Obstacles to an Agreement with Iran

In order to understand the political dynamics surrounding the recently signed EU + 3/Iran nuclear agreement, it is important to understand some of the history. The U.S, sanctions regime against Iran began in 1979 shortly after the Iranian Revolution and the subsequent hostage crisis. The initial sanctions were imposed by President Jimmy Carter who froze millions of dollars of Iranian assets in U.S. banks. In the 1980’s, the sanctions were expanded to include weapons and any financial aid to Iran, as the U.S. attempted to aid Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war. The sanctions regime was expanded in 1987 under President Ronald Reagan and again in 1997 under President Bill Clinton. President Obama has magnified the impact of the sanctions by threatening and coercing governments around the world, wishing to do business in the U.S., to abide by the unilateral American sanctions. These sanctions have had an increasingly negative impact on the Iranian economy and on the lives of ordinary Iranians. Circumventing and mitigating the effects of the sanctions has been a major focus of almost all Iranian governments.
The Iranian nuclear program dates back to 1957 when the U.S. signed a nuclear cooperation agreement with Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi’s government under the Atoms for Peace Program. Following the revolution, the Siemens AG contract to build the Bushehr nuclear reactor was terminated. Shortly thereafter the Iranian government announced an ambitious program to construct its own reactor and to master the nuclear fuel cycle. In my opinion, while the nuclear program has been expanded to provide nuclear power and medical isotopes, its primary purpose has been to accumulate bargaining chips in order get the sanctions removed and reduced and to get Iran reintegrated into the international community. As the West has rebuffed all Iranian efforts at reintegration, the chips have continued to accumulate. It is not a nuclear weapon that concerns the U.S. and its allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia, but the reintegration of Iran into the global economy.
Iran is strategically located astride the Straits of Hormuz and is a buffer state between the Middle East and Central Asia. With its large (70mm), well-educated young population, relatively stable governance, and substantial potential for oil and gas production, Iran is much better positioned than its neighbors to project political and economic power, both within the region and globally. It is this potential to change the status quo in the region that most worries Iran’s adversaries. The nuclear weapons issue is a politically powerful red herring to cover the true concerns.
During the Geneva talks, Israel and Saudi Arabia spent much money, printers ink and bombast to prevent the interim agreement from being signed. Having failed in that effort, they are now rolling out the political big guns in Washington in order shoot down any final comprehensive deal that will result in rapprochement with Iran. Already the Obama administration is showing signs of backing away from any final status agreement. (See here and here.) While it is in America’s interest to resolve the conflict with Iran diplomatically, it is unclear to me whether or not Obama, who sees every foreign policy issue through a lens of domestic politics, will be able to summon the political will to deliver on the promise of the Geneva agreement.

Believe the Mullahs?

Ever since the EU3+3 and Iran announced their agreement on “Joint Plan of Action” with respect to Iran’s nuclear program and western sanctions on Iran, “the spin masters” on all sides have been busy framing the agreement in ways that match their political agendas. The U.S. media has given the most airtime and press space to those who are opposed to the agreement and who are determined to torpedo it. Most of the opponents have echoed Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s pronouncement that the agreement is a “historic mistake”. Most of the pundits appear to have reached their conclusions without having read the document. Netanyahu certainly didn’t read the agreement as he made his statements days before the agreement was finalized. The Obama administration felt the need to fight back against their opponents by issuing a Fact Sheet: First Step Understandings Regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Nuclear Program. (As far as I can see they have neglected to publish the full text of the agreement) The Iranian government promptly rejected the Fact Sheet saying, “What has been released by the website of the White House as a fact sheet is a one-sided interpretation of the agreed text in Geneva and some of the explanations and words in the sheet contradict the text of the Joint Plan of Action…”. (See here) Iran promptly released the full text of the agreement. (See here) The Iranians also disputed Secretary of State John Kerry’s statement that “"We do not recognize a right to enrich".

