The debate over the Iran nuclear agreement has dominated the media and the political arena in the United States, since the deal was stuck on July 14. It will continue to remain so until September 17, 2015, when the deadline for the US Congress approaches to either accept or reject the agreement. The Republican members in Congress are almost certain that they will unanimously oppose the agreement. The challenge, however, lies with the Democratic members. If they can withstand the pressure of the Israeli lobby and vote in favour of the agreement, the opponent will be denied two-thirds majority to circumvent the Presidential veto. It is not yet certain whether the Democratic members in Congress will remain steadfast in rallying behind the President to save the agreement from being torpedoed. President Obama has taken the debate to political, diplomatic and even academic levels and forcefully argued that the deal has been the best possible option for the US and the international community. This is the first time in recent history that the US has been able to orchestrate an international coalition prior to making an agreement with an adversary. Last week the UN Security Council unanimously endorsed the agreement.
The criticisms were directed not on the substance of the deal, but on the presumptions upon which it was negotiated. The critics argued that Obama was weak in the negotiations, failed to make a better deal and that the agreement offered a secure trajectory for Iran to make nuclear weapons. Having access to billions of unfrozen dollars, Iran would upgrade its nuclear capability and strengthen militant outfits, including Hamas and Hezbollah. The opponents believe that Iran’s tumultuous past was not taken into account and remonstrate that Iran would strive to establish its hegemony and redesign the region. Egypt, Turkey and Algeria would now strive for nuclear arsenals. The nuclear deal, they predict, would give birth to an arms race in the Middle East and is a recipe for the destabilisation of the region.
The agreement was not negotiated by the US alone — five leading world powers inexorably participated in the negotiations, which lasted for weeks. The US negotiating team had a group of diplomats led by the Secretary of State John Kerry and was assisted by a team of technical experts, led by Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, a nuclear physicist. The fact that Obama assembled a strong professional team to represent the US, shows his resolve to work out a comprehensive, sustainable and acceptable agreement. The characterisation of Obama as weak in negotiations is incongruous with reality.
It is alleged that Obama drifted from an earlier commitment of dismantling Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and failed to insert the “anytime and anywhere” inspection of nuclear facilities in the agreement. In fact, the deal requires Iran to reduce the number of uranium centrifuges from 19,000 to 6,000. Its stockpiles of enriched uranium will be slashed from 10,000 kilogrammes to 300. The Fordow enrichment site will be converted into a research centre and the Arak heavy water reactor will be redesigned to produce only one kilogramme of plutonium per annum. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will have a greater access to nuclear sites, including, if necessary, military installations. Iran would not enrich more uranium than the 3.67 percent needed for its nuclear power plant for 15 years. Is this deal not dismantling Iran’s nuclear infrastructure?
John Kerry explained in the Senate that inspection protocol would be an IAEA antidote, with the cooperation of the Iranian government. It is beyond Washington’s purview to seek the inclusion of “anytime and anywhere” inspections or any other clause in the protocol. One should not lose sight of Iran’s status as a regional super power, ascended to a threshold nuclear state, as counterpart of US led international community. Iran is not in an inextricable situation as Japan and Germany were towards the end of World War II. Iran has endured sanctions for over three decades and fought nine years of war against Iraq, but has never been relegated to being dictated. It is as simple as this.
What would happen if Congress overwhelmingly rejects the agreement? Would Iran concede to additional US demands? In 2005, following two years of protracted negotiations, Britain, Germany and France failed to reach an agreement with Iran. After the talks broke down, Tehran intensified its nuclear program. In less than eight years, Iran increased its number of centrifuges from 200 to 19,000, developed 16,000 pounds of enriched uranium and transformed the Arak heavy water reactor to an advanced nuclear facility. The economic sanctions notwithstanding, Tehran installed 6,000 new centrifuges between 2012 and 2013. Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi warned that if Congress kills the deal, “we can return to our program”. Torpedoing the deal would not be a reset to where things stood before the negotiations began two years ago; Iran would certainly strive to enhance its nuclear capabilities with renewed exuberance.
There is a profound difference between the US and its coalition partners in the perception of the sanctions. The Europeans feel disenchanted with continuing the sanctions. EU Foreign Policy Chief Federica Mogherini visited Tehran on July 28 and identified possible areas of cooperation. French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius visited Tehran on July 29 and discussed areas of partnership. A French economic delegation will visit Iran in September to explore investment in auto industries and transportation. Carmakers Peugeot and Renault, major partners in the Iranian auto industry prior to the sanctions, are keen to re-enter the market. Russia has been an unwilling partner of the sanctions regime and delivered surface to air missiles in May, as part of an earlier deal, and is eager to resume supplying armaments. China is anxious to import Iranian oil because it is cheaper and can reach China faster. In short, there are indications that the coalition is crumbling and the sanctions will fall flat. Kerry rightly pointed out that, “Our partners will not walk away with us and we will have squandered the best chance to solve this problem through peaceful means.” He reminded the Senate that Congress will have to take full responsibility if it kills the agreement.
Iran has made unprecedented concessions in order to reach the agreement. The US negotiating team — diplomats and experts — was in agreement with the coalition partners that this was the best deal that they could work out. Those opposing the agreement are doing so for the appeasement of Israel, but the time has come to re-evaluate how long Americans should pay, in both economic and diplomatic terms, for the sake of Israel. This realisation has dawned on the Europeans, and they have begun to distance themselves from Israel. France threatened to impose sanctions against Israel for building settlements on Palestinian land. Washington should put a restraint on its involvement “anytime and anywhere”, at any cost. Israel, having a stockpile of over 120 nuclear arsenals, can safeguard its own security. The US government should mind its own business and pay attention to gun violence, racism and income inequality at home, which are posing grave threats to national security.
The writer is a former official of the United Nations