PREFACE: Nadim Shehadi is an economist and political adviser who has held positions in academia and think tanks in Europe and the US, including director of a program at Chatham House on the regional dimension of the Middle East Peace Process. Mr. Shehadi's 18OCT26 Arab News article, "Next JCPOA should be joint, comprehensive and have a plan of action", advocates for the American ceasefire with Iran to include a comprehensive scope of regional concerns and threat issues with an enforcement procedure that is sufficient to solve the full spectrum of Iran's threat, not limited to its nuclear threat. I explained to Mr. Shehadi that his argument is too vague to correct the present trend of the American ceasefire negotiation with Iran towards limited coverage. However, the ceasefire negotiation is currently stalled in an immature amorphous state, which is a finite window of opportunity for Mr. Shehadi to flesh out his argument and correct that trend by establishing the UNSCR 678 Gulf War ceasefire as the operative precedent and repurposing the apt Gulf War ceasefire formula as a detailed schematic for a sufficient Iran ceasefire.
from: [Eric LC]
to: [Nadim Shehadi]
date: Nov 5, 2026, 3:35 PM
subject: The Iraq solution for the "Next JCPOA should be joint, comprehensive and have a plan of action"
Nadim,
I am writing to you with the Iraq solution for your 18OCT26 Arab News article, Next JCPOA should be joint, comprehensive and have a plan of action.
As you say, the American ceasefire with Iran "can be an opportunity to reach a comprehensive deal". The 17JUN26 US–Iran memorandum of understanding states, "The final deal will be endorsed by a binding UNSC resolution." That means "when the war with Iran ends, as all wars do," the Iran ceasefire will go through the United Nations Security Council, which has two relevant precedents for the "final deal" (MoU): the UNSCR 2231 JCPOA or the UNSCR 678 Gulf War ceasefire.
Of the two alternatives, only the Gulf War ceasefire's scope, authority, rules, standards, and procedure match your criteria for solving Iran's manifold threat, "It has to be joint, which means it must include America’s allies in the region and their concerns. It has to be comprehensive, which means it deals with Iran’s role in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. And it has to have a plan of action, which means dismantling the armed groups Iran has used to unsettle the region." Therefore, meeting your criteria with the "next JCPOA" depends on raising the Gulf War ceasefire as the operative precedent for the Iran ceasefire.
The present indications of the American ceasefire negotiation with Iran led by Vice President Vance are that its scope is limited like the 2015 JCPOA and not comprehensive like the Gulf War ceasefire. The problem with your article is it neglects to detail what "a comprehensive deal" entails—a flaw shared with the Iran discourse in general—, so your argument is too vague to correct that trend.
Fortunately for your advocacy, it is not too late for you to flesh out your argument so that it can correct that trend. The ceasefire negotiation is currently stalled in an immature amorphous state. That means you have a finite window of opportunity to rehabilitate the political frame and upgrade the substantive baseline of the ceasefire negotiation by imprinting the Gulf War ceasefire formula on the Iran discourse as a detailed schematic that is proven sufficient to meet your criteria for pacifying Iran. You can and should adjust the Iraq-based formula to repurpose it for Iran, but at foundation the Gulf War ceasefire needs to be the operative precedent for your advocacy to succeed.
Here is what you need to do with urgency, force, persistence, and precision:
Step one. Publicly lay the foundation for the schematic "next JCPOA" with the basic Gulf War ceasefire UNSC resolutions that were purpose-designed to solve Saddam's manifold threat: UNSCR 678 (authorization), UNSCR 687 (disarmament, terrorism), UNSCR 688 (human rights), UNSCR 707 (reinforced UNSCR 687), UNSCR 949 (region, aggression), and UNSCR 1441 (final opportunity to comply). Then build on that foundation with the full set of UNSCR 678-related resolutions. Keep in mind the UNSC resolutions of Operation Iraqi Freedom's peace operations, UNSCR 1483, UNSCR 1511, etc..