With all this back and forth, I thought that it might be useful to actually look at the agreement. First, one should point out that this is an interim agreement designed to provide an opportunity to build trust between the parties and to deescalate the dispute while a final agreement is negotiated. That said the agreement does provide the “Elements of the final step of a comprehensive solution.” None of the steps agreed upon for the interim period are irreversible for either side and nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to.

With respect to the nuclear program, among other things, the agreement provides that Iran will:

• From the existing uranium enriched to 20%, retain half as working stock of 20% oxide for fabrication of fuel for the TRR. Dilute the remaining 20% UF6 to no more than 5%.

• Iran announces that it will not enrich uranium over 5% for the duration of the 6 months.

• Iran has decided to convert to oxide, UF6 (Uranium Hexafluoride) newly enriched up to 5% during the 6 month period, as provided in the operational schedule of the conversion plant declared to the IAEA.

With respect to the right to enrich, the agreement states, “This comprehensive solution would enable Iran to fully enjoy its right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes under the relevant articles of the NPT in conformity with its obligations therein. This comprehensive solution would involve a mutually defined enrichment program with practical limits and transparency measures to ensure the peaceful nature of the program.” This sounds to me like recognition of the right to enrich with IAEA inspection.

With respect to sanctions the agreement says, “This comprehensive solution would involve a reciprocal, step-by step process, and would produce the comprehensive lifting of all UN Security Council sanctions, as well as multilateral and national sanctions related to Iran’s nuclear program.” The U.S. piece was weasel worded in recognition of Congress’s ability to throw a monkey wrench in the agreement. Iran’s agreement on the Additional Protocol of the NPT was also weasel worded in recognition of the Iranian Parliament’s ability to refuse to ratify it as they refused to do in 2003.

Despite all the controversy, the Geneva Agreement appears to me to be a balanced effort which achieves its goal of buying time for a reasonable and comprehensive solution to the 35 year war between the U.S. and Iran. It is too bad, however, that in order to get the facts, one must rely on the mullahs rather than the U.S. Dept. of State. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani seems to treat his people like adults and explain exactly what he agreed to and what he didn’t. It would be nice if the U.S. government would do the same for us.

Photo by LA Times

Technorati Tags: Iran Nuclear Program,Iran,Geneva Agreement

Close But No Cigar

Last week, after three days of intense negotiations between the EU3+3 and Iran regarding Iran’s nuclear program, the participants announced that they had failed to reach an agreement and departed Geneva saying that negotiations would reconvene on November 20 at a lower level. Throughout the negotiation process there had been much optimism and speculation that an agreement was possible. Speculation reached a fever pitch when senior diplomats from most of the participating countries flew to Geneva in order to join in the negotiations. (This is usually a sign that a photo op is imminent.) While exact reason for the collapse of the negotiating process is unclear as of this writing, it appears that we have shifted from a negotiating mode to a blame game mode.

Most of the day on Saturday was spent, not on negotiations with the Iranians, but on negotiations within the EU3+3, trying to iron out their internal disagreements. Contemporaneous reports and leaks by diplomats and reporters on the scene in Geneva stated that France was responsible for the lack of agreement. France was insisting that the interim agreement be rewritten in order to include a Iranian commitment to stop construction of the Arak heavy water reactor. The reason for taking this position is mystifying. While a heavy water reactor is a proliferation concern, as it produces weapons grade plutonium, the Arak facility is over a year away from being completed and another year away from making enough plutonium to produce a weapon. The proposed agreement is a six month reversible interim agreement. This week Secretary of State Kerry, concerned that France was being blamed, announced that Iran was to blame for the failure when it backed away from language concerning their right to enrichment. It sounds to me like revisionist diplomacy and amateur hour at the State Department.

