Iran’s nuclear deal?

Of late there has reportedly been some exchange of correspondence, though not officially acknowledged, between US President Barack Obama and Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. It is said to relate to the ongoing nuclear negotiations and the prospect of cooperation between the two countries against Islamic State (IS), especially in the event of a successful nuclear deal. The March 31, 2015 deadline for the end of talks is fast approaching. If there is no deal by then, it is possible that talks might be extended. However, Obama has indicated that, “I do not see a further extension being useful if they have not agreed to the basic formulation and the bottom line that the world requires to have confidence that they are [Iranians] not pursuing a nuclear weapon.”
On the Iranian side, although the supreme leader has authorised the talks he has not been confident about a successful outcome because he too does not trust the US, going back at least to the 1979 Iranian Revolution. In other words, there is a trust deficit on both sides. Despite this they still managed to sign an interim agreement earlier that was extended to continue talks for a longer and durable deal. And this is where the situation stands, though there are reports that a medium term deal might be in the offing.
As far as Iran’s five-plus-one negotiating partners (the US, UK, France, Russia, China and Germany) are concerned, they would like to cap Iran’s uranium enrichment capability preferably below five percent to prevent it from reaching a 12-month breakout period to make a bomb. And with an international regime of onsite inspectors with access to open, as well as secret, facilities, it is hoped that Iran will be adequately policed in regard to its nuclear programme. The interim deal as well as the ongoing negotiations appears to have established one thing: Iran has the sovereign right to pursue a peaceful nuclear programme, as long as it is not covertly or overtly linked to making a bomb. Iran denies strongly that its nuclear research and facilities are weapons oriented. However, Israel, supported by a very powerful political lobby in the US across party lines, simply does not buy Iran’s peaceful protestations.
Israel’s Prime Minister (PM), Netanyahu, has called Iranian President Hasan Rouhani a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” for his country’s nuclear diplomacy. Netanyahu has so much clout in the US’s political establishment that Speaker John Boehner of the US House of Representatives has invited him to address the US Congress on Iran’s nuclear question without prior reference/clearance from the White House. Usually, in diplomatic parlance, such prime ministerial visits are arranged through regular diplomatic channels with the involvement of the White House staff and a pre-arranged itinerary.
Republican Speaker Boehner discarded all these avenues to enable Netanyahu to directly canvass opposition to any nuclear deal with Iran. Apparently, during his visit to address the Congress this month, Netanyahu will not be received at the White House, which is the least the Obama administration can do to show its displeasure. Indeed, the relationship between the Netanyahu regime and the Obama administration has deteriorated to the point where Susan Rice, Obama’s national security adviser, described it as “destructive of the fabric of the relationship”.
But assured of support within the US across party lines, Netanyahu is determined to torpedo any agreement that might allow Iran to continue its nuclear programme even under the strictest international inspection regime. Fearing that an agreement is in the making, he said recently that, in this way, “Iran will gradually, within a few years, develop capabilities to produce material for many nuclear weapons”. For the Netanyahu government, the only solution to stop any breakout for Iranian bomb making is to launch an all-out attack to destroy its nuclear facilities. And if the US will not do it, Israel is ready to but it will need US backing and military support to handle any aftermath. This has not been forthcoming so far, at least.
The Obama administration has made it clear that in the event of Iran opting for a nuclear weapons path, the US would keep all options open, including the military one. Obama’s former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, a likely presidential candidate in 2016, believes that an Iranian nuclear weapons programme would threaten “Israel, their neighbours and the world”, warning that in the event of an Iranian nuclear strike on Iran, “we would be able totally to obliterate them”. All these threats respond to an imaginary situation where Iran is supposedly a fully-fledged nuclear power with an arsenal of nuclear weapons and a sophisticated delivery system. The fact is that even US intelligence agencies do not believe that Iran has or will have such capability any time soon, even if they were so inclined.
In other words, Iran’s presumed or intended nuclear weapons programme is more like shadow boxing, with Israel pulling strings to make it look real. If any country in the Middle East has an impressive and dangerous nuclear arsenal, it is the state of Israel but that is not considered relevant. This is the politics of hypocrisy and double standards, which is not to suggest that Iran should go ahead and build up nuclear weapons. What it suggests is asking the question: how come Iran’s non-existent nuclear status is more dangerous than Israel’s very potent nuclear arsenal in the Middle East’s volatile mix?
Coming back to the ongoing negotiations between Iran and its five-plus-one negotiating partners, any respite from a comprehensive sanctions regime, were Iran to accept the US’s terms for virtually mothballing its nuclear programme, would be incremental. It will be tied to Iran’s performance as judged by its interlocutors. In other words, the US will be at liberty to reward or punish Iran at whim. In any case, with hawks in the US political establishment dead set against Iran, a durable resolution of the nuclear issue is quite challenging. John McCain, the Republican chairman of the Armed Services Committee, reportedly said recently that, “There is a delusion that somehow we are going to have an agreement with Iran…(and) that we will all be working together.” He added, “Iranians are on the march in the Middle East.” Alan Dershowitz, an influential commentator, recently opined that, “Iran and the mullahs are not rational calculators…This is a suicide nation controlled by suicidal leaders.”
Against such a noxious backdrop, even an agreement at the Geneva talks will face the wrath of the Congress with more sanctions likely. And with the Congressional platform at his disposal, Netanyahu will do his best to work up the Congress and the Zionist lobby to a fever pitch to torpedo any nuclear deal between Iran and the five-plus-one powers. President Obama has reportedly said that he will veto a Congressional rejection of a prospective deal. This is the US’s politics at its worst. In all this, one sometimes wonders who is the real president of the US: Obama or Netanyahu?

The writer is a senior journalist and academic
based in Sydney, Australia. He can be reached at sushilpseth@yahoo.co.au