A deal with Iran?

As the June 30 deadline is fast approaching, the P5+1 great powers are wondering whether they could finally hammer out a deal with Iran that would open its nuclear programme to strict international inspections in exchange for easing sanctions.

While observers argue that the two sides are on the verge of striking a historic deal, scepticism runs deep among Iranians and Americans alike. It seems that opposition to the expected deal has stiffened both in Iran and the US, for different reasons.

Thus far, many key figures in American politics urged President Barack Obama to give up the idea and to dismiss the possibility of an agreement with Iran over its controversial nuclear programme. 

Likewise, hardliners in Tehran have raised anti-American rhetoric, urging the Iranian delegation to stiffen its position.

The idea of international inspection of Iranian military sites is anathema to many influential Iranian politicians, particularly the hardliners.

Not long ago, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei made clear that there would be some “red lines” that should not be crossed even for the sake of an agreement with the West.

Khamenei is the final arbiter in Iranian politics and his opinion is most likely to prevail in the end.

If the Iranian team will stick to the list of red lines presented by Khamenei, there will be no agreement to speak of.

Much to Khamenei’s chagrin, inspectors will try to figure out whether Iran tried to develop nuclear weapons in the past.

However, US Secretary of State John Kerry said his country was not obsessed with what Iran did in the past, but any deal should give International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) officials easy access to answer any question about the military dimension of Iran’s past research and activities.

It is yet not clear how Iranians will backtrack from Khamenei’s “red lines”.

On the other hand, the American team is accused of not being tough with the Iranians. The fear that Obama is driven by his ambition to leave a legacy is almost ubiquitous in some circles in Washington.

For this reason, Obama will find it hard to sell any agreement with Iran unless it meets the conditions of a good deal.

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy just issued a public statement on US policy vis-à-vis Iran’s nuclear negotiations.

The public statement is endorsed by a bipartisan group of American diplomats, legislators, policy makers and experts.

It reads: “We fear that the current negotiations, unless concluded along the lines outlined in this paper and buttressed by a resolute regional strategy, may fall short of meeting the administration’s own standard of a ‘good’ agreement. We are united in our view that to maximise its potential for deterring and dissuading Iran from building a nuclear weapon, the emerging nuclear agreement must — in addition to its existing provisions — provide specific measures.”

The most important points in the statement are relevant to monitoring, verification and the right of inspectors to have access and interview scientists and government officials.

Additionally, the statement emphasises the need to outline the consequences of violations and cheating.

The statement reads: “The agreement must include a timely and effective mechanism to reimpose sanctions automatically if Iran is found to be in violation of the agreement, including by denying or delaying IAEA access. In addition, the United States must itself articulate the serious consequences Iran will face in that event.”

It remains to be seen what sort of agreement is going to see the light.

Obama seems determined to do whatever it takes to get this deal done.

It is not only the Americans who are voicing concern about Obama’s leadership with regards to Iran; America’s allies in the Middle East are not at ease with his approach towards Iran either.

Obama seems less constrained by the concerns of his country’s allies in the region. He hopes that a deal with Iran will moderate Iran’s behaviour and will integrate it in the region and the international system.

I have doubts about this premise because Iran may be more effective in destabilising the region once it gets access to billions of dollars and gets the sanctions lifted.