What does Iran's latest missile test mean for the nuclear deal?

The Trump administration might be inclined to punish Iran after it tested a ballistic missile. That could spell trouble for the 2015 nuclear deal. 

Iran on Wednesday confirmed reports that it had tested a medium-range ballistic missile over the weekend, launching it 630 miles before it exploded.

Iran’s ballistic-missile program, which it claims includes rockets that can hit Israel and US bases in the Mideast, has long drawn the ire of Western officials. Nikki Haley, US ambassador to the United Nations, called the test “unacceptable.” It comes at a time when President Trump and members of his administration are considering scrapping the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

Sunday’s test may have gone against the spirit of the deal, which was heralded as a major step toward peace in the Middle East, and UN Resolution 2231, which endorsed it. But it didn’t violate the letter of either document, and nonproliferation experts have cautioned that punishing Iran excessively could imperil the agreement.

“Security Council Resolution 2231, which endorsed the JCPOA, ‘calls upon’ Iran not to undertake until 2023 any activity related to ballistic missiles ‘designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons,’ the International Crisis Group reported last month. “However, the language is non-binding, and lack of an internationally-agreed definition of nuclear-capable missiles invites diverging views on the Iranian program.”

Despite its lack of teeth, analysts skeptical that Iran would agree to anything more stringent have regarded the deal as a step forward in reigning in Iran's missile activities.

“Ballistic missiles are central to Iran’s deterrence posture and will remain so for the foreseeable future," Michael Elleman, a former Lockheed Martin missile scientist, testified before a Senate committee in May. "Given this importance, Iran will not surrender its current systems, except, possibly, under the direst of circumstances.”

Under the deal, Iran did make concessions on its nuclear arsenal.

“The nuclear deal removed the existential threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon, and took the Iranian nuclear program off the daunting array of policy challenges that the US is facing,” Kelsey Davenport, a nonproliferation expert at the Washington-based Arms Control Association (ACA), told The Christian Science Monitor last month.

But other aggressive acts – including support of Houthi rebels in Yemen and the ballistic missile program – continue. Although the US maintains sanctions to punish these activities, some members of the Trump administration see the repeal of the nuclear deal as essential to stopping the regime’s other excesses; Trump's national security advisor, Michael Flynn, has called for “regime change” in the country.

Short of that extreme measure, Ms. Davenport said that excessive punishment for other Iranian actions – like the missile tests – could pressure the regime to a point where it abandons the deal. “They could provoke Iran to take a retaliatory move and create an escalatory spiral that eventually causes the deal to fold,” she told the Monitor.

With the first Iranian launch of his presidency, Trump now needs to decide whether he really wants to pursue that course of action.

This report contains material from Reuters and the Associated Press.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to What does Iran's latest missile test mean for the nuclear deal?
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today