Daily Times

The debate that began since the framework of the Iran nuclear deal was agreed upon on April 2, 2015 has now intensified. The media in the US and Europe will continue to highlight the issue for some time. The most scathing criticisms of the deal come from Republican Party stalwarts, many of whom are now throwing their hats, one by one, into the presidential race. The nuclear deal offers an excellent antidote to presidential hopefuls and their cohorts to portray President Obama as a maudlin leader devoid of the guts needed to confront a theocratic country desperately striving to acquire nuclear weapons. They are concerned about how this deal will affect the security of Israel more than how it will serve national security and the global interests of the US.
Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister (PM), has always opposed rapprochement with Iran. He termed Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s overture in September 2013 as a clever move to rescue Iran’s economy from the excruciating impact of international sanctions. Netanyahu characterised Rouhani’s conciliatory approach as a “wolf in the disguise of sheep” and advised the US and European countries against trusting Tehran. He claimed, in as early as September 2012, that Iran was at the threshold of making a nuclear bomb and then it would be an existential threat to Israel. Netanyahu demanded tougher sanctions against Iran combined with air strikes on its nuclear facilities in order to keep Israel and neighbouring countries safe.
The Israeli leader’s disdain for Iran cannot be dismissed as totally unfounded. Former Iranian President Ahmadinejad denied the holocaust and opted to obliterate Israel from the map. His idiosyncratic remarks created deep consternation in Israel and brought worldwide opprobrium. The international community expressed solidarity with Israel and endorsed economic sanctions against Iran. Ahmadinejad made several visits to New York in connection with the annual meeting of the UN General Assembly. He was confronted by media representatives but could never clarify his anti-Semitic narration. Israel has, however, blown the situation beyond proportion. Having a stockpile of over 120 nuclear arsenals in its possession Israel cannot comprehend an existential threat from Iran, which has yet to make a nuclear weapon.
The Iran nuclear deal is not an agreement; it is a framework that has laid down certain parameters for a comprehensive agreement to be prepared. The technical details of the agreement have to be worked out by experts in the coming weeks. By the end of June, the framework, together with technical appendixes, will take the shape of an agreement. The agreement is expected to be signed by the five permanent members of the Security Council and Germany, known as P5+1 and Iran.
The framework of the nuclear agreement, following months of painstaking negotiations amongst the P5+1 and Iran, narrowed the gap but it could not bridge the gap. Iran has agreed to reduce its centrifuges from 19,000 to 6,000 for 10 years of which 5,600 will enrich uranium. Iran will reduce its stockpiles of low-enriched uranium from 10,000 kilograms to 300 kilograms, the heavy water reactor in Arak will be rebuilt but incapacitated to produce weapons grade plutonium and the underground plant in Fordow will be converted to a nuclear physics and technology centre dissecting uranium enrichment capacity. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will have access to all sites and the US and EU will suspend trade and economic sanctions. The questions regarding inspections of, if any, undeclared nuclear sites detected, the fate of decommissioned centrifuges, inspection protocol of the IAEA, Iran’s support to radical outfits in the region etc. constitute the “gap” that will be the litmus test for diplomats to address.
Divergent interpretations of the deal have been made in Tehran and Washington. Iran’s supreme leader cautioned, on April 9, 2015, that there would be no agreement “unless all economic sanctions are lifted completely on the very day of the deal”. Khomeini ruled out extraordinary supervision and said “Iran’s military sites cannot be inspected under the clause of nuclear supervision”. The state department reiterated that Iran had acquiesced to the gradual lifting of the sanctions and that inspectors could move anywhere in the country. It is not inconceivable that, in the absence of joint communiqué, diplomats will have the leverage to make a divergent and sometimes convoluted rendition of the clauses. Different interpretations are evident even in the reactions made by Khomeini and Rouhani. This would also fall under the “gap” to be addressed in the coming weeks.
Critics argue that the foundation of the nuclear framework rests on the pious hope that Iran would behave differently once it is integrated into the international community. If Iranians are engaged in international business there will be foreign investors and the economy will integrate with the world economy. In those circumstances, the middle class will thrive, unemployment will decline and poverty will shrink. People and their leaders will have little appetite for belligerence at home and no incentive for exporting extremism beyond their borders. This might open the window for reconciliation between Shia and Sunni countries. Iran, as a regional power, would see dividends in peaceful coexistence with Sunni neighbours. Critics point out that Iran has descended from the Shah’s autocracy to Kumauni’s brutal theocracy; the hope that Iran will choose a different trajectory appears slim.
The most powerful defence of the deal has come from Ernest Moniz, the US energy secretary. In his article published by the Washington Post, Ernest Moniz, a nuclear physicist from MIT, outlined the parametres that would block Iran’s major pathways to nuclear weapons for the next 10 years. Moniz also pointed out that Iran has the capability to make a bomb in three months but the deal would postpone the configuration to 10 years and, during this period, Iran would need about 12 months to assemble the ingredients to make a bomb. The deal is by all means a much better alternative to the dangerous status quo.
United and secular Iraq has been an adversary of theocratic Iran. The US-led invasion in 2002 removed the equilibrium that hitherto existed and allowed Iran, a country of 80 million people, to emerge as a regional power. This is the reality. A regional power can aspire to possess nuclear capability when its neighbours, including Israel, Russia, China, India and Pakistan, have already acquired that capability. Wisdom lies in accepting the reality and dealing with it accordingly.
In a dramatic move this week, Russia has decided to resume the shipment of surface to air missiles to Iran, as part of a $ 800 million defence contract, which would significantly boost Tehran’s air defence system. Russia and Iran are reportedly rolling out an oil-for-food agreement as another step towards resumption of unlimited trade. Sanctions have started melting.

The writer is a former official of the United Nations