Iranski nuklearni sporazum kao odraz nesaglasnosti u transatlantskim odnosima tokom administracije Američkog predsednika Donalda Trampa

‘This is a clear-eyed assessment of the Iran nuclear deal and how it was working smoothly before President Trump's reckless withdrawal. No single volume makes better use of the facts to refute the criticisms levied by the Trump administration against the deal, or differentiates more clearly between those of Iran's ballistic missiles which could be allowed in a negotiated arrangement and those which should be prohibited.’Angela Kane, Senior Fellow, Vienna Center for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation; former UN High Rentative for Disarmament Affairs and UN Under-Secretary-General for Management ‘No one has contributed more to the public understanding of the complexities of nuclear proliferation and the attempts of various states to break out from the Non-Proliferation Treaty than Mark Fitzpatrick. Now he and his colleagues at the IISS have turned their focus to the withdrawal of the US from the JCPOA. Their new study is required reading for anyone concerned that this action could lead to yet another conflict in the Middle East or increase the risk of nuclear weapons spreading in the region.’IISSIn July 2015, eight parties – France, Germany and the United Kingdom, together with the European Union and China, Russia and the United States on the one side, and Iran on the other – adopted the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), better known as the Iran nuclear deal. Under the agreement, Iran accepted limits to its nuclear programme and stricter international monitoring in return for sanctions relief. Detractors, however, saw the deal as overly lenient towards Tehran. Donald Trump described the JCPOA as the ‘worst deal ever’, and announced in May 2018 that the US would cease waiving sanctions and withdraw from the agreement.This Adelphi book argues that the unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA was a grave error. Drawing on a deep understanding of the non-proliferation regime and their own technical expertise, the authors evaluate the principal criticisms of the JCPOA, some of which are unrelated to nuclear issues. The authors argue that the Procurement Channel – established by the JCPOA to give Iran a route to procure goods and services for its now-limited nuclear programme – has been an effective check on Iran's illicit procurement of nuclear-related goods. They also show that Iran's nuclear and ballistic-missile programmes are not intrinsically linked, for not all of its missiles were designed to be nuclear-capable. The fate of the JCPOA now hangs in the balance; its survival will ultimately depend on Iran.

‘This is a clear-eyed assessment of the Iran nuclear deal and how it was working smoothly before President Trump's reckless withdrawal. No single volume makes better use of the facts to refute the criticisms levied by the Trump administration against the deal, or differentiates more clearly between those of Iran's ballistic missiles which could be allowed in a negotiated arrangement and those which should be prohibited.’Angela Kane, Senior Fellow, Vienna Center for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation; former UN High Rentative for Disarmament Affairs and UN Under-Secretary-General for Management ‘No one has contributed more to the public understanding of the complexities of nuclear proliferation and the attempts of various states to break out from the Non-Proliferation Treaty than Mark Fitzpatrick. Now he and his colleagues at the IISS have turned their focus to the withdrawal of the US from the JCPOA. Their new study is required reading for anyone concerned that this action could lead to yet another conflict in the Middle East or increase the risk of nuclear weapons spreading in the region.’IISSIn July 2015, eight parties – France, Germany and the United Kingdom, together with the European Union and China, Russia and the United States on the one side, and Iran on the other – adopted the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), better known as the Iran nuclear deal. Under the agreement, Iran accepted limits to its nuclear programme and stricter international monitoring in return for sanctions relief. Detractors, however, saw the deal as overly lenient towards Tehran. Donald Trump described the JCPOA as the ‘worst deal ever’, and announced in May 2018 that the US would cease waiving sanctions and withdraw from the agreement.This Adelphi book argues that the unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA was a grave error. Drawing on a deep understanding of the non-proliferation regime and their own technical expertise, the authors evaluate the principal criticisms of the JCPOA, some of which are unrelated to nuclear issues. The authors argue that the Procurement Channel – established by the JCPOA to give Iran a route to procure goods and services for its now-limited nuclear programme – has been an effective check on Iran's illicit procurement of nuclear-related goods. They also show that Iran's nuclear and ballistic-missile programmes are not intrinsically linked, for not all of its missiles were designed to be nuclear-capable. The fate of the JCPOA now hangs in the balance; its survival will ultimately depend on Iran.