In order to understand why assessing blame is politically important, it is helpful to look at the history. In 2004, under President Khatami, Iran offered to cap its centrifuges at 3000 and it had very little low enriched uranium. This offer was rejected by the U.S. By 2009 Iran had over 7000 centrifuges and 1000 kg of low enriched uranium. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad agreed to ship the low enriched uranium out of the country and have it reprocessed into fuel for the Tehran medical reactor. However, faced with political turmoil following the disputed election, Iran reneged. This deal was revived by Turkey and Brazil in 2010 and this time it was rejected by the U.S. Today Iran has almost 20,000 centrifuges and more than 10,000 kg of low enriched uranium and hundreds of kg of 20% enriched uranium. During this period, the U.S. has implemented a series of draconian economic sanctions on Iran and bullied other countries into going along. The sanctions have dramatically affected the lives of ordinary Iranians and have had no effect on Iran’s nuclear program.

If the U.S. and its allies are seen as not serious about a diplomatic solution, the countries that are cooperating on sanctions may begin to take a different stance. This is especially true if Congress continues to take a “war hawk” position and doubles down on sanctions. If the sanctions regime falls apart, the U.S. has no viable option to deal with the Iranian nuclear program other than military action. The current round of diplomacy is possibly the last, best chance for a diplomatic solution. Unfortunately, Ambassador John Limbert’s fifth rule of U.S. – Iranian relations is still in effect. “Whenever you seem to be making progress, someone or some diabolical coincidence will mess it up”.

(Photo by Yahoo! News)

Technorati Tags: Iran,Iran Nuclear Program,John Kerry

America East of Suez

Last week President Obama’s National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, unveiled, what the media is calling “a more modest strategy for the Mideast”. (See here) Ms. Rice said that the administration would focus its efforts on negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran, brokering a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians and mitigating the strife in Syria. The strategy also acknowledged that there are limits to what the U.S. can accomplish in nurturing democracy in the region. While I might argue with some of the specifics, the new strategy appears to be an effort to rectify some of the problems that have plagued U.S. policy in the Middle East for decades.

As U.S. involvement in the Middle East has deepened since the end of WW II, U.S. efforts to project power in the region have clashed with the desire of Middle Easterners for self-determination and political independence. The U.S. has also failed to identify its vital national interests and to focus its policies and power on addressing those interests. This lack of focus has led to policies and objectives that are not only conflicting, but in many cases mutually exclusive. These policy disconnects have led to a failure to accomplish foreign policy objectives. Those it has accomplished have been more in spite of rather than because of the policies.

My definition of a “vital national interest” is one that deals with an existential threat to the U.S. and one for which the U.S. is willing to spill its blood and to spend its treasure in order to accomplish its objectives. By this definition, the U.S. has no vital national interest in events in the Middle East. Since WW II access to the energy resources of the Middle East at a reasonable price has been a vital national interest. With the advent of “fracking” and shale, the U.S. is on the verge of becoming a net energy exporter and this has fundamentally changed energy geopolitics. U.S. interests are now more associated with non-proliferation of WMD and controlling and defeating the Sunni jihadist threat. While U.S. blind support for Israel will remain a thorn in the side of the U.S. as it attempts to deal with Middle Easterners, the larger Israel/Palestinian conflict, with the death of the two state solution, has morphed into an internal Israeli problem. The Israelis themselves will have to decide what kind of a country they want to be.

The Obama administration seems to have realized that, in order to successfully deal with the jihadist and WMD issues, they will need to deal with Iran. Iranian cooperation is crucial for the attainment of U.S. policy objectives. Success in dealing with Iran will require taking into account Iran’s requirement for sovereignty over its energy policy and autonomy in designing and implementing its foreign policy. Saudi Arabia has become marginalized on the energy issue and on the jihadist issue. It is part of the problem and not part of the solution. Saudi realization that the U.S. may be looking after its own national interest rather than following the lead of the most undemocratic regimes in the region has led to what only can be described as a “temper tantrum”. Turning down a seat on the UN Security Council (See here) to send a message to the U.S. may be the ultimate tantrum.

The U.S. may be experiencing its own “East of Suez” moment as it accepts that it has diminished influence in the global arena. (See here) This transition will be difficult for Americans to accept, particularly the empire-building neo-cons, but at the end of the day both America and the Middle East may be better for it.

