Tag Archives: Tehran

Britain, Government, Iran, United Nations, United States

The Iranian deal exposes concerns but it’s worth the risk…

GENEVA AGREEMENT

Whilst the initial period of the Geneva agreement lasts only six months, and much of what has been agreed is based on trust, there is no doubt that Iran could have been in a position to assemble a nuclear device by next summer. Even a modest hiatus in its atomic preparations should be embraced as it pretty much ensures Israel will take no precipitate action.

Related:

The interim agreement is a good way of testing if Iran can be trusted to keep its word. Tehran has agreed to give UN and IAEA inspectors’ better access to its reprocessing facilities, a promise that will be difficult to fudge or renege on without exposing bad faith or some covert hidden agenda. Critics are right in their assertions that the accord does nothing to dismantle Tehran’s capability to process weapons grade uranium whenever it wants, but securing the right to inspect the regime’s nuclear plants is a necessary and vital concession. This establishes a clear diplomatic tripwire that Tehran crosses at its peril.

There is, though, still much to worry about in this deal. The Iranian economy has been brought to its knees by western sanctions and the regime has been more than desperate to win a respite to mollify internal dissent and unrest. In many ways, President Hassan Rouhani has achieved that objective at comparatively modest cost, and has subsequently strengthened the grip of Iran’s religious dictatorship.

Israeli fears are well known in letting Iran off the hook. But others, too, notably Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, have greeted the Geneva agreement with stony silence. They fear that a diplomatic win for Tehran will strengthen the resolve even further of President Assad in Syria, Iran’s client state and political ally.

On the balance of things, the Geneva deal should be deemed a worthy risk. Tehran has felt the full throttle of western sanctions and the sharpness of its teeth. It must also realise that having offered Iran diplomatic concessions and held Israel in check, President Obama will have no option but to take punitive military action if Iran reneges on its nuclear promises.

The onus in turning this interim deal into something permanent is now on Barack Obama and William Hague, Britain’s Foreign Secretary. Their job will be to tame and dismantle Tehran’s nuclear threat once and for all. Any final agreement must see Iran disband its tens of thousands of uranium processing centrifuges – far more than is needed for any purely civilian atomic energy programme. Iran’s plant for making plutonium – which can only have a military intent – must also be dismantled. It would also make sense for Tehran to dispose of the excessive amounts of low enriched uranium it already possesses – enough to make at least six atomic bombs if those stocks were sufficiently enriched to weapons grade material.

Standard
European Union, Government, Iran, Middle East, Politics, Society, United Nations, United States

Negotiations between Iran and the West on Tehran’s nuclear ambitions…

A NEED FOR AN AGREEMENT WITH IRAN

Expectations of an agreement over the Iranian nuclear programme have been high ever since the recent trip to Washington by Hassan Rouhani, Iran’s president, who declared to the United Nations he wanted better relations with the West. It is little surprise, however, that such a realisation has not been met. The immense difficulties facing the negotiations in Geneva in the last few days faded into the background amid speculation of a ‘historic deal’ and an imminent end to decades of mutual suspicion and misunderstanding. The Geneva talks concluded last weekend without any deal in sight, with many analysts branding the discussions a failure.

Related:

There is still some cause for optimism. Since Mr Rouhani took over the Iranian presidency from the bellicose and belligerent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in June, the rhetoric emanating from Tehran has been markedly softened in tone and style. With international sanctions – both EU and US – biting hard on ordinary Iranians, domestic pressure for a deal on its nuclear programme with the West cannot be ignored. Particularly so given that inflation is running at 40 per cent, and that Iran’s economy has shrunk by more than 5 per cent since the imposition of sanctions took effect. The number of families below the poverty line has doubled to four in ten, exasperated by several currency devaluations that have had an adverse effect on the net worth of many Iranian families. Assets have depreciated and net incomes have been seriously eroded. Focusing minds, too, is the threat of Israeli air strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, not to mention the Islamic Republic’s pivotal position in a volatile and unstable region, including that of Syria.

The difficulties for the West in reaching a mutual agreement with Tehran still rest upon two primary sticking points. One is the question about the future of the heavy-water reactor being built at Arak. The other is what to do with Iran’s existing stockpiles of highly enriched uranium and centrifuges. Tehran appears determined to retain its ‘rights to enrichment’ (enriched uranium is required and allowed for its medical programmes), though the international community, not unreasonably, remains sceptical. Enriching uranium to weapons grade material that would fit into the head of a ballistic missile is easily enough done.

