The P5+1 and Iran have announced that they have reached an agreement on the Iranian nuclear program. Remember that this agreement is merely an interim agreement, designed to be in effect for only for 6 months while a longer, more permanent agreement is pursued. The White House has issued a fact sheet on what the agreement entails.
What did the Iranians give up? According to the Financial Times:
“Iran will “neutralise” its stockpile of 20 per cent uranium by diluting below 5 per cent or converting to a form not suitable for further enrichment; halt progress on its enrichment capacity; and leave inoperable about half of installed centrifuges at Natanz and three-quarters of centrifuges at Fordow.
“Iran will also commit to freeze activities at its Arak heavy-water facility which is under construction and, if operable, could produce plutonium for a nuclear weapon. Iran would also not construct a facility capable of reprocessing plutonium from spent fuel.”
Iran has also agreed to what the agreement calls “enhanced monitoring” which translates into daily inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The two enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordow are already subject to the most intrusive inspections ever maintained by the IAEA: weekly, unannounced inspections.
What did Iran gain? Certain of the sanctions against Iran will be lifted–according to the US about $7 billion out of a total of $100 billion worth of sanctions. The curb on the export of Iranian oil will not be lifted (so do not look for gasoline prices to go down quickly). And Iran will be able to enrich uranium to 5%, although it cannot increase its supplies of 5% enriched uranium during the six months. The latter point is significant. Although the NPT explicitly recognizes the right of every signatory nation to run a peaceful nuclear program, the UN Security Council in its previous three resolutions on Iran has demanded that Iran had to “suspend” its enrichment activities. So even though the US and the other members of the Security Council had argued that Iran had no “right” to enrich uranium (a case presumably based on some sense of the illegitimate intentions of the Iranian state), the agreement implicitly recognizes that Iran has a right to enrich uranium.
What are the reactions from other states to the agreement? One should be careful here: initial comments are almost purely rhetorical since no one has had a chance to really study the agreement. We will follow up on this issue as more careful reactions emerge. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu called the agreement a “historic mistake.” Last Friday, Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the UK, Prince Mohammed bin Nawaf bin Abdulaziz, said “We are not going to sit idly by and receive a threat there and not think seriously how we can best defend our country and our region.” When asked what his country’s options were, he replied: “…all options are available.” Finally, there are many in Congress who opposed any deal that recognized the right of Iran to enrich uranium.
My own view is that this agreement is a very good first step and should be firmly supported. I have no reassurances to offer to those who oppose the deal because it offers no “certainty” that Iran will not develop the capability to develop a nuclear weapon. But the absence of an agreement offers no certainty whatsoever of that outcome. Indeed, without any agreement, Iran has developed a serious capability even in the face of the toughest sanctions the UN has ever applied to any state. The only course of action that holds out any possibility of a permanently disarmed Iran is an armed attack upon Iranian nuclear facilities, and there are considerable doubts about whether that option is at all viable or desirable. President Rouhani has sent many signals that he is serious about reintegrating Iran into the global economy and there are countless reasons to believe that that objective is a compelling one to him and all of the Iranian people. I genuinely hope that the agreement succeeds.
World Politics News 
Leave a comment