‘This is a clear-eyed assessment of the Iran nuclear deal and how it was working smoothly before President Trump's reckless withdrawal. No single volume makes better use of the facts to refute the criticisms levied by the Trump administration against the deal, or differentiates more clearly between those of Iran's ballistic missiles which could be allowed in a negotiated arrangement and those which should be prohibited.’Angela Kane, Senior Fellow, Vienna Center for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation; former UN High Rentative for Disarmament Affairs and UN Under-Secretary-General for Management ‘No one has contributed more to the public understanding of the complexities of nuclear proliferation and the attempts of various states to break out from the Non-Proliferation Treaty than Mark Fitzpatrick. Now he and his colleagues at the IISS have turned their focus to the withdrawal of the US from the JCPOA. Their new study is required reading for anyone concerned that this action could lead to yet another conflict in the Middle East or increase the risk of nuclear weapons spreading in the region.’IISSIn July 2015, eight parties – France, Germany and the United Kingdom, together with the European Union and China, Russia and the United States on the one side, and Iran on the other – adopted the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), better known as the Iran nuclear deal. Under the agreement, Iran accepted limits to its nuclear programme and stricter international monitoring in return for sanctions relief. Detractors, however, saw the deal as overly lenient towards Tehran. Donald Trump described the JCPOA as the ‘worst deal ever’, and announced in May 2018 that the US would cease waiving sanctions and withdraw from the agreement.This Adelphi book argues that the unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA was a grave error. Drawing on a deep understanding of the non-proliferation regime and their own technical expertise, the authors evaluate the principal criticisms of the JCPOA, some of which are unrelated to nuclear issues. The authors argue that the Procurement Channel – established by the JCPOA to give Iran a route to procure goods and services for its now-limited nuclear programme – has been an effective check on Iran's illicit procurement of nuclear-related goods. They also show that Iran's nuclear and ballistic-missile programmes are not intrinsically linked, for not all of its missiles were designed to be nuclear-capable. The fate of the JCPOA now hangs in the balance; its survival will ultimately depend on Iran.

‘This is a clear-eyed assessment of the Iran nuclear deal and how it was working smoothly before President Trump's reckless withdrawal. No single volume makes better use of the facts to refute the criticisms levied by the Trump administration against the deal, or differentiates more clearly between those of Iran's ballistic missiles which could be allowed in a negotiated arrangement and those which should be prohibited.’Angela Kane, Senior Fellow, Vienna Center for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation; former UN High Rentative for Disarmament Affairs and UN Under-Secretary-General for Management ‘No one has contributed more to the public understanding of the complexities of nuclear proliferation and the attempts of various states to break out from the Non-Proliferation Treaty than Mark Fitzpatrick. Now he and his colleagues at the IISS have turned their focus to the withdrawal of the US from the JCPOA. Their new study is required reading for anyone concerned that this action could lead to yet another conflict in the Middle East or increase the risk of nuclear weapons spreading in the region.’IISSIn July 2015, eight parties – France, Germany and the United Kingdom, together with the European Union and China, Russia and the United States on the one side, and Iran on the other – adopted the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), better known as the Iran nuclear deal. Under the agreement, Iran accepted limits to its nuclear programme and stricter international monitoring in return for sanctions relief. Detractors, however, saw the deal as overly lenient towards Tehran. Donald Trump described the JCPOA as the ‘worst deal ever’, and announced in May 2018 that the US would cease waiving sanctions and withdraw from the agreement.This Adelphi book argues that the unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA was a grave error. Drawing on a deep understanding of the non-proliferation regime and their own technical expertise, the authors evaluate the principal criticisms of the JCPOA, some of which are unrelated to nuclear issues. The authors argue that the Procurement Channel – established by the JCPOA to give Iran a route to procure goods and services for its now-limited nuclear programme – has been an effective check on Iran's illicit procurement of nuclear-related goods. They also show that Iran's nuclear and ballistic-missile programmes are not intrinsically linked, for not all of its missiles were designed to be nuclear-capable. The fate of the JCPOA now hangs in the balance; its survival will ultimately depend on Iran.

