The U.S. policy of maximum pressure against Iran has failed

By Majid Takht RavanchiMay 24 at 6:34 PM

On May 2, the United States stopped granting waivers for the importation of Iranian oil. The decision was yet another step in the U.S. economic war against Iran. The “maximum pressure” policy is designed to disrupt the Iranian economy and force Iran to enter negotiations on the United States’ terms for a new nuclear deal, substituting for the existing accord that was negotiated with the Obama administration and five world powers in 2015.

Iran rejected the latest U.S. action as illegal, as it did last year with the U.S. withdrawal from the nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA. Iran regards the withdrawal as a violation of international law, including United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231.

In fact, Iran’s decision to remain in the nuclear deal, despite the U.S. withdrawal, was prompted by requests from European nations to give them enough time to compensate Iran for what it has lost as a result of the United States unilaterally abrogating its commitments and leaving the accord.

Keep Reading

My country has patiently waited for a year, but no tangible economic recompense has been forthcoming. Iran was left with no other option than to cease performing some commitments — such as observing limits on stockpiles of low-enriched uranium and heavy water — for two months, while still giving the remaining JCPOA members, and particularly Europe, time to finally and fully adhere to their commitments under the accord and make up for Iran’s losses. Our argument is basically that we cannot — and no one reasonably can — be expected to unilaterally honor a multilateral agreement.

The United States’ approach toward Iran has no clarity or cohesiveness. Instead, the policy is driven by an obsessional antagonism. It is no secret that a number of U.S. high officials — and certain leaders in the Middle East — are pushing President Trump to adopt a hard-line policy toward Iran, even calling for “regime change.” This group has presented what we call “fake intelligence” to “prove” that Iran is responsible for all of the Middle East’s problems — thus the urgency to confront us at any cost, including through military means.

The recent dispatching of a U.S. naval armada to the Persian Gulf is a response to the same fake intelligence, supported not by members of Congress or U.S. allies. Recently, I informed U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres about the need to establish a security structure in the Persian Gulf. Yet, let me be clear here: While Iran does not desire war in the region, neither with the United States nor with any other country, we will stand firmly against any act of aggression against our country.

Contrary to the views of some of his close associates, Trump appears not to want a war with Iran. But his approach toward us is contradictory — at times threatening us, at others calling for dialogue.

The United States’ proposal on dialogue with Iran faces three major hurdles. First, history shows that genuine talks cannot be productive if they are coupled with intimidation, coercion and sanctions. A dialogue can succeed if both sides accept the principle of mutual respect and then act on equal footing. 

Second, the Trump administration does not speak with a united voice on the need for a dialogue with Iran. Those who are eager to provoke a conflict are working to sabotage the possibility of useful and meaningful dialogue.

Finally, Trump’s sudden withdrawal from the JCPOA nuclear deal last year with no good reason — and to the disapproval of almost the entire international community — stirs concerns that any future deal might face the same fate, with no guarantee to the contrary.

This month, Trump said that the United States “is not looking to hurt Iran.” On May 20, however, he claimed that Iran’s “economy continues to collapse — very sad for the Iranian people.” This is clear evidence that the United States is determined to hurt the Iranian people, a crime under international law. Under these circumstances, how could any rational nation trust a U.S. offer of dialogue?

The U.S. policy of maximum pressure against Iran has failed. None of the Trump administration’s unjust demands has been met, and I can assure you that pressure will not work. So, what has the maximum-pressure policy accomplished? It has isolated the United States in the international arena and created yet more division between America and its allies. The policy has also stoked resentment toward the United States among Iranians from all walks of life. Yes, the illegal sanctions have hurt the Iranian people, but the sanctions have not changed Iran’s policies.

Throughout history, Iranians have always resisted the imposition of others’ will and have survived for millennia. That is self-evident to any historian. The language of threats and intimidation is anathema to Iranians, who have always demonstrated that respect begets respect. 

https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fopinions%2Fglobal-opinions%2Fthe-us-policy-of-maximum-pressure-against-iran-has-failed%2F2019%2F05%2F24%2F1db2f7b8-7e61-11e9-8ede-f4abf521ef17_story.html%3Futm_term%3D.600ab8035946&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0c798d046ebd4b4c17eb08d6e19cfb0d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636944461670403956&sdata=bkYpqMmLPaIiy92f2IlfSmkgv%2B030NzCd6Lrw5C2c8k%3D&reserved=0

Toxic Avenger: Did EPA Appointee Do Industry Employer’s Bidding?

