by Peter Jenkins
via IPS News
On a purely rational view, it is hard not to be optimistic about the upcoming talks with Iran in Geneva (Nov. 7-8), and about what might follow.
On the Iranian side, the negotiations are now under the direction of a very accomplished diplomat who reports to a President who wants to resolve the nuclear dispute once and for all — and the President reports to a Supreme Leader who has authorised a degree of flexibility to secure an agreement. Both President and Leader recognise that Iran has much more to gain by respecting its nuclear non-proliferation obligations than by violating them.
On the Western side, there is a feeling that Iran’s new President has done such a good job of helping Western voters think that he is a decent, moderate and reasonable man, that Western leaders can afford, politically, to be seen to be doing business with him.
The main components of a deal have long been so obvious that negotiators can get down to brass tacks, as people say in the North of England, without much ado.
Iran must allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) access to locations, documents and individual scientists and technicians that goes beyond what is required according to conventional interpretations of Iran’s NPT safeguards agreement with the IAEA.
Iran must volunteer limitations on its stocks of low enriched uranium and its enrichment capacity to signal that it has no interest in producing, undetected or uninterrupted, enough highly enriched uranium for at least one nuclear weapon.
And Iran must propose ways of reducing, if not eliminating, the theoretical risk that a new reactor under construction at Arak could be used to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons.
In return the West must reassure Iran that, in wanting the IAEA to shine a light on nuclear weapons research done during the years when Iran had reason to fear Saddam Hussein’s nuclear ambitions, the West is not looking for grounds to impose still more hardship on the Iranian people.
The West must also find a way of protecting from assassination any Iranian researchers whom Iran allows the IAEA to interview. The sad fact is that the IAEA secretariat is so penetrated by certain intelligence services that the risk of at least one unscrupulous state using IAEA data to commission the murder of Iranian researchers cannot be dismissed as fanciful.
The West must also come off the fence and leave Iran in no doubt that at the end of an agreed process it will lift all objection to Iran enjoying the same NPT rights as other NPT parties.
Finally, the West must abandon its niggardly approach to the easing of sanctions in reciprocation for the steps wanted of Iran by the West (above).
For too long Western thinking on sanctions has been flawed by the fallacy that without the pressure of sanctions, Iran will fail to implement whatever voluntary commitments it may offer and will not comply with its non-proliferation obligations. This fallacy stems from an assumption that Iran has no interest in demonstrating that its nuclear intentions are peaceful and in complying with its treaty obligations. In reality, the opposite is true: Iran has a strong interest in signalling that its nuclear program is not a threat to other states, in allaying proliferation concerns expressed by the UN Security Council and in being NPT-compliant. So, Iran does not need to be pressured into honouring its commitments.
The West should also recall that it justified the imposition of the unilateral EU sanctions that have done the greatest damage to the Iranian economy by claiming that these were needed to pressure Iran into engaging, and into doing what the Security Council had demanded. Iran is now engaging; if Iran also offers the desired confidence-building, then logically a commensurate suspension of EU sanctions should follow.
A failure to recognise these two points, and an avaricious hoarding of oil and banking-related sanctions to some undefined point in a distant future, will lead inexorably to the collapse of the talks and to the loss of the best opportunity to end this dispute in a long time.
That is not in the West’s strategic, economic, commercial or humanitarian interests.
So there is much at stake as in Western capitals, in the coming weeks, the battle between reason and politics intensifies. Reason must triumph!
Photo Credit: Fars News/Sina Shiri
Tired old slogans! Indeed, as you look at yours here. What are you really afraid off by giving the Peace process a chance to work, that it will, making the projections coming out of Israel, yes, projections, but not of Iran, but of Israeli leaderships. You don’t find fault with any Israeli Military action that I’ve heard or read about, or I might add, the temper tantrums Netanyahoo preaches, pointing fingers, etc. In fact, one can’t really trust him to do what he says, with the continual building of settlements. I don’t think Israel wants peace anywhere in the M.E., at least the leadership/hardliners, then they wouldn’t know what to do or how to act.
Norman, the Saudis have pressed for years, for Israel to get rid of its nukes. American news media gives this fact very little coverage. Russia also wants Israel to get trid of its nukes. Should be strong element of US foreign policy in the ME.
I think the US would benefit if Syrian government were to win the civil war and regain control of the entire country. Difficult challenge, obviously.
Surely you grasp the fact Rouhani likely cannot make a deal, if the deal does not include acceptance of Iranian enrichment to low levels. Iran has given many signals it is willing to suspend (end) enriching to 20%.
@Norman – – Saudis and Iranians want Israel to get rid of nukes. Their sensible wish is related to resolving the nuclear dispute with Iran. Surely Kerry can say, off the record, that the US will back pressuring Israel to get rid of its nukes.