Iran’s
nuclear deal?
S P
SETH
Of late there has reportedly been some exchange of correspondence,
though not officially acknowledged, between US President Barack Obama and
Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. It is said to relate to the ongoing nuclear
negotiations, and the prospect of cooperation between the two countries against
ISIS, especially in the event of a successful nuclear deal. The March 31
deadline for the end of talks is fast approaching. If there is no deal by then,
it is possible that talks might be extended. But Obama has indicated that, “I
don’t see a further extension being useful if they have not agreed to the basic
formulation and the bottom line that the world requires to have confidence that
they’re [Iranians] not pursuing a nuclear weapon.”
On the Iranian side, although the supreme leader has authorized the
talks he hasn’t been confident about a successful outcome because he too
doesn’t trust the US, going back at least to the 1979 Iranian revolution. In
other words, there is a trust deficit on both sides. Despite this they still
managed to sign an interim agreement earlier that was extended to continue
talks for a longer and durable deal. And this is where the situation stands,
though there are reports that a medium term deal might be in the offing.
As far as Iran’s Five-plus-one negotiating partners (US, UK, France,
Russia, China and Germany) are concerned, they would like to cap Iran’s uranium
enrichment capability preferably below 5 per cent to prevent it from a 12-month
“breakout” period to make a bomb. And with an international regime of on site
inspectors with access to open, as well as secret, facilities, it is hoped that
Iran will be adequately policed in regard to its nuclear programme. The interim
deal as well as the on-going negotiations appears to have established one thing.
Which is that Iran has the sovereign right to pursue a peaceful nuclear
programme, as long as it is not covertly or overtly linked to making a bomb.
Iran denies strongly that its nuclear research and facilities are weapons
oriented. But Israel, supported by a very powerful political lobby in the
United States across party lines, simply do not buy Iranian peaceful
protestations.
Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu has called the Iranian President
Hasan Rouhani a ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’ for his country’s nuclear diplomacy.
And Netanyahu has so much clout in the US’ political establishment that Speaker
John Boehner of the US House of Representatives has invited him to address the
US Congress on Iran’s nuclear question without prior reference/clearance from
the White House. Usually, in diplomatic parlance, such prime ministerial visits
are arranged through regular diplomatic channels with the involvement of the
White House staff and a pre-arranged itinerary.
The Republican Speaker Boehner discarded all these avenues to enable
Netanyahu to directly canvass opposition to any nuclear deal with Iran. Apparently,
during his visit to address the Congress this month, Netanyahu will not be received
at the White House, which is the least that Obama administration can do to show
their displeasure. Indeed, the relationship between the Netanyahu regime and
the Obama administration has deteriorated to the point where Susan Rice,
Obama’s national security adviser, described it as “destructive of the fabric
of the relationship.”
But assured of the support within the US across party lines,
Natanyahu is determined to torpedo any agreement that might allow Iran to
continue its nuclear programme even under the strictest international
inspection regime. Fearing that an agreement is in the making, he said recently
that in this way, “…Iran will gradually, within a few years, develop
capabilities to produce material for many nuclear weapons.” For the Netanyahu
government, the only solution to stop any “breakout” to Iranian bomb making is
to launch an all-out attack to destroy its nuclear facilities. And if the US
wouldn’t do, Israel is ready but it would need US backing and military support
to handle any aftermath. Which is not forthcoming so far, at least.
Anyway the Obama administration has made it clear that in the event
of Iran opting for a nuclear weapons path, the US would keep all options open,
including the military one. Obama’s former secretary of state Hillary Clinton,
a likely presidential candidate in 2016, believes that an Iranian nuclear
weapons programme would threaten ‘Israel, their neighbours and the world’,
warning that in the event of an Iranian nuclear strike on Iran, ‘we would be
able totally to obliterate them.’ All these threats are responding to an
imaginary situation where Iran is supposedly a full-fledged nuclear power with
an arsenal of nuclear weapons and a sophisticated delivery system. The fact is
that even US intelligence agencies do not believe that Iran has or will have
such capability any time soon, even if they were so inclined.
In other words, Iran’s presumed or intended nuclear weapons programme
is more like shadow boxing, with Israel pulling strings to make it look real.
If any country in the Middle East has an impressive and dangerous nuclear
arsenal, it is the state of Israel but that is not considered relevant. This is
the politics of hypocrisy and double standards. Which is not to suggest that
Iran should go ahead and build up nuclear weapons. What it suggests is that how
come Iran’s non-existent nuclear status is more dangerous than Israel’s very
potent nuclear arsenal in the Middle East’s volatile mix.
But coming back to the ongoing negotiations between Iran and its
five-plus-one negotiating partners, any respite from a comprehensive sanctions
regime, were Iran to accept US terms for virtually mothballing its nuclear
programme, would be incremental. And it will be tied to Iran’s performance as
judged by its interlocutors. In other words, the US will be at liberty to
reward or punish Iran at its whim. In any case, with hawks in the US political
establishment dead set against Iran, a durable resolution of the nuclear issue
is quite challenging. John McCain, the Republican chairman of the armed
services committee, reportedly said recently that, “There’s a delusion that
somehow we’re going to have an agreement with Iran…[and] that we’ll all be
working together.” He added, “Iranians are on the march in the Middle East.” Alan
Dershowitz, an influential commentator, recently opined that, “Iran and the
mullahs are not rational calculators… This is a suicide nation controlled by
suicidal leaders.”
Against such a noxious backdrop, even an agreement at the Geneva
talks will face the wrath of the Congress with more sanctions likely. And with
the Congressional platform at his disposal, Netanyahu will do his best to work
up the Congress and the Zionist lobby to a fever pitch to torpedo any nuclear
deal between Iran, and the five-plus-one powers. President Obama has reportedly
said that he would veto a Congressional rejection of a prospective deal. This
is United States’ politics at its worst. In all this, one sometimes wonders who
is the real President of the United States: Obama or Netanyahu?