Imagine the following scenario:

The guy in charge of directing regulatory policy on chemicals for a 

huge conglomerate is given a top position at the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA). Once there, he participates in sidelining a 

long-awaited study on a suspected carcinogenic chemical produced 

by his former employer—and only recuses himself from the matter 

after the fact.

Questions remain about why Dunlap only took action after the EPA cut formaldehyde from its list of chemicals to assess, and why he is self-imposing a recusal for the duration of his EPA tenure.

All this is allowable under current federal ethics guidelines because 

several companies—not just the former employer—produce the 

chemical in question. Really?? Really. This is why EPA ethics 

officials allowed David Dunlap, former head of regulatory policy for

 Koch Industries, to participate in selecting which chemicals to 

evaluate for health dangers after Dunlap started work as the 

number-two administrator of the EPA’s main science office last 

October. 

That selection process resulted in the EPA halting a study on

 formaldehyde nearly two decades in the making.The study 

was initiated as part of an EPA program that evaluates the

 potential harm of chemicals. As a chemical engineer who 

served for more than eight years as Koch’s “lead and subject

 matter expert with a primary focus on ... chemicals and 

chemical management,” according to his LinkedIn profile, 

Dunlap was likely well-versed in the issue, 

working with industry groups to prevent the government 

from definitively linking formaldehyde to cancer. 

The EPA classifies formaldehyde as a 

“probable” rather than a “known” carcinogen, though 

organizations within the Department of Health and Human 

Services and the World Health Organization consider it a

 “known” carcinogen. The EPA study reportedly contained

 information showing a link between formaldehyde and leukemia, 

information that would have likely led to increased regulation—

and decreased sales—of the chemical. One of the largest 

producers of formaldehyde in the United States is Georgia-Pacific

—a subsidiary of Koch Industries, which is owned by brothers 

Charles and David Koch, who are known for their substantial 

political donations and opposition to government regulation. 

(Disclosure: The Project On Government Oversight receives 

funding from the Charles Koch Institute.) 

Global construction booms will drive the market for the type 

of formaldehyde Georgia-Pacific produces to $11.7 billion by 2023, 

according to a recent analysis.

The federal ethics system is supposed to prevent political appointees like Dunlap from serving the interests of former employers.

The federal ethics system is supposed to prevent political 

appointees like Dunlap from serving the interests of former 

employers. All political 

appointees are required to sign the White House ethics pledge

 promising not to “participate in any particular matter involving specific 

parties that is directly and substantially related to my former employer 

or former clients, including regulations and contracts” for the first two 

years of their appointment. Dunlap submitted his signed pledge on 

his third day at EPA, and has “consistently sought” EPA counsel on 

ethics matters, according to an EPA spokesperson.The phrase 

“particular matter involving specific parties” is defined in 

the ethics laws and regulations. In Dunlap’s case, EPA 

ethics officers determined that because formaldehyde is 

used by many companies in many industries, it was not a 

“specific party matter,” and so was not subject to the ethics pledge, 

the spokesperson said.

However, on the same day EPA took formaldehyde off the list of 

chemicals assessed by the Integrated Risk Information System 

(IRIS)—the agency’s independent process for evaluating the harms 

toxic chemicals pose to people and the environment—Dunlap 

voluntarily recused himself from decision-making on the chemical 

“to avoid the appearance of any ethical concerns,” according to 

a recusal statement he filed with the EPA.

Dunlap’s recusal stated that he would not participate “in any matters 

related to the formaldehyde IRIS assessment for the duration of [his]

EPA tenure.” The EPA’s spokesperson explained to POGO that:

Although not required by federal ethics law or regulation,
Mr.Dunlap voluntarily recused himself from participating

in matters related to the EPA’s Integrated Risk Information

System (IRIS) assessment on formaldehyde, which is

not a specific party matter and therefore subject

to the terms of the Trump Ethics Pledge. Nevertheless,

to avoid even the appearance of any loss of impartiality,

Mr. Dunlap  chose to recuse himself given his previous

involvement in this issue while with his former employer.

In addition to the ethics pledge, current impartiality ethics standards 

prohibit, for one year, a government employee from participating
in a “particular matter involving specific parties” where the employee 
knows that a party has a “covered relationship” and “where the 
employee determines that the circumstances would cause a 
reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts to question 
his impartiality in the matter.”