Yet, we are far from stalemate. Just as those predicting immediate success were unduly hasty, so are those now rendering and calling for defeat. John Kerry, the U.S. Secretary of State, spent eight hours at the negotiating table, the longest such high-level talks between the US and Iran since 1979 – no small achievement in itself. Mr Kerry’s assertion that ‘we are closer now than when we came’ cannot simply be dismissed out of hand. With negotiations to restart in a week’s time – albeit between diplomats rather than foreign ministers – the process is far from over.

Coupled into the equation is the danger of the moment. Barack Obama’s critics in Congress, largely fuelled by Israeli’s inflammatory opposition to a deal, are already pushing for more sanctions. In Iran, the frustration of public demands for immediate relief could well erode support for further discussions that many Iranians feel infringe on national sovereignty. Apparent divisions in the international community, exemplified by France’s outspoken warnings about a ‘fool’s game’ before the Geneva talks were concluded, will not help either.

Perseverance in seeking a deal along current lines remains key as no other constructive alternative exists, but in reaching an agreement concessions will be required from both sides. The notion that the Islamic Republic continues with some degree of uranium enrichment may not be palatable and will be contested by those who remain deeply sceptical of Iran’s objectives. However, it is allowed under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and – in return for close controls and even closer oversight by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – it is a better and plausible option than either accepting an Iran with nuclear weapons or by attempting to bomb them out of existence.

A deal with Iran may have a high price, but the value will be enormous. This will not only patch up one of the world’s most dangerous and intractable disputes but, an accord between Iran and the West could also help to resolve any number of issues bedevilling the Middle East, not least the internecine civil war and bloody conflict in Syria.

Standard
Government, Iran, Middle East, Politics, United Nations, United States

US-Iran rapprochement requires time…

US-IRANIAN RELATIONS

Where a diplomatic stalemate that has lasted, off and on, for several decades, it would be foolhardy in being anything but wary before dealing again. No more so when the country in question is Iran who has made peaceful overtures towards the United States. The opportunity for misrepresentations and misunderstandings – on both sides – is more pronounced than most others.  Greater still, given the unpredictability of a domestic political scene in Tehran in which the remit of the President and the Supreme Leader are not always clear.

However, Iran’s new President, Hassan Rouhani, has made encouraging noises. He has released political prisoners, exchanged letters with the U.S. President and even used social media to offer New Year greetings to Iran’s Jews earlier this month. And, most significantly of all, he has shifted responsibility for the nuclear programme to a moderate former diplomat who has long established ties to the United States. Mr Rouhani says this has the express support of the Ayatollah.

With Washington responding in good faith, the world’s media expected a meeting to be held between the US and Iranian presidents following Mr Rouhani’s speech at the United Nations earlier this week. Not since the toppling of the Shah in 1979 have both presidents met.

In the end, though, no meeting took place. After more than 30 years without diplomatic relations, some commentators later argued that the absence of a meeting may have been for the best. Undoubtedly, there remains great hurt and pain on both sides. The US has had no official representation in Tehran for almost two generations, with a gulf of understanding left widely prized open. Compared with Iran, the US is an open book. The risk of misunderstandings, especially on the American side, would have been great. It would have been little short of tragic if the early signals from Tehran had been misread which might have squandered any chance of forging better relations.

It was apparent, from their respective speeches at the UN General Assembly that both leaders treaded carefully. They did, after all, have their own public opinion to consider, as well as the expectations that were running so high elsewhere in the world. Mr Rouhani’s stated readiness, though, to engage in ‘results-orientated’ talks on his country’s nuclear programme, and his disclosure that he has negotiating authority, delegated from the Supreme Leader, does raise hope. President Obama would be derelict if he did not now try to test them out in some way.

The rewards from improved US-Iranian relations could be far reaching, particularly if agreement can be made on the nuclear issue. Iran would be brought in from the cold at a crucial time, and the regional map – which looks increasingly hostile to the West – would seem a little friendlier. With the stakes so high rapprochement must be given time rather than scuppering any deal by rushing it through.

Mr Obama, of course, risks charges of capitulation. The concern of Israel, which has Iranian nuclear facilities on its radar, and is ready and willing to bomb them, is again raising its head. But the prize of a safer and less divided Middle East must be pursued with as much vigour as the West can muster. Syria’s bloody civil war, and the threat of regional meltdown, only makes the need for a deal with Iran more urgent.

Standard