You’ve probably been seeing a lot about it in the news lately – Iran may be coming closer to making a nuclear deal with the P5+1 (the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany.) Some people are happy about this – others, not so much.
What might a deal entail?
Currently, Iran is under many sanctions from numerous governments, mainly the United States. Some date back to the Islamic Revolution of 1979; others are more recent, some in response to Iran’s reluctance to cease its uranium enrichment program. These sanctions are very detrimental to Iran’s economy.
On the other hand, much of the world is worried that Iran is seeking to produce nuclear weapons. Iran insists that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. Currently, Iran is operating around 19,000 centrifuges for uranium enrichment.
Iran was found in non-compliance with Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) safeguard standards in 2006, largely by failing to declare its nuclear enrichment program. It was due to this controversy that many of the new sanctions were placed on Iran.
The negotiators hope that under a deal, Iran will agree to slow down its nuclear program, reduce the number of centrifuges to under 5000, and stop some of the more sensitive nuclear activities. In return, some sanctions will be lifted. Since the negotiations are ongoing, more details are not certain.
Needless to say, the subject is highly controversial. Who is causing the controversy?
Iranian Islamic Hardliners
In Iran, there are a significant number of people who oppose any negotiations completely. Former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and current Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamanei have been criticized for belligerent statements towards the West and Israel in particular, such as the notorious comment often translated as a call to “wipe the Zionist regime off the map.” These are the people you might see shouting such things as “Death to America!” On the other hand, these extremists are a minority in Iran. The current President, Hassan Rouhani, is considered a moderate and has made no such threats. He is subordinate to the Supreme Leader, who is seen as conservative and a hardliner; however, it is significant to note that Khamanei, who is very much in favour of the nuclear program, has issued a fatwa, or religious edict, against the use of nuclear weapons.
Benjamin Netanyahu
The Israeli Prime Minister is very much against the proposed agreement, calling it a “bad deal.” In his controversial address to Congress (more on that later), he called Iran “a dark and brutal dictatorship,” and warned that Iran is less than a year away from constructing a nuclear weapon. (He has been making similar claims for the past 20 years.) During his speech, he declared that no deal that left Iran’s nuclear infrastructure intact would be effective, and criticized the ten-year expiry date proposed for the deal.
Furthermore, he claimed that Iran intends to wipe out Israel and the Jewish people as a whole, not only through weapons but through covert funding of terrorism. He also hinted that Iran is encroaching on the sovereignty of its neighbours.
The speech was controversial not only around the world, but within Israel as well. Prominent Israelis such as Meir Dagan, a former head of Mossad, are critical of Netanyahu’s policies towards Iran. Undeterred, Netanyahu is making his stance an election issue, and is even using his speech in his campaign ads. Israel’s election is taking place on March 17.
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif
Zarif responded to Netanyahu’s claims by categorically stating that Iran has no intention whatsoever of producing nuclear weapons. He pointed out that Iran’s facilities have undergone numerous inspections, without discovery of any illicit activity. In fact, leaked documents from Mossad also say that Israel has not found that Iran is enriching uranium to levels necessary to build a bomb.
Zarif also drew attention to the fact that that while Iran has signed the NPT, Israel has not, although it certainly does have a nuclear program. He accuses Netanyahu of hypocrisy on these grounds. He also points out that Iran has a sizeable Jewish community who are politically represented by a Jewish member of parliament. On the other hand, the Iranian Foreign Minister stated that Israel, whose behaviour regarding Palestine is widely condemned, has no right to accuse Iran of threatening other countries. In his words, Netanyahu “considers peace as an existential threat.”
Ultimately, Zarif hopes that the negotiations will be successful. Iranians are eager to see sanctions lifted, and Iran has no desire for nuclear weapons, he says.
In response to the open letter to the leaders of Iran from Sen. Tom Cotton and 46 other Republican Senators, warning that many Congress members are against the deal and may not honour it, he said “This letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy,” and furthermore that “Change of administration does not in any way relieve the next administration from international obligations undertaken by its predecessor.”
The United States: A House Divided
While President Obama is pushing hard for the deal, and both he and Vice-President Biden did not attend Netanyahu’s speech to Congress, many Republicans are in strong opposition. In fact, Netanyahu’s visit was arranged for without consulting the President, which is irregular at best.
Furthermore, the open letter from 47 Republican senators to the government of Iran is causing astonishment and no little controversy. Obama points out that the signatories are making “common cause with the hardliners in Iran,” while Biden fumed that the letter undermines the President while he is in the middle of “sensitive international negotiations.” Others say that the action of sending a letter to a foreign power in order to destabilize the current administration’s foreign affairs is little short of treasonous.
What exactly did the letter say? It is easily found on the internet, but essentially it declares that any agreements the president might make that are not ratified by Congress are “mere executive agreements” and warns that “the next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen.”
The implication is obvious: Even if you make a deal, we won’t honour it.
Zarif, above, pointed out that the proposed agreement will not be bilateral, but will involve seven countries. The United States does not have the power to change agreements made with Germany or China. He calls any such “revocation” a “blatant violation of international law.”
Also shocking is the pointless rudeness of the letter, saying as it does “You may not fully understand our constitutional system,” and finishing with the phrase “We hope this enriches your knowledge.” As if that was not belittling enough, Sen. Cotton tweeted a Farsi translation of the letter with the caption “In case you needed a translation…” directed at Zarif and Rouhani, both of whom speak English fluently. (Ironically, the translation was embarrassingly bad.)
US Secretary of State John Kerry condemned the letter as “irresponsible” and “absolutely incorrect,” and other Republican senators who did not sign the letter criticized it as “not productive” and “not constructive.”
Ayatollah Khamenei, for his part, said that the letter “indicates the collapse of political ethics in the United States.” On this one issue, it seems that he and many Americans agree.
What will happen next?
The proposed deadline for the rough outline of a deal is the end of March, with negotiations over further details continuing to the end of June.
Elections in Israel are taking place right now.
Obama is serving his second presidential term, and there will be another presidential election on November 8, 2016.
Many worry about what will happen when Khamenei, who is in his seventies, dies and who will replace him.
Whatever the outcome of all these variables, we can only hope for peace.
Leave a Reply