Obama Needs Nuclear Deal
We are now at the peak of nuclear bargaining. How would you assess the path of negotiations considering the two issues of sanctions and missiles?
No one can ignore the problems that have caused the prolongation of negotiations. A careful look at these negotiations shows that the more we near the final days of negotiations, the more the issues of difference are left to the foreign ministers to be resolved as resolvable issues were solved during the past few days. Ministers have certain authorities and they must consult with higher officials, which is time-consuming. Based on the Lausanne Statement, the implementation of Iran’s commitments must be simultaneous with the lifting of sanctions, but this has changed a bit in the recent negotiations. The Iranian delegation insists that all sanctions must be lifted after the announcement and signing of the agreement; an issue which slows down the trend of negotiations because the other party believes that the sanctions should be lifted after the implementation of the agreement which might take three months. Regarding the issue of missiles, Mr. Zarif had opposed its proposal before. The question that has concerned the western parties is whether Iran’s missile program has the capacity of transferring nuclear warheads or not. It seems that all the bargaining is about the second part not the nature of Iran’s nuclear power.
Some believe that the western party intends to receive extraordinary guarantees from Iran, another issue which has slowed down the trend of negotiations.
The agreement which will be signed is the source of decision for both sides. The adoption of a resolution under Chapter 7 of the Security Council Charter to cancel all previous resolutions is the highest guarantee for the West. There are differences between both parties over the context of this resolution.
Considering the thirteen years of negotiations, could it be said that there is a sign of change in the US strategy in foreign policy particularly with regard to Iran and the Middle East?
A realistic view of the US view of negotiations shows that all their efforts are concentrated on the resolution of this matter and signing an agreement. This is Mr. Kerry’s mission by Obama. The US pursues two objectives: firstly, reaching an agreement with Iran will be considered as a big achievement for Obama; an achievement similar to Nixon’s diplomacy with regard to China in the 1970s; secondly, the US is faced with serious challenges and crises in the Middle East. The most important challenge at the present time is ISIS. The US knows that it cannot win this challenge by itself alone. Therefore, it seeks a country which is at a desirable level from the aspect of internal stability, regional power and influence so that through cooperation it would be able to manage and win this challenge. Almost similarly to what the US did in the 1970s based on Kissinger’s idea and gave part of the responsibility of the security of eastern Asia to the Indians. This is a type of participation in regional security. The Saudi and Turkish officials are concerned about the success of the negotiations due to the reduction of their share in the US’ strategic view and Iran’s growing share. When Obama became president, the first sentence that he said was negotiation with Iran without any pre-condition. This literature was different from that of the Bush presidency. Obama intends to turn a new page in Iran-US relations. Although the wall of mistrust will not fall suddenly, the cracks will deepen in order to facilitate the issues which are related to their relations. Hours of face-to-face negotiations between Iran’s Foreign Minister and the US Secretary of State lead to the breakage of the taboo of negotiation. Thus, I believe that when the taboo of negotiation is broken, the taboo of relations will be broken as well. This could be the third objective of the US behind reaching an agreement with Iran.