‘This is a clear-eyed assessment of the Iran nuclear deal and how it was working smoothly before President Trump's reckless withdrawal. No single volume makes better use of the facts to refute the criticisms levied by the Trump administration against the deal, or differentiates more clearly between those of Iran's ballistic missiles which could be allowed in a negotiated arrangement and those which should be prohibited.’Angela Kane, Senior Fellow, Vienna Center for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation; former UN High Rentative for Disarmament Affairs and UN Under-Secretary-General for Management ‘No one has contributed more to the public understanding of the complexities of nuclear proliferation and the attempts of various states to break out from the Non-Proliferation Treaty than Mark Fitzpatrick. Now he and his colleagues at the IISS have turned their focus to the withdrawal of the US from the JCPOA. Their new study is required reading for anyone concerned that this action could lead to yet another conflict in the Middle East or increase the risk of nuclear weapons spreading in the region.’IISSIn July 2015, eight parties – France, Germany and the United Kingdom, together with the European Union and China, Russia and the United States on the one side, and Iran on the other – adopted the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), better known as the Iran nuclear deal. Under the agreement, Iran accepted limits to its nuclear programme and stricter international monitoring in return for sanctions relief. Detractors, however, saw the deal as overly lenient towards Tehran. Donald Trump described the JCPOA as the ‘worst deal ever’, and announced in May 2018 that the US would cease waiving sanctions and withdraw from the agreement.This Adelphi book argues that the unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA was a grave error. Drawing on a deep understanding of the non-proliferation regime and their own technical expertise, the authors evaluate the principal criticisms of the JCPOA, some of which are unrelated to nuclear issues. The authors argue that the Procurement Channel – established by the JCPOA to give Iran a route to procure goods and services for its now-limited nuclear programme – has been an effective check on Iran's illicit procurement of nuclear-related goods. They also show that Iran's nuclear and ballistic-missile programmes are not intrinsically linked, for not all of its missiles were designed to be nuclear-capable. The fate of the JCPOA now hangs in the balance; its survival will ultimately depend on Iran.

E&P Notes How ConocoPhillips Solved its Big Data Problem Matt Zborowski, Technology Writer In doing basic analysis on something such as well performance, an engineer can spend weeks merely collecting data related to the subsurface, operations, maintenance, and finance. Staff at Conoco Phillips, however, can bypass this time-consuming data curation process and begin performing analysis right off the bat thanks to a program that was years in the making. Recently scaled across its organization, the Houston independent’s integrated data warehouses (IDWs) serve as centralized data stores for staff involved in various disciplines including operations, production engineering, well construction, reservoir engineering, and geoscience. Deployment has resulted in improved well uptime, decreased drilling times, optimized completion designs, and increased understanding of subsurface characteristics, the company said. Total Prepares Exit From Big Iran Project as US Sanctions Renewed Matt Zborowski, Technology Writer Total said it will pull out of the South Pars 11 (SP11) gas project in Iran to avoid exposure to renewed US sanctions on the country unless the company is granted a waiver. The French supermajor relies heavily on the US financially and has investments and business operations in 23 states spanning upstream, midstream, downstream, and marketing. US banks are involved in more than 90% of the company’s financing operations, US shareholders represent more than 30% of its shareholding, and its US assets represent more than $10 billion of capital employed, it said. US President Donald Trump on 8 May announced that the US would withdraw from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly referred to as the Iran nuclear deal, and rein-state sanctions enforced before JCPOA took effect, subject to certain winddown periods. European participants in JCPOA remain supportive of the deal. Marriage of Ideas Could Allow More Deepwater Gas to Shore Stephen Rassenfoss, JPT Emerging Technology Senior Editor Lee Thomas admits he and his wife talk about some things most couples don’t. The thing is that he and his spouse, Laura Liebana, are engineers with overlapping interests. His expertise is pipelines and hers is flow assurance. They met while working on pipeline systems used to transport gas from coal seams in Australia. They moved on to offshore work in the Intecsea/Worley Parsons London office where they faced a problem common to those contrasting environments. There are fields in both that produce a mix of gas and liquid and where the energy required to move the mix through a pipe-line significantly limits how much can be produced using natural pressure, among other problems. Shallow Ports Keep US From Exporting Even More Crude Trent Jacobs, Digital Editor The US might be exporting even more oil, and commanding higher prices for it, if only it had the right port facilities. A new report from the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) found that while US crude shipments continue to rise at an impressive rate since a nearly 40-year government ban was lifted in 2015, exports are constrained by an inability to accommodate Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCCs). Exports averaged 1.1 million B/D in 2017 and have expanded to 1.6 million B/D in the first half of this year. Crude exports were less than 500,000 B/D in 2016. Almost all of these exports originate from the US Gulf Coast where most loading facilities are located in shallow inland harbors—a factor that has severely limited the use of VLCCs to move oil overseas. ConocoPhillips Considering Sale of North Sea Assets? Stephen Whitfield, Senior Staff Writer ConocoPhillips is preparing to sell its fields in the North Sea, according to a Reuters report. Citing sources in the oil and gas industry and in banking, the news agency said the operator’s decision is part of an overall effort to focus on US shale operations. While ConocoPhillips has not launched a formal process or appointed a bank to manage a potential sale, the report said that the company’s executives have had discussions with a number of North Sea operators and bankers in the region to test the waters. Reuters said that the sale could net as much as $2 billion, though it was not clear how much of ConocoPhillips’ portfolio would be available, or if the company would put its Norwegian North Sea assets up as well. The company has operated in the North Sea for more than 45 years, with significant developments in both the UK and Norwegian sectors of the North Sea. These developments include fields in Greater Britannia, the J-Area, and the Southern North Sea fields in the UK, along with the Greater Ekofisk Area in Norway.

