The dispute mechanism is pretty standard; Expert

The U.S professor said that it is a little unclear what has actually happened to INSTEX and it is impossible to tell if the Iranian government or European governments are being unrealistic or if one side simply is not being honest about the program. Kurk Dorsey is a historian who can discuss modern history of the United States, World War II, Canadian history, modern American environmental history, U.S. foreign policy, and the history of the New Hampshire Presidential Primary.

Here is his full interview with the Kurk Dorsey about the recent tensions between Iran and the United States after the assassination of Iranian commander and the crash of Ukrainian aircraft.

Q: What do you think about the dispute mechanism? Doesn't activation of this mechanism lead to more stress?

A: The dispute mechanism is pretty standard as a way to keep a diplomatic agreement in place when nations may have disputes as the deal matures and goes through multiple stages. Most complex treaties have a way for the various parties to iron out their disagreements, so it's pretty normal.

I think the European governments were in a difficult position. They desperately want to keep Iran in the nuclear deal, even if Iran keeps only some parts of it.  After Iran announced that US actions led it to pull out of the agreement, the European states had no other way to try to hold Iran to it, as they believe they have lived up to it themselves.  If they had not triggered it, they would have been taking Iran's side against the US and effectively agreeing that Iran could move toward getting a nuclear weapon.

Q: So why did Europe fail to implement a payment channel with Iran called INSTEX?

A: It is a little unclear what has actually happened to INSTEX.  The Guardian reported in December that several European states have joined the INSTEX program, but then also noted that no actual trades have taken place.  From here, it is impossible to tell if the Iranian government or European governments are being unrealistic or if one side simply is not being honest about the program.

Q: What is the justification for refusing to issue a visa for Iran foreign minister for a UN summit?

A: This is a very unusual case.  The US is obliged to allow diplomats into the country to visit the UN.  It appears that the US has denied such visas only twice, once with Yasir Arafat, who was not part of a widely recognized government, and once to a Libyan who was involved in civil strife in that country.  Officially the US State Department has said that it did not have time to process the visa, but that seems highly unlikely. Instead, the Trump Administration was showing how serious it was about challenging the legitimacy of the Iranian government. When the US government refused to let Arafat in, the UN went to him in Geneva.  I think Trump was daring the UN to do something similar, and he was showing that Iran does not have the support in the world to move the UN to meet Foreign Minister Zarif.

Q: Do you think more tensions in the region have led to the crash of the Ukrainian plane?

A: I believe that the exchange of attacks between Iran and the US made the shooting down of the airliner more likely.  But many other planes flew over or through Iranian airspace during the crisis, so it makes the most sense to focus on human error.  I believe that the operator of the missile system was on alert because of the tensions and afraid not to shoot down a potential attacker.  A very similar case happened in 1988 when the US ship USS Vincennes shot down a passenger airliner because of poor communication and an operator who assumed that an attack would be coming. These two airliner disasters are powerful reminders that governments and leaders cannot control a crisis--too many low-level actors have to make the right decision under extreme duress, and innocent people can die because of that.  We are very fortunate that the exchange of attacks has died down because it easily could have turned into something very dangerous--and it still might.

END