It’s hard for us to believe that Dunlap’s previous work on
formaldehyde issues wouldn’t have triggered the one-year 
cooling off period. That ethics standard would deem Koch 
a covered relationship, and Dunlap should have easily determined 
that his work for the company and specifically on opposing 
regulations involving formaldehyde would cause reasonable 
people to question his impartiality. Apparently, he did eventually 
come to that conclusion when he recused himself from the
 EPA’s assessment on formaldehyde to  “avoid even the 
appearance” of impartiality. 

The “particular matter involving specific parties” language isn’t 

preventing many conflicts of interest for people coming into 

government service. In response to this problem, 

POGO asked Congress to prohibit government 

employees from participating in matters in which they know

 there is a “financial interest” favoring their former employer 

or client. Additionally, we proposed to the Trump and Clinton 

campaigns and transition teams a stronger two-year ban on

appointees participating in particular matters involving 

specific parties that involved substantial communication 

with the federal government. And we proposed extending

 the two-year restriction to cover a “specific issue area”—

an area that “has a special or distinct effect on that party

 other than as part of a class.”

Testimony: H.R. 1 and Executive Branch Conflicts of Interest

POGO asked Congress to prohibit government employees from participating in matters in which they know there is a “financial interest” favoring their former employer or client.

Read the testimony

Unfortunately, the Dunlap case shows that the current ethics 

protections and even our recommendations don’t go far enough. 

POGO’s review of the laws and regulations found that they were 

mostly designed to prevent officials from providing “privileged 

access” to their former employers or clients, and to prevent 

former government officials from switching sides to represent an

 individual or entity on matters with which the former employee 

was involved while working for the government. 

As it stands, limiting the restrictions to “specific parties” allowed 

Dunlap to run EPA operations that he worked on in the past and 

that significantly impact Koch Industries, because the matter 

impacted other entities too.

While it’s a nice change to see a voluntary recusal, 

questions remain about why Dunlap only took action after

 the EPA cut formaldehyde from its list of chemicals to 

assess under the IRIS program, and why he is self-imposing a 

recusal for the duration of his EPA tenure, which exceeds the 

required one- or two-year bans. Dunlap’s position at EPA’s 

Office of Research and Development (R&D) did not require 

Senate confirmation, but the office plays a pivotal role in the 

agency’s scientific work. 

The office oversees research at three national laboratories 

and six other research facilities located across the country, 

and houses IRIS as well. In the first two months of his EPA tenure, 

Dunlap participated in at least nine meetings about the 

independent process, according to calendars obtained 

by Politico through the Freedom of Information Act. Dunlap

 asked senior EPA officials in late October 2018 to have their 

offices list just three to four priority chemicals IRIS should assess, 

according to a letter from Congressional Democrats to the EPA. 

EPA offices submitted priority lists over the next month that did 

not include formaldehyde.

On December 19, EPA publicly announced its IRIS listing

 that included 13 chemicals—9 fewer than the 22 originally 

planned, according to a March 2019 Government Accountability 

Office report on EPA’s track record of assessing toxic chemicals. 

Formaldehyde was one of the chemicals cut from the listing. 

Koch Industries engaged in a long-running campaign to 

delay government action on formaldehyde, funding an

 organization called the Formaldehyde Council to lobby against 

restrictions on the chemical. 

The Formaldehyde Council was replaced in 2010 by 

the American Chemistry Council’s Formaldehyde Panel, 

a group of formaldehyde producers, suppliers, and users 

that disputes the chemical’s connection to leukemia 

and lobbies on the IRIS formaldehyde assessment. 

Dunlap participated in the Formaldehyde Panel, 

according to E&E News. He also emailed 

Nancy Beck, the principal deputy assistant director 

of the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

 (and a former senior director at the American Chemistry Council), 

about the Toxic Substances Control Act, another chemical safety

 law that could restrict the use of certain chemicals, according to 

documents obtained by the Sierra Club through the Freedom of

 Information Act.

The Dunlap case highlights a major flaw in ethics laws that 

allowed him to take part in government decisions that benefited 

his former employer because the issues he worked on were not 

specific to Koch Industries—seemingly a distinction without 

a difference. Congress is interested in getting answers 

related to Dunlap and the decision to halt the formaldehyde

 health assessment, but it should also turn its attention to 

creating stronger ethics laws requiring a recusal for any 

appointee or government official when their former 

employer or client holds any interest in the outcome.