Limited things for a limited time
What the interim agreement does not do is dismantle important aspects of Iran’s nuclear capacity or potential
The interim nuclear accord between Iran and the six world powers is a significant accomplishment by any measure. The agreement is the product of years of coordinated, sustained diplomacy, mostly involving the US and its principal European partners. Success also reflects the sophisticated use of diplomacy against the backdrop of economic sanctions and the credible threat of military force. In addition, the accord demonstrates the ability of the new Iranian government of President Hassan Rouhani to compromise and its desire to get recognition at home for what it receives in return.
The interim agreement itself places meaningful constraints on several dimensions of Iran’s nuclear programme, in exchange for providing Iran with a degree of financial relief from existing economic sanctions. The accord, better understood as a ceiling than a freeze, also establishes a level of inspections that is far more intrusive than what has existed.
The net result will be to slow the pace of Iran’s progress towards putting into place the many elements of a nuclear weapons capability, in the process increasing the time and warning the world will have between any Iranian decision to produce one or more nuclear weapons and when it will actually achieve that goal.
What the interim agreement does not do is dismantle important aspects of Iran’s nuclear capacity or potential. This is an agreement that does limited things for a limited time, no more and no less.
Those who are opposing the interim accord for what it does not do are asking too much. The measure of any diplomatic agreement cannot be the possible versus the ideal but rather the possible versus the realistic alternatives, in this case either living with an Iranian nuclear weapons capability that would lead others in the already unstable Middle East to follow suit or launching a preventive military strike without knowing in advance what it would accomplish or set in motion. This interim pact is far preferable to either alternative.
Also not realistic are arguments suggesting that since sanctions are working, there is no reason to enter into an agreement that falls short of the objective of getting Iran out of the nuclear business altogether. International support for sanctions would collapse long before that goal was in sight. And this or any Iranian government would opt for confrontation over negotiation if humiliation was the certain outcome of the latter.
The real question to be considered surrounds not the interim accord just completed, but the follow- on or “comprehensive” agreement to come. The announced aim is to finish negotiating and begin implementing such a pact within a year. The incentive for Iran is obvious: The agreed upon wording promises the end of all nuclear- related sanctions ( but presumably not those sanc- tions linked to other aspects of Iran’s behaviour that are found objectionable).
Less certain is what Iran would be obligated to do in return. According to what we know, Iran would be permitted to operate a nuclear enrichment programme, but the amount of uranium that it could produce and stockpile is yet to be set. Also to be determined is Iran’s capacity to enrich, something that would require establishing quantitative and qualitative limits on the centrifuges it could possess and operate.
Follow- on agreement
The follow- on accord would preclude Iran from undertaking a second path ( one of reprocessing, be it at the Arak site or anywhere else) to produce materials that could be used in nuclear weapons. The right to enrich would not extend to a right to reprocess. The follow- on agreement will require considerable, but unspecified transparency. An ambitious monitoring and inspections regime will be critical. “Don’t trust but verify” might be the theme.
One unresolved issue is the duration of any follow- on accord. The current text says the duration is to be specific and long- term but not more than that. This could be a problem as it could be very hard to get countries to agree to complete sanctions relief in the absence of confidence that the conditions placed on Iran will be permanent or close to that.
Yet, even a demanding and long- lasting agreement would not remove the threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon. This or some future government in Tehran could decide to take the risk of resuming or accelerating a nuclear weapons programme. The goal of diplomacy cannot be to make this impossible, but rather both difficult and detectable with enough advance warning to allow for a number of possible responses.
As is the case with the interim agreement, such an outcome will not be enough for some. But it should be. Iran, not simply owing to its nuclear ambitions but also because of its drive for regional influence, is a challenge to be managed more than a problem to be solved. Indeed, the challenge of Iran could be solved only through the emergence of a government and policies characterised by much greater moderation and responsibility. Change of this sort, if it happens at all, tends to take a great deal of time. But time is just what this interim agreement offers. It is thus worthy of support.
gulfnews. com