The escalation of conflicts on the Korean Peninsula during the first half of Trump`s presidency, also the new developments following the Trump – Kim summits in Singapore, Hanoi and the DMZ in one side and the U.S. unilateral withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on the other side have made the Iranian intellectuals to review the Korean crisis more thoroughly and reflect their attitudes about the future of issues in the peninsula and the U.S. options towards Pyongyang. Although, it seems most of the Iranian scholars believe the Korean crisis has no military solution and the only path for peace in the Peninsula would be serious and balanced negotiations with a special focus on the roots of the crisis, two trends of perception toward the crisis could be identified among the Iranian elites. The findings of the paper demonstrate that the U.S. behavior toward JCPOA, has raised further negative views about the future of any constructive negotiation on North Korean nuclear program among the Iranian intellectuals but their focus on U.S. use of hard power and harsh options have shifted to the implementation of American soft power and psychological war.

Health must be a top priority in the Iran nuclear deal

The so-called Iran nuclear agreement, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive plan of Action, is an agreement between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council as well as Germany and the EU to ensure that Iran’s nuclear program will be exclusively peaceful. Praised as an historic diplomatic achievement that resolved a decade-long crisis, the 2015 agreement is distinctive in its comprehensive provisions and innovative solutions to various legal and technical issues. However, US President Donald Trump’s controversial decision to withdraw the US from the agreement in May 2018 has put its future in peril. This paper attempts to analyze the legal aspects of the US’ decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear agreement with special reference to the currently on-going US-North Korea deal for the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. In the course of this study, special attention is given to the lessons learned from the Iran nuclear agreement.

This chapter discusses how tensions between principled and cognitive interpretations of US interests towards Iran saw the Trump administration on the brink of conflict as Trump struggled to reconcile his desire to re-establish US dominance, while at the same time avoiding war. Beginning early in his presidency, Trump asserted principled appeals in order to justify withdrawing from the Iran Nuclear deal or the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which eventually occurred in May 2018. On the heels of the US' withdrawal from the JCPOA, its relations with Iran quickly deteriorated as Trump reconstructed the principled threat posed by the Iranian regime. These tensions resulted in Trump's authorization to assassinate Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani. In turn, Iran quickly retaliated with a missile strike against an Iraqi airbase leaving over 100 US soldiers injured. Trump repressed the impact of these strikes to de-escalate the crisis and avoid war rather than becoming entrapped in a wider regional conflict.

One of the most significant developments of the year 2018 was US President Trump's decision to pull out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) or Iran Nuclear Deal, a multilateral agreement signed between Iran and China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, plus Germany (P5+1). While the US has withdrawn from the deal and the other signatories to the deal are trying to keep Iran in the deal, Iran sees little return in remaining part of the deal. Hence, there is uncertainty about its survival. To study the future of JCPOA, the paper analyzes the future course of action of Iran, the EU and the US vis-à-vis the deal. It looks at US efforts to scuttle the deal, the internal and external pressures on Iran to abide or abandon the deal, and the EU's attempts to appease the US while keeping Iran in the deal. Furthermore, it looks at the bilateral relations between stakeholders and predicts the consequences of the course of action taken by each stakeholder.

