Peace in our Time, or a Brave New World? Thoughts on the tentative Nuclear Agreement with Iran
Well, that was unexpected. After weeks of frantic negotiations and shuttle diplomacy, multi-party talks between the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, Germany, and Iran, all involved parties managed to reach a tentative agreement on Iran's nuclear program. I'm not ashamed to admit that the whole thing reminded me of a Tom Clancy novel at times, with secret preliminary talks stretching back months, and I honestly admit as well, that I did not expect things to get that far.
The reactions to this agreement have been swift, varied, and forceful. While the involved parties hail the deal as a major breakthrough, reactions from the Gulf States have remained suspiciously silent on it, while Israel was downright hostile to the agreement. I expect the conservative elements in the US political spectrum will join Israel in that attitude in due time.
But what exactly is this deal about? Well, Iran has had nuclear ambitions dating back to the time of Shah Reza Pahlevi, way before the Islamic Revolution. Work on the first nuclear power station in Iran, near the city of Bushehr in southern Iran, started as early as 1975, though it was halted after the ousting of the Shah during the revolution in 1979. It was supposed to be the first of an entire network of nuclear plants that would supply the electrical needs of Iran, and uncouple the country's power supply from oil based resources. The entire program juddered to a halt in the post-revolution period, with a decade being lost to the Iraq-Iran war, and the country generally reorienting itself to the new framework within which it would operate from now on. Things started picking up speed by the mid 1990s, with work beginning on dedicated facilities for the enrichment of Uranium, necessary both for the civilian and military utilisation of that element.
And that exactly is the crux of the issue right there. Uranium in its natural form as Uranium 238, while radioactive, is unusable for power generation. Any uranium that is destined to be used in a power plant needs to be enriched to contain about 3-5% of the isotope Uranium 235, whose nucleus can be split to produce energy, or which is fissile, as the scientific terms for that is. However, the same technology used to enrich uranium to that 3-5% level mentioned above can also be used to enrich it to 20%, which is the base for all other steps leading to uranium based nuclear weapons. That was the problem with Iran. The country, which was, and in many respects still is extremely sceptical about the intention of Western powers, understandable, given British and US history with Iran, not least the Mossadeq Coup in 1956, has been very secretive about its nuclear program. This went as far as to not inform the IAEA in Vienna about two nuclear facilities that it had been planning or constructing, a uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, as well as a "heavy water" plant at Arak, which would be able to produce weapons grade plutonium out of spent fuel rods, a key component in certain nuclear reactors. All this fuelled distrust among Western nations. It was feared that Iran might be working on usable nuclear weapons which, coupled with the country's proven ballistic missile arsenal, would have turned it into a feasible nuclear power in a region that already is extremely volatile.
The agreement that was finished last night in Geneva provides a way out of it. In it, Iran will immediately stop enriching Uranium beyond the 5% threshold mentioned above. Any stockpiles of Uranium enriched to 20% of Uranium 235 will either be destroyed or degraded to the level of 5%. Furthermore, any work on the Arak plutonium facility will cease. It will not be completed, stocked with deuterium oxide or heavy water, fuelled, or put into use. All this will be verified by inspections conducted by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Their teams will be able to conduct unannounced daily inspections at all facilities connected with Iran's nuclear program. In return, international sanctions against Iran will be eased, giving the country time to stabilise itself, and pull itself back from the brink. All this will be limited to six months, giving all involved parties time to pen a more permanent agreement.
All the above is a landmark moment in the history of the relations with Iran. The attitude towards Iran exhibited by the West has been dominated by hostility ever since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, an attitude that was only too enthusiastically reciprocated by the government in Tehran. Especially the United States of America have been openly hostile, having broken off diplomatic relations with the country after the storming of the embassy in Tehran during the 1979 revolution.
Still, even with all the bad blood that has been spilled between all involved party over the last decades, this agreement is effectively the only way forward. Iran, while it has been positioning itself as a regional hegemonial power, has historically not had many territorial ambitions in the area, and is working to resolve border issues in the Caspian Basin through negotiations. Iran has nothing to gain from starting a war in the area, and the government in Tehran knows it. Furthermore, Iran has historically been a nation of traders, a nation that has traditionally preferred pragmatic solutions over fanaticism and over-the-top nationalism. After all, it is not Iran where two large cities are totally off-limits to foreigners.
The opposition, as I mentioned at the beginning, is fierce. Israel rejected the agreement out of hand, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claiming it was a huge mistake, and that it would make the world more dangerous. Significantly, Saudi Arabia has remained suspiciously silent so far, despite being bitterly opposed to the negations previously, as have the United Arab Emirates, who have territorial claims to two islands currently held by Iran. The Israeli opposition was to be expected, the country has traditionally been at the receiving end of hostile statements from Tehran, where successive governments and religious leaders have called for it to be wiped off the map. However, as far-right parties have been gaining more than more traction in the political landscape in Israel, a self-preservation centred policy by Tel Aviv has more and more been replaced by a policy of paranoia, seeing enemies and traitors everywhere.