 

Technorati Tags: Iran,U.S. Foreign Policy,Iran Nuclear Program,Middle East

This Week in Iran

This week’s opening of the U.N. General Assembly was not its normal boring gabfest, but a fascinating and fast moving diplomatic event. The presence of newly elected Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, who arrived with a clear agenda to move the ball forward in normalizing Iranian relations with the West, made for fascinating diplomatic drama which culminated in President Obama’s phone conversation with Rouhani.

Not only were Rouhani’s diplomatic and political skills on display, but they were accompanied by a sophisticated, adept and agile Iranian public relations campaign. (Who’d have thunk it?) The blizzard of tweets, press releases and op-ed pieces orchestrated by the Iranians was amazing to watch. Gary Sick, an Iran expert with Columbia University commented, “They’re putting stuff out faster than the naysayers can keep up. They dominate the airwaves”. Even the vaunted Israeli “hasbara” public relations machine has been caught flat footed. Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu has come off sounding like a grumpy old warmonger. The neo-con, and normally bellicose pundits, such as Bill Kristol, John Bolton and Charles Krauthammer have struggled to find their voice.

Even the main stream media has struggled with how to react. The most egregious example came from NBC’s Brian Williams who stated, “This is all part of a new leadership effort by Iran - suddenly claiming they don't want nuclear weapons; what they want is talks and transparency and good will. And while that would be enough to define a whole new era, skepticism is high and there's a good reason for it." This statement that this is “sudden” is patently untrue. What is seen as sudden by Williams has been the Iranian position for over a decade. When President Khatami proposed a “grand bargain” in 2003, he faced the George W. Bush administration who, as Ambassador Ryan Crocker told me, “didn’t think that it was real”. When President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad proposed something similar, Obama was faced with an Iranian President whose bellicose rhetoric on Israel and the Holocaust were too politically toxic to deal with.

Now, however, we have the happy convergence of leaders whose default position is diplomacy, increasingly shared interests and a rapidly changing political environment in the Middle East. The two predominant naysayers, Israel and Saudi Arabia, have about worn out their welcome with Obama. Israel by torpedoing every effort to resolve the Palestinian situation and Saudi Arabia by underwriting al Qaeda affiliated groups throughout the region.

The Western media has portrayed Iranian ability to make the necessary concessions as the biggest obstacle. In fact, the ability of the U.S. to deal with sanctions relief is a much bigger obstacle. Iran is not going to agree to any deal that does not, at least in some measure, provide for sanctions relief. The Iran sanctions are written into U. S, law. While the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 gives the President some limited waiver authority, the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012 has no such provision. Given the fact that Congressional Republicans are in no mood to give Obama a political and diplomatic victory and the spectacle of zero concern for the country’s best interests that we are now witnessing, any action is unlikely. We may, once again, miss a golden opportunity to resolve this problem peacefully. The first rule of U.S./Iranian relations, “Never walk through an open door. Instead beat your head against the wall” still applies.

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama,Iran,Iran Nuclear Program

Iran Policy: Morally and Effectively Bankrupt

During the campaign debates between the major party presidential candidates, the two candidates essentially agreed on almost every subject. Romney claimed that Obama’s policies had failed and then announced that he would follow the same failed policies. On Iran the only disagreement was who would be the tougher president. Under Obama, the U.S. has engaged in economic warfare by imposing a unilateral sanctions regime and has strong armed other countries into abiding by the sanctions. The resulting economic dislocation, aggravated by mismanagement by the Iranian government, has had a significant impact on the economy. Oil exports have plummeted, contributing to a precipitous decline in the value of the rial. This decline, along with financial restrictions on marine insurance and funds transfer , have contributed to rising inflation and have made it difficult to import even essential goods such as medical equipment and drugs.

Despite all of the political noise, there has been almost no discussion about whether or not the sanctions policy is being effective in achieving its objectives and no discussion about the morality of economic warfare on the Iranian people.

