europe’s most substantial step to save the Iran nuclear deal in the wake of the U.S. withdrawal. The SPV provides for a new financial mechanism that would circumvent U.S. sanctions, making it easier for some European companies to do business with Iran.

Why it matters: Whether the EU succeeds won't be determined by the SPV alone. But for now, the move sends 2 messages: Europe remains determined to preserve the agreement, and it's prepared to defy the U.S. administration to do so.

European officials are sober about the SPV's potential. They acknowledge it will not seriously affect the scope of trade and commerce with Iran, as companies will not risk crushing financial penalties or trading access to the U.S. market for Iran’s far more modest one. That's why they are starting with humanitarian goods, in principle not subject to sanctions.

Still, anything that cushions the blow of U.S. sanctions and demonstrates European resistance to the Trump administration's posture could help convince Iran's leadership that it's worth complying with the deal.

Reality check: If the SPV fails to produce any meaningful dividend to Iran, Tehran may sour on staying in a deal that imposes nuclear constraints without delivering economic benefits. Hardliners opposing the deal are already urging a response, including resuming some frozen nuclear activities. That could set off a dangerous chain reaction: European sanctions, more significant Iranian violations and possible military escalation. 

On the other hand, if the SPV somehow exceeds expectations, the U.S. might try to exert even more pressure on Europe to undermine it and scare off potential users, as the administration has warned.

The Iran deal's survival is a function of three clocks.

U.S. domestic politics: The Iranian regime is more likely to display patience if convinced Trump will prove a one-term president it can wait out.

Iranian domestic politics: As the country's own 2021 presidential elections approach, hardline calls for Tehran's withdrawal will grow louder.

European economic efforts: The harder the continent tries to effectively preserve some of the deal's economic benefits, the likelier Iran is to stick to it.

The bottom line: By establishing the SPV, the EU has put some time onto the third clock. But the others are still ticking, and the fate of the deal remains precarious.

Europe gambles on a way around Iran sanctions, risking U.S. blowback

The EU is hoping to prolong the Iran deal's survival.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel (L) precedes British Prime Minister Theresa May after greeting her at the Chancellery in Berlin, on December 11, 2018, prior bilateral talks. 

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May. Photo: Odd Andersen/AFP via Getty Images

Iran deal

Business

Iran

The decision by key European countries <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="to set up a special purpose vehicle" data-vars-click-url="https://www.dw.com/en/instex-europe-sets-up-transactions-channel-with-iran/a-47303580" data-vars-content-id="8f0e7c73-852e-4876-b274-03d5b0b6116f" data-vars-headline="Europe gambles on a way around Iran sanctions, risking U.S. blowback" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://www.dw.com/en/instex-europe-sets-up-transactions-channel-with-iran/a-47303580" target="_blank">to set up a special purpose vehicle</a> (SPV) called INSTEX (Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges), announced on Thursday, marks Europe’s most substantial step to save the Iran nuclear deal in the wake of the U.S. withdrawal. The SPV provides for a new financial mechanism that would circumvent U.S. sanctions, making it easier for some European companies to do business with Iran.Why it matters: Whether the EU succeeds won&#x27;t be determined by the SPV alone. But for now, the move sends 2 messages: Europe remains determined to preserve the agreement, and it&#x27;s prepared to defy the U.S. administration to do so.

China is becoming the most formidable rival America has faced, and the risk of confrontation with Russia, North Korea or Iran still looms. Authoritarians are rising, the chaotic Afghanistan exit revealed the limits of U.S. power, and the pandemic, climate change and other critical challenges continue to pose grave threats.

Iran's announcement that it's stepping up uranium enrichment levels to 5% follows its  breach of the 2015 nuclear deal's stockpile limits and marks its latest escalatory gambit to secure economic relief from Europe, sanctions reductions from the U.S., or both.

Why it matters: For a year after the U.S. withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Iran stuck to the agreement, hoping its compliance would be reciprocated by other signatories' initiatives. With Europe's special trade mechanism slow to come together, Tehran is stepping up enrichment to raise the costs of European delay and American escalation. Yet each new measure increases the possibility of a U.S. or Israeli military strike against Iran.

Where it stands: Breaching the 300 kilogram limit on low-enriched uranium earlier this month was a fairly modest, reversible first step; increasing enrichment levels beyond the 3.67% allowed under the deal begins to chip away at the deal's non-proliferation gains. But the move is still more of a warning sign than a meaningful step toward a bomb.

What to watch: There are 3 likely scenarios.

Fearful of a growing crisis, Europe seeks to mediate between Washington and Tehran. In a July 6 phone call with his Iranian counterpart Hassan Rouhani, French President Emmanuel Macron discussed the prospects of resuming nuclear talks. That would almost certainly require Iran's return to compliance with the deal and a U.S. commitment to some sanctions relief, though the latter seems unlikely.

