Prospect of Nuclear Negotiations
One foreign policy affairs expert believes the West is after a compromise in regard to the nuclear dispute with Iran, mainly because threats and sanctions have had no benefit for either side and therefore both sides want to move forward on the path of reducing differences. And, in contrast to the past, they’re showing more tendency to create trust.
Sadegh Zibakalam, a political science professor at the University of Tehran, said, “The sanctions have certainly had effects on Iran’s micro- and macro-economy and this effect is undeniable today; especially the sanctions that have been on Europe’s and the US’s agenda since late last year and early this year, i.e. sanctions on the sale of oil and on the Central Bank.
He added, “Sanctions that were previously enforced against the Islamic Republic of Iran had effects that were seen in the long run. For example, the effects of sanctions on investment in Iran’s oil and gas industry which were enforced around 5 or 6 years ago are just being seen today.”
The international affairs analyst said, “The reduction in Iran’s oil production, the deceleration of the development of our gas and oil fields, and the growth of oil and gas extraction of our common fields by regional countries, especially Qatar, have been among the effects of sanctions on investment in Iran’s gas and oil industry in the past few years.”
He stated, “Another aspect of the effects of sanctions on our micro-economy has been the high costs of production in our country in comparison with other countries. Due to sanctions, goods imported to Iran are on average 20 to 30 percent more expensive than their global price. This means that because of sanctions and the extra costs of moving around them, products and many goods are 20 to 30 percent more expensive when they reach the Iranian consumer. It was for this reason that many voiced their protests to the West that the Iranian people were paying the price of these sanctions.”
ZIbakalam went on to say, “However, sanctions that came into effect late last year changed this situation to a certain degree. Sanctions on the Central Bank and on purchasing oil from Iran or limitations on the transportation of Iran’s oil, and strictness with issues such as tanker insurance or other such matters by the US, have caused the Iranian government and its various departments to face serious difficulties for the first time. Sanctions on the Central Bank mean that Iran can neither buy nor sell anything, nor can it basically transfer money into or out of the country.”
He added, “The idea of Iranian officials and or importers taking briefcases full of money to Turkey, Iraq, Turkmenistan, etc., to pay producers and distributors, might be a good way to get around sanctions for a few months (and for a country with a population of around 4 to 5 million), but for a country like Iran which has a population of over 70 million and a volume of imports worth billions, this is not a suitable method to combat sanctions.”
The university professor then dealt with the issue of sanctions on the purchase of oil from Iran and said, “The Islamic Republic might be able to deal with sanctions on oil by the EU because of the fact that only 18 percent of Iran’s 2.5 million barrels of exports are to these countries, but problems with sanctions on Iran’s oil arise from the strengthening of rumors that Asian countries such as China, Japan, South Korea, and India-- that make up 75 percent of Iran’s oil exports-- might follow the West’s sanctions on Iran’s oil.”
While emphasizing the fact that sanctions on Iran’s oil under current circumstances will cause irreversible damages for Iran’s economy, Zibakalam stated, “At the present time, in the month of Ordibehesht 1391 (April 2012), Iran’s dependence on oil and oil revenues is much greater than it was 10 or 20 years ago.”
He said, “Iran might have been able to manage its economy without selling oil and not having revenues from the sale of oil by-products for a period of time in the 80s, 90s, or even the 2000s, but it is currently impossible to govern the country without oil revenues, because the majority of the country’s revenues comes from the sale of oil. During the (Ayatollah) Hashemi (Rafsanjani) presidency, the country’s budget was set based on 25 dollars a barrel oil, and this reached 35 dollars when Khatami was president, but this rate has reached more than 80 dollars during Ahmadinejad’s tenure.”
Stating that the effectiveness of sanctions might not be the only reason for the restart of nuclear negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 after a hiatus of about 14 months, with a new approach to reaching an understanding stated, “It seems that the present government has reached the conclusion that the nuclear issue as a political tool cannot be used for propaganda purposes any more against its political opponents inside the country. “
Zibakalam added, “Since 2005, when the Principalists took power, they have used the nuclear issue as a propaganda tool to attack the reformists and accused them of giving in to the demands of the enemy.”
While emphasizing the point that the West also, like Iran, seeks a solution for the nuclear dispute, he added, “As sanctions have damaged Iran’s economy, they have caused a reduction of income for European and American companies. On the other hand, sanctions have caused global oil prices to increase, which has led to consumer protests in Europe and the US.”
Zibakalam further stated, “Therefore, neither the Islamic Republic nor the West has benefited from sanctions and the Russians, Chinese, Turks, Emiratis, Indians, etc. are the ones who have taken advantage of the situation. For example, the Indians have bought billions of dollars of oil from Iran, but, due to sanctions, they cannot pay for it and they offer Iran either rupees or Indian-made goods instead.”
While pointing out that the two parties in Iran’s nuclear dispute, under such conditions, have no other choice than compromise, he said, “The West has never stated that it opposes Iran’s peaceful nuclear program or that Iran should not have any nuclear program, nor has it not even said that Iran does not have a right to enrichment. But some political circuits try to spread this idea for their own political gain.”
The foreign policy expert, while emphasizing that the problem of the West is not the existence of Iran’s nuclear program but rather confidence-building regarding the future of this program, noted, “The West believes that Iran should create this confidence-building so that when it reaches the complete cycle of nuclear technology, it will use it only for peaceful purposes. In my opinion, confidence building is possible. While Iran advances its nuclear program and sanctions are gradually removed, the West can be reassured that there is no danger in Iran’s nuclear program. This should be the art of the negotiators, provided that we do not intend to have political and propaganda gains from our nuclear program.”
Zibakalam further added, “What happened in the Istanbul negotiations was the efforts of the two sides to move in the direction of confidence building and the Islamic Republic also declared its readiness to take steps in this path.”
In the end, he said, “A shoulder-to-shoulder movement of Iran and the West in the path of confidence building will certainly lead to the removal of threats and sanctions, and the achievement of nuclear technology will be much less costly for the Islamic Republic.”