After more than three decades of hostility, the will to change the dangerous trajectory of relations between Tehran and Washington — which, if continued, could lead to a catastrophic military confrontation — has materialised in both capitals. The November 24 Geneva accord (officially titled Joint Plan of Action) on Iran’s nuclear issue, which surprised many analysts, was the result of this new situation.

In the US, a group of politicians, including Senator Robert Menendez, who, in the final days of last year, along with 25 fellow senators, introduced a bill to the Senate that contained new sanctions against Iran, argued that increasing pressure and threats of further sanctions would force Iran to accept the West’s demands. The stand-alone bill called ‘Nuclear Weapon-Free Iran Act’  has gained about 48 co-sponsors in the 100-member Senate as of January 7.

According to Senator Menendez, “Current sanctions brought Iran to the negotiating table and a credible threat of future sanctions will require Iran to cooperate and act in good faith at the negotiating table.” Senator Mark Kirk, the other lead sponsor of the bill, maintains that the draft law is “an insurance policy to defend against Iranian deception”. Experts are almost unanimous that this argument is wrong and that this approach is a failure.

The problem with the Kirk-Menendez argument is that it views sanctions as the only reason behind the actualisation of the Geneva Accord, while this is just one side of the equation. The other side of the equation is that after ten years insisting on “zero uranium enrichment in Iran” the Americans backed down and agreed that setting limits to Iran’s enrichment programme were to be included in the final “comprehensive solution”.

US President Barack Obama correctly understood the psychology governing Tehran and that insistence on the cessation of uranium enrichment on Iranian soil is unrealistic. He pointed to the supporters of the “zero-enrichment-policy” and remarked: “I can envision a world in which Congress passed every one of my bills that I put forward. I mean, there are a lot of things that I can envision that would be wonderful.”

The proposed Nuclear Weapon-Free Iran Act gives the administration up to a year to pursue a diplomatic track. This, the sponsors maintain, will not violate terms of the interim Geneva deal. In the case of “failure to reach a final agreement in a discernible time frame” on its nuclear issue, Iran’s oil exports should be reduced to a minimum level within a year after the enactment of the bill and to zero within two years.

Although Obama is authorised to postpone the enforcement of the bill as long as Iran shows good faith during the negotiations, the White House argues that the passage of new sanctions bill by the Congress “would suggest bad faith on the part of the United States” and would “derail” negotiations. Obama has warned that he would veto the bill if it is enacted.

The bill also requires the US government to stand by Israel and provide it with “diplomatic, military and economic” support, should Israel attack — in its self-defence — Iranian nuclear facilities. Some analysts assert that if this bill is passed, in effect, the decision to declare and enter into a war with Iran is transferred from Washington to Tel Aviv. Given the extremely tense relations between Tehran and Tel Aviv, this may be potentially a recipe for disaster.

The bill sets a tough condition for a final deal. It allows Obama to waive sanctions, even after an agreement is finalised, if the agreement prevents Iran from enriching uranium. According to the proposed bill, Obama will not be able to waive the new sanctions unless Iran and the world powers “reached a final and verifiable agreement or arrangement with Iran that will ... dismantle Iran’s illicit nuclear infrastructure, including enrichment and reprocessing capabilities and facilities”.

Marie Harf, State Department’s spokeswoman, suggests that the passage of the bill would create the risk of taking the US closer to a potential military confrontation with Iran. This is a valid assertion because, given the mindset of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the interpretation of such legislation in Tehran can be of a serious threat of war against Iran and the bill also demonstrates US determination to cut off Iran’s vital artery, i.e. oil exports. This eventuality will most likely lead to the collapse of the Geneva Accord and a round of intensified tit-for-tat exchanges.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s election last June and subsequent signing of the Geneva Accord in November had a significant role in establishing relative tranquillity in Iran — in particular, with regard to preventing both, a further devaluation of the Iranian currency, the rial, and a rise in the rate of inflation. However, there are serious concerns about the failure of the Geneva Accord, triggered by factors — be it the passage of this controversial bill or otherwise. In such an eventuality, the US will most likely impose tougher sanctions on Iran.

Thus, communication and dialogue between Iran and America will likely come to a halt and the pattern of previous years, i.e. the exchange of hostile and threatening rhetoric from both sides, will once again result in the culmination of hostilities. Meanwhile, such a situation can trigger a new round of inflation flare-up, which is already close to 40 per cent, and a plunge in the value of the rial.

These developments, in the most optimistic scenario, will push the Rouhani-Mohammad Javad Zarif [Iran’s Foreign Minister] team to the sidelines because at the top of the new administration’s agenda were resolving Iran’s foreign relations problems inherited from former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s era and saving the economy from a downward spiral. In other words, in the case of failure of the Geneva agreement and imposition of a new round of crippling sanctions, Rouhani and his team will almost certainly lose their relevance.

The inevitable outcome of this situation will be a return of radical politics in Tehran and, in the most pessimistic scenario, it could even lead to the downfall of Rouhani. Irreconcilable and conflictual policies on both sides of the fence cannot continue forever. History shows that when governments fail to overcome their differences through dialogue, the only other alternative is to seek a military solution.

Shahir ShahidSaless is a political analyst and freelance journalist, writing primarily about Iranian domestic and foreign affairs. He lives in Canada.