Following the First Gulf War, the U.S. and its allies imposed draconian sanctions on Iraq designed to “punish the Iraqi people”. These sanctions destroyed the Iraqi healthcare and educational systems and resulted in hundreds of thousands of unnecessary Iraqi deaths. (See here) Madeleine Albright (then US UN ambassador) declared on 60 Minutes that “the price is worth it”. In 1998 Denis Halliday, the UN administrator of the oil-for-food program, resigned to protest the sanctions saying, “We are in the process of destroying an entire country” and calling them “nothing less than genocide’. His replacement, Hans von Sponeck, resigned in 2000 denouncing the sanctions as “criminal policy”. (See here) As we head down the same path in Iran, the same descriptions apply.

The stated objectives behind the sanctions on Iran have been variously stated to be: to force Iran to abandon or change its nuclear program or to provoke civil unrest resulting in the overthrow of the Iranian government. The decade long enhanced sanctions regime has accomplished neither of these objectives. In the past decade, Iran has gone from a small number of centrifuges creating a small amount of low enriched uranium to thousands of centrifuges creating a large amount of 20% enriched uranium. The regime has withstood the large demonstrations surrounding the 2009 elections.

While accurate polling in Iran by western pollsters is difficult, it is not impossible. Recent polls show that there is little appetite for regime change. 85% of Iranians say it is important for Iran to have a civilian nuclear program. 65% blamed the worsening economy on western sanctions and only 11% on government mismanagement. 76% have an unfavorable view of the US. These and other results (See here) show that the theory that, if pressured enough, Iranians will rise against their government is wrong. Secondly, the more Iranians suffer, the more they blame those imposing the sanctions and not their own government.

It is time for our political leaders, whoever they may be, to rethink the Iran policy on which they so much agree.

Technorati Tags: Iran,Iran Sanctions

Confrontation with Iran

This week the Iranian nuclear enrichment program was once again front and center on the world stage. On Monday Iranian officials notified the IAEA that they had begun construction of a second nuclear enrichment facility outside the city of Qom. This announcement prompted a flurry of diplomatic activities by the US and its European allies which culminated in a hastily called press conference featuring President Obama, French President Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Each in turn roundly condemned Iran for their “direct challenge” to the NPT regime, “serial deception” and challenge to the entire international community. The western media flashed headlines such as “US and allies warn Iran over nuclear deception” and British “Foreign Secretary David Miliband refuses to rule out military action against Iran nuclear plant”.
Iranian President Ahmadinejad responded that the plant was never a secret and that Iran had lived up to its NPT obligations.
The reality of all this is much more nuanced. The US has been aware of this facility for some time and has elected ignore it. The plant, therefore, is hardly a secret. Iran’s case that has lived up to its obligations has some validity. The treaty as ratified by Iran requires that the IAEA be notified 180 days before the introduction of nuclear material. The 2003 protocol, which Iran never ratified, introduced the requirement to notify the IAEA immediately upon the decision to construct a nuclear facility.
The Iranians may have felt that they were doing something positive ahead of the 5+1 talks scheduled for Oct. 1, since they are probably a year away from introducing nuclear material and may have been surprised by the reaction. They did not, however, count American domestic politics.
Having been stonewalled by Israel and the Arab countries on his Israel/Palestine policy, Obama could not afford to appear weak on another Middle East issue. This allowed the administration hardliners on Iran, such as Hilary Clinton and Dennis Ross, to carry the day and raise the specter of “crippling sanctions” and military action.
With their harsh aggressive rhetoric, the western leaders may have put themselves in a corner from which there may be no easy exit. Since any sanctions regime is not likely to be either effective or “crippling” and the unstable hard-line government in Tehran may welcome the conflict as a way of uniting their divided country, the western leaders may, once again, have to choose between backing down in the face of intransigence or taking military action. Will the Iranians sit idly by awaiting an attack which could destroy their retaliatory capability or will they chose a preemptive first strike?
It seems to me that that I have seen this movie before in Iraq. I didn’t like the ending.