Amid a volcano of opposition, a framework agreement was signed in Lausanne by P5+1 countries and Iran that will limit Tehran’s uranium enrichment capabilities, while keeping its infrastructure intact, the final pact slated to be signed at the end of June. Iranians may be setting-off celebratory fireworks, but others around the region view this new US-Iranian accord with trepidation.
This is a deal that’s been on the US president’s bucket list since 2007 when he vowed to engage in direct talks with the Iranians, followed up with friendly New Year messages to the Iranian people and letters to Iran’s Supreme Leader.
Coincidentally—or not—Obama’s vice president, Joe Biden, and secretary of state, John Kerry, have been rooting for the US to mend bridges with Iran for years. As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Biden was pressing for country-to-country engagement with Iran “just as we did with North Korea” (Look how that turned out!).
Kerry, unlike his predecessor Hilary Clinton, has long been dovish on Iran. In 2007, he voted against a Senate resolution to “combat, contain and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.” Both Kerry and Biden voted against a 2013 Senate amendment to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps terrorist.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion on this issue; it’s possible that Obama and his lieutenants are genuine in their rush to bring Iran back into the international fold. But it takes two to tango and we’ve yet to see whether the ayatollahs will keep to their commitments. Some of the rhetoric out of Iran is hardly reassuring.
While talks were ongoing, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei was still calling for “Death to America” and just days after the so-called historic deal was cemented, Iran’s foreign minister, Mohamed Javed Zarif, boasted that the agreement permits his country to continue enriching uranium and to keep all its nuclear facilities operating.
In response to the US publication of a fact sheet outlining Iranian concessions, Zarif contested points on Twitter. “There is no need to spin using ‘fact sheets’ so early on, the solutions are good for all as they stand,” he wrote, denying that sanctions relief is due to occur in phases. Quoting the Iranian-P5+1 statement, he wrote: “US will cease the application of all nuclear-related secondary economic and financial sanctions. Is this gradual? He went on to add: “The EU will terminate the implementation of all nuclear-related economic and financial sanctions. How about this?”
If he’s correct, one can either assume that the Obama administration is manipulating reality to persuade critics of the deal on board or that the Iranian foreign minister has misconstrued the agreement’s terms. I’ll go with the former. Obama is now acting like a snake-oil salesman whispering sweet nothings to the Israeli premier over the phone, delivering withheld F16s to Egypt and offering logistical and intelligence support to the Saudi-led coalition’s operations in Yemen. Moreover, he has invited GCC leaders to a summit to be held at Camp David to discuss their concerns. I doubt he’ll have too many takers.
Just like the deal the White House made with the Syrian regime to dismantle its chemical weapons capability, this one is similarly flawed. It’s just as specific and rewards Iran for permitting intrusive IAEA inspection and monitoring, even though, until now, it has declined to come clean on its past military-associated nuclear activities. It does not address Iran’s activities in Syria and Iraq or its continuing attempts to destabilize Bahrain and Yemen. And neither does it call upon Tehran to return the three UAE islands forcibly occupied by the Shah in 1971.
Basically, all Iran has to do to get sanctions lifted is to shrink its uranium stockpile, eschew use of sophisticated centrifuges and open all its nuclear facilities to inspectors for 10 years. Being able to export its oil and gas will bring health to its coffers and presumably those of its armed proxies.
Legitimizing a rogue state that no longer bothers to hide its empire-expanding ambitions is a move that is bound to be viewed with suspicion by Iran’s Gulf neighbors. Arab leaders may not be as vocal as the bumptious Israeli premier but they are just as suspicious of a deal on which they were briefed only after it was done and dusted. Representatives of Gulf States and their Arab allies should have been invited to participate in the talks as main players from the get-go.
As much as I hate raining on Obama’s jolly parade, the way forward is strewn with obstacles.
The biggest boulder is Congress, where a sizable number of lawmakers remain highly suspicious. America’s powerful pro-Israel lobby will be doing some horse-trading behind the scenes and it’s reasonable to suppose that Iran’s hard-liners will seek to bend the Supreme Leader’s ear. In Israel, the “bomb Iran” chatter has been revived in high circles, an idea currently being trumpeted by Sen. John McCain and others on the grounds that Washington would be obliged to join the fray on Israel’s side.
From now until end June, there’s a chance the pendulum could swing the other way. If it does, Obama will be robbed of his biggest presidential legacy and the US embarrassed on the world stage. This is one gamble he won’t want to lose.
Linda S. Heard is a British specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback and can be contacted by email at heardonthegrapevines@yahoo.co.uk.