Should that fail, Europe could condemn Iran's latest move while treating it as an act of diplomatic brinkmanship rather than a non-proliferation crisis. In turn, it could expedite work on financial channels to appease Iran and keep the agreement from fully unraveling.

Dissatisfied with European and the U.S. responses, Iran breaches more sensitive parts of the deal, such as enriching to 20% or limiting access by international nuclear inspectors. Europe could then initiate the JCPOA's dispute resolution mechanism for non-compliance, eventually leading to the reimposition of sanctions against Iran. The breaches also could trigger a U.S. or Israeli military operation against Iranian nuclear facilities.

The bottom line: The U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA did not kill the deal, but new sanctions have made it difficult for anyone else to save the accord. As the Trump administration's maximum pressure campaign continues, it leaves fewer and fewer off-ramps from potential confrontations.

Robert Malley is president and CEO of the International Crisis Group, where Ali Vaez directs the Iran Project.

Iran's nuclear escalation raises stakes for U.S. and Europe

For now, higher enrichment is more of a warning than a step toward a bomb.

Behrouz Kamalvandi and Ali Rabiei seated while giving a press conference

Iranian Atomic Energy Organisation spokesman Behrouz Kamalvandi and government spokesman Ali Rabiei at a press conference in Tehran on July 7. Photo: Iranian Presidency/AFP/Getty Images

Nuclear program of Iran

Iran&#x27;s <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="announcement" data-vars-click-url="https://www.axios.com/iran-nuclear-deal-tehran-announces-new-breach-22facaee-c906-4cc2-8d32-e462ed2bf4bd.html" data-vars-content-id="a73a13a0-067b-4782-bd5d-51079b5a991e" data-vars-headline="Iran&#x27;s nuclear escalation raises stakes for U.S. and Europe" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://www.axios.com/iran-nuclear-deal-tehran-announces-new-breach-22facaee-c906-4cc2-8d32-e462ed2bf4bd.html" target="_self">announcement</a> that it&#x27;s stepping up uranium enrichment levels to 5% follows its <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="breach" data-vars-click-url="https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/07/02/iran-isnt-trying-to-build-a-bomb-tomorrow-it-wants-sanctions-relief-uranium-jcpoa-trump-enrichment/" data-vars-content-id="a73a13a0-067b-4782-bd5d-51079b5a991e" data-vars-headline="Iran&#x27;s nuclear escalation raises stakes for U.S. and Europe" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/07/02/iran-isnt-trying-to-build-a-bomb-tomorrow-it-wants-sanctions-relief-uranium-jcpoa-trump-enrichment/" target="_blank">breach</a> of the 2015 nuclear deal&#x27;s stockpile limits and marks its latest escalatory gambit to secure economic relief from Europe, sanctions reductions from the U.S., or both.Why it matters: For a year after the U.S. withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Iran stuck to the agreement, hoping its compliance would be reciprocated by other signatories&#x27; initiatives. With Europe&#x27;s special trade mechanism slow to come together, Tehran is stepping up enrichment to raise the costs of European delay and American escalation. Yet each new measure increases the possibility of a U.S. or Israeli military strike against Iran.

The trajectory of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could be on the verge of significant change, but this will come neither from Israel's recently concluded elections nor the potential unveiling of the Trump administration's peace plan in coming months. 

The big picture: More important than what either the Israeli or U.S. governments will do is what will happen to the party about which one hears the least, the Palestinians. Their national movement has been missing in action on all matters concerning the future of Israeli-Palestinian relations. At some point, inevitably, that will change.

Where it stands: In the wake of his electoral victory, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin is likely to form a right-wing coalition, but it's too early to know how much influence the most extreme elements of his coalition will enjoy, whether he will abide by his last-minute pledge to annex West Bank settlements, or how long he can survive in the face of his likely indictment.

On the U.S. side, the Trump administration could present its peace plan in June, or later, or not at all — with or without the political counterpart to the economic plan. 

Between the lines: Those questions notwithstanding, the direction of Israel’s policies in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem has long been set: expanding settlement construction and increased entrenchment. The main issue left to be determined is how far and fast that process will go.

The basic trajectory of U.S. policy is also set. Assuming it is presented, and even if it some of its elements go beyond what Netanyahu's more right-wing coalition allies can stomach, the Trump administration's plan will fall short of what even the most pragmatic Palestinians can accept. Netanyahu likely will greet it with a "yes, but," some Arab states with a "no, but," and Palestinians with a flat "no."

What will remain are U.S. decisions to move its embassy to Jerusalem, cut off assistance to the Palestinians and recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights.