You should also model the basic US law and policy that enforced the Gulf War ceasefire "governing standard of Iraqi compliance" (UNSCR 1441) pursuant to UNSCR 678: Public Law 102-1, sections 1095 and 1096 of Public Law 102-190, Public Law 105-235, Public Law 105-338, Public Law 107-243, and the related HW Bush, Clinton, and Bush administration policy. (Make sure to see Martin Indyk's explanation of President Clinton's Iran–Iraq "dual containment" policy that President Bush carried forward and enhanced before President Obama's radical deviation with Iran and Iraq.)
Impress on the public that the precedential Gulf War ceasefire UNSCRs that defined the "governing standard of Iraqi compliance" (UNSCR 1441) and US law and policy that enforced UNSCR 678 comprise the domestic and international law formula needed to solve Iran's analogous manifold threat. The primary law and fact sources of the UNSCR 678 enforcement are straightforward, thorough, plainly stated, and readily accessible. They are organized for you at https://operationiraqifreedomfaq.blogspot.com/2004/10/perspective-on-operation-iraqi-freedom.html.
Step two. Destigmatize the UNSCR 678 enforcement and renormalize the Gulf War ceasefire by clarifying to the public that the United States, United Kingdom, et al faithfully enforced UNSCR 678 at Iraq's "final opportunity to comply" (UNSCR 1441), and Operation Iraqi Freedom was justified on law and fact.
You should also stigmatize Iran's enablers who enabled Saddam by clarifying to the public that France, Russia, China, et al were complicit in the casus belli for OIF, i.e., Iraq's "continued violations of its obligations" (UNSCR 1441). Their contravention of the UNSCR 678 enforcement was illegal and corrupt and caused the Saddam problem to fester until OIF brought Iraq into the "governing standard of Iraqi compliance" (UNSCR 1441). The Iran enablers who enabled Saddam need to be discredited at home and abroad in order to unite the American public and international community to solve the analogous Iran problem according to your analogous standard.
The bottom line is the Gulf War ceasefire needs to be the operative precedent for the Iran ceasefire. For America to get the Iran ceasefire right according to your criteria, you need to establish the guiding premise that America got it right with the Gulf War ceasefire, which was sufficient to solve Saddam's manifold threat, and repurpose the apt Gulf War ceasefire formula for "a comprehensive deal" that is sufficient to solve Iran's analogous manifold threat. The currently stalled state of the American ceasefire negotiation with Iran means you have a finite window of opportunity to correct its course by imprinting the necessary answer to the pivotal question that no other expert is answering correctly in the Iran discourse.
I read your Arab News articles, "US is at war with Iran — and with itself" (26JUN25), "The dilemmas of regime change" (18NOV25), "Iran must not be allowed to use nuclear talks as a diversion" (22FEB26), "The battle of ideas at the heart of Iran war" (27MAR26), "Will the US capitulate for a third time?" (11APR26), "Trump, Iran and the battle of wits" (17APR26), "Paying off Iran has never worked" (22JUN26), and "Trump’s ‘economic D-Day’ about more than sanctions" (08SEP26), too. I will follow up this e-mail with some comments on them.
As always, I invite your critical feedback. If you have questions about my work, please ask.
Related: The Iraq solution for Nahal Toosi's "The Iran War Is a Whole New Level of Quagmire for the US", Solution for Andrew Miller's "Trump’s Failed War in Iran Echoes Bush’s Iraq Blunder", Apply the Saddam precedent to "finish the job and free Iran" (Lisa Daftari), Correct the Iraq War "story" to constructively "shape American foreign policy for years to come" (Jonah Goldberg), Answer and solutions for Mark Hertling's "Tell Me How the Iran War Ends: What are we fighting for?", Cure the Iraq Syndrome to win America back from postliberals and leftists (Thomas Howes), The facts show Edward Feser was right on Iraq in the first place and changed his mind based on misinformation, Jakub Grygiel's "The Iran War and the Coming Global Struggle" comes of the Iraq Syndrome, The apt UN-based international law solution for Iran is the Gulf War ceasefire formula of the Saddam precedent (Richard Epstein, John Yoo), The apt Iraq comparison for the Iran intervention is the Gulf War ceasefire enforcement, not Desert Storm (Jonathan Allen), The Forward Party should reconceive the Iran issue with the premise that we were right on Iraq, which is the truth, and The Constitutional rule of law for war was skirted by President Clinton, reinforced by President Bush, and degraded by President Obama.
No comments:
Post a Comment