RSS
A bumpy road ahead
Posted on April 9, 2015 by Linda S. Heard
Amid a volcano of opposition, a framework agreement was signed in Lausanne by P5+1 countries and Iran that will limit Tehran’s uranium enrichment capabilities, while keeping its infrastructure intact, the final pact slated to be signed at the end of June. Iranians may be setting-off celebratory fireworks, but others around the region view this new US-Iranian accord with trepidation.
This is a deal that’s been on the US president’s bucket list since 2007 when he vowed to engage in direct talks with the Iranians, followed up with friendly New Year messages to the Iranian people and letters to Iran’s Supreme Leader.
Coincidentally—or not—Obama’s vice president, Joe Biden, and secretary of state, John Kerry, have been rooting for the US to mend bridges with Iran for years. As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Biden was pressing for country-to-country engagement with Iran “just as we did with North Korea” (Look how that turned out!).
Kerry, unlike his predecessor Hilary Clinton, has long been dovish on Iran. In 2007, he voted against a Senate resolution to “combat, contain and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.” Both Kerry and Biden voted against a 2013 Senate amendment to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps terrorist.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion on this issue; it’s possible that Obama and his lieutenants are genuine in their rush to bring Iran back into the international fold. But it takes two to tango and we’ve yet to see whether the ayatollahs will keep to their commitments. Some of the rhetoric out of Iran is hardly reassuring.
While talks were ongoing, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei was still calling for “Death to America” and just days after the so-called historic deal was cemented, Iran’s foreign minister, Mohamed Javed Zarif, boasted that the agreement permits his country to continue enriching uranium and to keep all its nuclear facilities operating.
In response to the US publication of a fact sheet outlining Iranian concessions, Zarif contested points on Twitter. “There is no need to spin using ‘fact sheets’ so early on, the solutions are good for all as they stand,” he wrote, denying that sanctions relief is due to occur in phases. Quoting the Iranian-P5+1 statement, he wrote: “US will cease the application of all nuclear-related secondary economic and financial sanctions. Is this gradual? He went on to add: “The EU will terminate the implementation of all nuclear-related economic and financial sanctions. How about this?”
If he’s correct, one can either assume that the Obama administration is manipulating reality to persuade critics of the deal on board or that the Iranian foreign minister has misconstrued the agreement’s terms. I’ll go with the former. Obama is now acting like a snake-oil salesman whispering sweet nothings to the Israeli premier over the phone, delivering withheld F16s to Egypt and offering logistical and intelligence support to the Saudi-led coalition’s operations in Yemen. Moreover, he has invited GCC leaders to a summit to be held at Camp David to discuss their concerns. I doubt he’ll have too many takers.
Just like the deal the White House made with the Syrian regime to dismantle its chemical weapons capability, this one is similarly flawed. It’s just as specific and rewards Iran for permitting intrusive IAEA inspection and monitoring, even though, until now, it has declined to come clean on its past military-associated nuclear activities. It does not address Iran’s activities in Syria and Iraq or its continuing attempts to destabilize Bahrain and Yemen. And neither does it call upon Tehran to return the three UAE islands forcibly occupied by the Shah in 1971.
Basically, all Iran has to do to get sanctions lifted is to shrink its uranium stockpile, eschew use of sophisticated centrifuges and open all its nuclear facilities to inspectors for 10 years. Being able to export its oil and gas will bring health to its coffers and presumably those of its armed proxies.
Legitimizing a rogue state that no longer bothers to hide its empire-expanding ambitions is a move that is bound to be viewed with suspicion by Iran’s Gulf neighbors. Arab leaders may not be as vocal as the bumptious Israeli premier but they are just as suspicious of a deal on which they were briefed only after it was done and dusted. Representatives of Gulf States and their Arab allies should have been invited to participate in the talks as main players from the get-go.
As much as I hate raining on Obama’s jolly parade, the way forward is strewn with obstacles.
The biggest boulder is Congress, where a sizable number of lawmakers remain highly suspicious. America’s powerful pro-Israel lobby will be doing some horse-trading behind the scenes and it’s reasonable to suppose that Iran’s hard-liners will seek to bend the Supreme Leader’s ear. In Israel, the “bomb Iran” chatter has been revived in high circles, an idea currently being trumpeted by Sen. John McCain and others on the grounds that Washington would be obliged to join the fray on Israel’s side.
From now until end June, there’s a chance the pendulum could swing the other way. If it does, Obama will be robbed of his biggest presidential legacy and the US embarrassed on the world stage. This is one gamble he won’t want to lose.
Linda S. Heard is a British specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback and can be contacted by email at heardonthegrapevines@yahoo.co.uk.