The bottom line. The Palestinian's national movement is at a generational, political and strategic crossroads. Most Palestinians by now have given up on a two-state solution, negotiations, the U.S., and their own leadership. Virtually everything about their future is up for grabs: continue on the current path or demand equal rights in a single state, resolve divisions between Fatah and Hamas or descend into internecine strife, opt for a nonviolent mass protest strategy or resort to violence.

At current crossroads, future of Palestinian movement is up for grabs

There could soo be a generational, political and strategic shift.

Benjamin Netanyahu and his wife, Sara, on stage before supporters

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his wife, Sara, at Likud Party headquarters in Tel Aviv on election night, April 10, 2019. Photo: Thomas Coex/AFP/Getty Images

Israeli-Palestinian peace process

Israel

The trajectory of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could be on the verge of significant change, but this will come neither from Israel&#x27;s recently concluded elections nor the potential unveiling of the Trump administration&#x27;s peace plan in coming months. The big picture: More important than what either the Israeli or U.S. governments will do is what will happen to the party about which one hears the least, the Palestinians. Their national movement has been missing in action on all matters concerning the future of Israeli-Palestinian relations. At some point, inevitably, that will change.

In the midst of French efforts to de-escalate tensions between Tehran and Washington at the G7 summit in Biarritz, the conflict between Israel and Iran may have entered a dangerous new stage. 

Why it matters: French President Emmanuel Macron is seeking to ease tensions between the U.S. and Iran and arrange a meeting between President Trump and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in the coming weeks. But an Israeli-Iranian blow up could tank the prospects for any of this.

Context: Israel has carried out hundreds of airstrikes against Iranian and Iran-linked targets in Syria for years, motivated by concerns that Iran-backed forces could set up near the armistice line on the Golan Heights, and that Iran has been transferring high-precision weapons to its local allies, including Hezbollah. 

What's happening: In an operation in Aqraba, Syria, last week, Israel destroyed what it called "killer drones" that it said Iran was going to use to attack. 

In Iraq — which is already caught between competing U.S. and Iranian interests — Israel is suspected of having conducted attacks targeting munitions storage facilities used by Iraqi paramilitary groups, including one last month.

Then on Aug. 25, the Lebanese army claimed that an Israeli drone "crashed and [a] second drone exploded in the air" in Beirut. The next day, another suspected Israeli drone hit an Iran-backed militia in the Bekaa Valley. 

In a speech on Sunday, Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah warned that a response to the incidents in Lebanon "may take place at any time on the borders and beyond the borders."

On Monday, Iraq's political leadership met with senior militia commanders and, without naming names, denounced "blatant, hostile acts." An electoral bloc drawn from the paramilitary forces went further, calling the incidents "a declaration of war" carried out by Israel that the U.S. is "fully responsible" for as well.

Israel has only officially acknowledged one set of operations in recent days: the "large-scale attack of multiple killer drones" via airstrikes in Syria. 

Between the lines: Previous escalations between Iran and Israel in Syria have been contained. Israeli strikes have rarely elicited significant responses, and if they did, Israel retaliated with major military actions — like Operation House of Cards in May 2018, which swiftly ended that particular episode of escalation.

The bottom line: The current escalation is drawing in a far wider range of actors and is hitting closer to Iran’s core interests, making it that much more difficult to prevent, contain or control. 

Robert Malley is president & CEO of the International Crisis Group. Naysan Rafati is Crisis Group's Iran analyst.

Israel-Iran tensions could threaten prospects for Trump-Rouhani meeting

Amid efforts to ease tensions between the U.S. and Iran, the Israel-Iran conflict is escalating.

The Lebanese army and United Nations Interim Forces in Lebanon patrolling in the Lebanese village of Aitaroun along the border with Israel.

The Lebanese army and United Nations Interim Forces in Lebanon patrolling in the Lebanese village of Aitaroun along the border with Israel. Photo: Jack Guez/AFP/Getty Images.

In the midst of French efforts to de-escalate tensions between Tehran and Washington at the G7 summit in Biarritz, the conflict between Israel and Iran may have entered a dangerous new stage. Why it matters: French President Emmanuel Macron is seeking to ease tensions between the U.S. and Iran and arrange a meeting between President Trump and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in the coming weeks. But an Israeli-Iranian blow up could tank the prospects for any of this.

Robert Malley

Stories

Israel-Iran tensions could threaten prospects for Trump-Rouhani meeting

Iran's nuclear escalation raises stakes for U.S. and Europe

At current crossroads, future of Palestinian movement is up for grabs

Venezuela stalemate calls for third-party mediation, monitored elections

Europe gambles on a way around Iran sanctions, risking U.S. blowback