Nuclear Negotiations with Iran Fail
November 24, 2014
Business Insider - The nuclear negotiations between Iran and a US-led group of countries
over Tehran's nuclear program have once again fallen short.
On the one year anniversary
after the signing of the landmark Joint Plan of Action in Geneva,
diplomats from Iran and the PP5+1 — the five permanent members of the UN
Security Council and Germany — announced that the negotiating period
will be extended for another seven months after the parties
failed to reach a final deal during a marathon session in Vienna.
This round of talks was
punctuated with reports that the P5+1 had softened its position on
issues considered central to resolving the nuclear standoff.
The Jerusalem Post cited an anonymous Israeli official claiming that the P5+1 offered a deal
that would expire after only ten years.
News reports and
expert analysis
suggested that the US was willing to allow Iran to leave as many as
5,000 uranium centrifuges in place under a final deal, effectively
conceding that Iran would be able to keep much of its uranium enrichment
infrastructure even after an agreement was signed. And the Wall Street
Journal
reported
that the P5+1 was no longer demanding the closure of Iran's heavy water
reactor at Arak — a facility capable of producing weaponized plutonium
—and didn't plan on using the deal to scale back Iran's ballistic
missile program.
The P5+1 was reportedly willing
to settle for an agreement that delivered a strict verification regime
theoretically capable of cutting off Tehran's pathway to a bomb — while
leaving in place much of the infrastructure needed to actually build and
deliver a nuclear weapon.
It's an arrangement that would
seem to favor Tehran in some respects, winning it sanctions relief along
with some limited international recognition of the legitimacy of their
nuclear program. So why didn't Iran take it? And given that the
negotiations have gone on for over a year now — with a White House
committed to a negotiated way out of the nuclear impasse — what else
does Iran really think it can get out of the process?
One possibility is that Iran
simply doesn't want a deal or isn't in a position to sign even a
generous one. Iran is a compartmentalized authoritarian state with
several often-competing and only semi-accountable centers of power. If
one of them doesn't want a deal — if, for instance, Supreme Leader Ali
Khamenei winces at the possibility of any grand bargain with the west —
it isn't getting done. It's easier, from that perspective, for Iranian
negotiators to keep extending the talks rather than dealing with the
implications of a final deal, especially when Iran
will be allowed to access an additional $700 million a month in frozen assets as long as the talks continue.
Another possibility is that Iran's intransigence is not only intentional but actually a highly effective negotiating tactic.
As Tom Moore, a former Senate Foreign Relations Committee staffer and
Luger Center
senior fellow who has followed the Iranian nuclear issue for over a
decade explained to Business Insider, Tehran's strategy towards the US
hasn't actually changed much over the years. Iran has always used the
possibility of near-term concessions to keep the west interested in
negotiating — while slowly building its program and resisting a final
resolution to the nuclear issue.
"They've made the
decision they get more out of doing this than out of a final deal,"
Moore says of the post-Geneva agreement series of negotiating
extensions.
Moore recalled the
2004 Paris Agreement
between Iran and three EU countries, in which Tehran agreed to curtail
certain aspects of its nuclear program. The deal came around the same
time
Iran agreed to the International Atomic Energy Agency's
additional protocols for nuclear monitoring.
Ten years later, Iran has never
actually allowed the inspection protocol to be implemented while the
expansion of Tehran's program has turned the Paris Agreement is a
now-obscure footnote.
"Nothing changed much between 2004 and 2014 ...
it's the same dynamic all over a again," says Moore. "The only
difference is that the P5+1 is now involved."
In taking an incremental approach, Iran gets the benefits of a
short-term agreement — benefits like sanctions relief and diplomatic
good will — while not giving up anything major and at least preserving
the long-term option of ramping up its program again.
In that respect, the Geneva
interim agreement is actaully favorable for Tehran, as Mark Dubowitz,
executive director of the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of
Democracies, explained to Business Insider.
"Advanced centrifuge research
and development, weaponization, ballistic missiles — none of these are
prohibited under the JPOA," Dubowitz explained. "They get time to work
on what they haven't perfected while freezing the parts of the program
they have perfected. They don't pay any price for continuing to run out
clock."
The Vienna extension suggests
that Iran doesn't really see much urgency in completing a deal — or even
that only one side thinks there's much of a benefit to a comprehensive
nuclear agreement. If an agreement comes it may be less far-reaching
than a lot of observers hope, with an over year-long negotiating process
lurching towards an anti-climactic end.
No comments:
Post a Comment