The P5+1 countries (United States, France, Britain, Russia, China, and Germany) with Iran formed a nuclear agreement called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015. The JCPOA has the goal of limiting Iran's nuclear activities only as a technological development activity, not for nuclear weapons purposed. When the United States was under Donald Trump's administration, he stated that the United States should withdraw from JCPOA. The decision was created from his consideration as president at the time of the JCPOA applied. Rational choice theory and game theory are used to analyze Donald Trump's decision. Donald Trump views that the JCPOA does not have a major influence in stopping Iran's nuclear activities entirely. In addition, Iran's political and economic influence at the time the JCPOA took effect became a threat to the United States. Moreover, JCPOA is also not beneficial for the United States from Donald Trump’s point of view.
 Keywords: United States, Donald Trump, JCPOA

Global Governance encompasses the world’s political activities and the management of issues and phenomena that occurred on a nation-state, involving contributions from regional to the international environment. In the global security sector, there are numerous efforts carried out by a country to counter such external threats that can cause destabilization. Non-proliferation and nuclear developments for peace are such issues of the global defense-security concern. The attempts to control and ensure the use of nuclear has been carried out by enacting international law, resolutions, and multilateral agreements. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is one kind. Influencing the world’s security, politics, and economy, JCPOA began to be disrupted since the U.S. withdrawal as one of the parties that initially signed the agreement. This research aims to analyze The Collapse of Global Governance: When the U.S. Leaves the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). This research used a qualitative method with analysis based on secondary data, validated by the triangulation technique in this qualitative study. The analytical procedure uses secondary data from journals, media, and literature related to the Iran nuclear agreement and previous analyses discussing the U.S. exit from the JCPOA agreement. The analysis technique performs by arranging the data sequence, organizing the data into a pattern, category, and basic description. This research has found that Global Governance has fundamental weaknesses in its application. Through an analysis of the U.S. exit from the Iran nuclear agreement, it can be said that the reins of control are in the hands of the U.S. The Trump administration’s policy on behalf of the U.S. to leave JCPOA to thwart the achievement of Global Governance and significantly affects the multi-national economic, political, and security order. The implementation of Global Governance and the issues also raised based on the interests of the superpowers.

ABSTRACTDuring the 2016 United States presidential election campaign, Donald Trump promised to “renegotiate” the July 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, better known as the Iran nuclear deal. The deal does not prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons and in some ways actually makes it easier for Iran to go nuclear in the future. The mere continuation of the current deal could undermine America’s interests in the Middle East and its global non-proliferation policy. How then can the Donald Trump Administration work to renegotiate the deal? This analysis provides a strategy that the Trump Administration can follow to improve American policy toward Iran, namely do what Iran is doing to the United States: abide by the strict terms of the agreement, whilst competing in all of the ways not covered in the deal. From an American perspective, increasing pressure on Tehran will constrain Iran’s destabilising influence in the region. Over time, Washington can leverage the pressure to force Iran back to the table to strike a renegotiated agreement that eliminates, not just delays, the Iranian nuclear and missile threat.

With Trump as a president of the US from January 2017 and his decisive actions, which have undermined many agreements reached by previous American administrations (like withdrawal from the TTP, the Paris climate agreement, the Iran nuclear deal, the UNESCO, etc.), the international system and regional subsystems are under serious reconfiguration and readjustments. This accentuates the necessity to systemize Trump’s actions and initiatives in the realm of foreign policy and foreign trade, to interpret these actions’ logic, and to evaluate the changes that Trump’s policies have brought about. It is of high importance to analyze Trump’s strategy in the Indo-Pacific which is the priority region in his foreign policy agenda and the region where two major threats to the US and its allies are coming from - the rise of China as a country that pursues unfair trade and economic policies and reveals assertiveness in securing its core interests, and the threat from the North Korea. The aim of the article is to analyze China’s place in Trump’s Indo-Pacific strategy. By studying American conceptual documents, Trump’s and other American high-level officials’ speeches, the article characterizes Trump’s free and open Indo-Pacific strategy, reveals its commonalities and peculiarities vis-à-vis Obama’s rebalancing to the Asia-Pacific strategy. The article also addresses the issue of Trump’s policies in the region on the economic front, because this is where Trump administration has introduces dramatic changes. Trump’s Indo-Pacific strategy is examined in the article in the context of its impact on the US-China relations. The relations between the two countries - without exaggeration, one of the most consequential for the world - may seriously deteriorate due to not only the evolving US-China trade war, but also contradictions between them over various issues in the IndoPacific region. The article analyzes the aggravation of tensions between the US and China in 2017-2018 over South and East China Seas, Taiwan issue, and North Korea issue.