There is another element in the forceful reaction by Israel, however. For decades, the foreign policy of the United States of America has revolved around supporting, defending, and protecting Israel, their strongest ally in the Middle East and Levant. With this policy came large levels of economic, financial, and military support, which has lead to Israel being an economic powerhouse, and a military juggernaut in the region, going so far, as to having its own space program based at Palmachim Air Base. With this tentative agreement concerning Iran, it looks to me as if Israeli politicians are afraid that this flow of money and equipment might recede, and the country might be sidelined. In effect, they are afraid that the US might not care about them anymore. Similar fears are most likely the reason behind the opposition coming from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates as well. Both countries are militarily strong enough to deal with Iran, but would be the economic losers of any normalisation between the United States and Iran, which would enable Iran to move back into the position of trading post between east and west that it has traditionally been.
The result of the negotiations in Geneva is remarkable, there is no denying that. For the first time since 1979, a true dialogue between the western powers and the Islamic Republic of Iran has taken place, leading to a result that seemed impossible just a few years ago. All sides need to be commended for their determination in seeing this through. Will this be a first step into a renaissance of relations with Iran, or has US Secretary of State John Kerry followed in the footsteps of Neville Chamberlain, hammering out a new version of the Munich Agreement? Only time will be able to tell that. However, given the implications of any military action in the region at the moment, it would be foolish not to use any chance for a cooperative solution if it presents itself.
The agreement that was finished last night in Geneva provides a way out of it. In it, Iran will immediately stop enriching Uranium beyond the 5% threshold mentioned above. Any stockpiles of Uranium enriched to 20% of Uranium 235 will either be destroyed or degraded to the level of 5%. Furthermore, any work on the Arak plutonium facility will cease. It will not be completed, stocked with deuterium oxide or heavy water, fuelled, or put into use. All this will be verified by inspections conducted by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Their teams will be able to conduct unannounced daily inspections at all facilities connected with Iran's nuclear program. In return, international sanctions against Iran will be eased, giving the country time to stabilise itself, and pull itself back from the brink. All this will be limited to six months, giving all involved parties time to pen a more permanent agreement.
All the above is a landmark moment in the history of the relations with Iran. The attitude towards Iran exhibited by the West has been dominated by hostility ever since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, an attitude that was only too enthusiastically reciprocated by the government in Tehran. Especially the United States of America have been openly hostile, having broken off diplomatic relations with the country after the storming of the embassy in Tehran during the 1979 revolution.
Still, even with all the bad blood that has been spilled between all involved party over the last decades, this agreement is effectively the only way forward. Iran, while it has been positioning itself as a regional hegemonial power, has historically not had many territorial ambitions in the area, and is working to resolve border issues in the Caspian Basin through negotiations. Iran has nothing to gain from starting a war in the area, and the government in Tehran knows it. Furthermore, Iran has historically been a nation of traders, a nation that has traditionally preferred pragmatic solutions over fanaticism and over-the-top nationalism. After all, it is not Iran where two large cities are totally off-limits to foreigners.
The opposition, as I mentioned at the beginning, is fierce. Israel rejected the agreement out of hand, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claiming it was a huge mistake, and that it would make the world more dangerous. Significantly, Saudi Arabia has remained suspiciously silent so far, despite being bitterly opposed to the negations previously, as have the United Arab Emirates, who have territorial claims to two islands currently held by Iran. The Israeli opposition was to be expected, the country has traditionally been at the receiving end of hostile statements from Tehran, where successive governments and religious leaders have called for it to be wiped off the map. However, as far-right parties have been gaining more than more traction in the political landscape in Israel, a self-preservation centred policy by Tel Aviv has more and more been replaced by a policy of paranoia, seeing enemies and traitors everywhere.
There is another element in the forceful reaction by Israel, however. For decades, the foreign policy of the United States of America has revolved around supporting, defending, and protecting Israel, their strongest ally in the Middle East and Levant. With this policy came large levels of economic, financial, and military support, which has lead to Israel being an economic powerhouse, and a military juggernaut in the region, going so far, as to having its own space program based at Palmachim Air Base. With this tentative agreement concerning Iran, it looks to me as if Israeli politicians are afraid that this flow of money and equipment might recede, and the country might be sidelined. In effect, they are afraid that the US might not care about them anymore. Similar fears are most likely the reason behind the opposition coming from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates as well. Both countries are militarily strong enough to deal with Iran, but would be the economic losers of any normalisation between the United States and Iran, which would enable Iran to move back into the position of trading post between east and west that it has traditionally been.
The result of the negotiations in Geneva is remarkable, there is no denying that. For the first time since 1979, a true dialogue between the western powers and the Islamic Republic of Iran has taken place, leading to a result that seemed impossible just a few years ago. All sides need to be commended for their determination in seeing this through. Will this be a first step into a renaissance of relations with Iran, or has US Secretary of State John Kerry followed in the footsteps of Neville Chamberlain, hammering out a new version of the Munich Agreement? Only time will be able to tell that. However, given the implications of any military action in the region at the moment, it would be foolish not to use any chance for a cooperative solution if it presents itself.
Comments
Post a Comment