The Potentials of Nuclear Negotiations unveiled
By Kayhan Barzegar
While the West only regards Iran’s nuclear program as a challenge to its interests and subsequently connecting it to global peace and security, one key point must not be missed and that is the opportunity raised from the political potentials of nuclear negotiations between the two sides which have provided the grounds for convergence, as well as helping the West better understand Iran’s structure of power and decision-making process, an opportunity which can lead the West to take advantage of Iran’s constructive role to solve the regional crises in the Middle East, as well as initiate détente between Iran and the West, especially the United States.
As observers admit, the West’s lack of sound understanding of Iran’s nature of power and political structures, as well as the objectives and priorities of its nuclear program has been a crucial challenge in the course of nuclear talks. In this respect, the course of negotiations in three levels has helped a better understanding of Iran’s calculus..
At the domestic level, the nuclear program has turned out into a national issue and a factor of balancing the diverse political factions. This empowers the role of the Iranian state as the driving force of progress and development. During the past two centuries, critiques have blamed each government as the culprits of Iran’s backwardness and its failure to acquire wealth and power. The nuclear program seems to serve multiple functions. While it is a technological development, it brings national pride and unity, reinforces the Iranian identity, and epitomizes the nation’s quest for a better regional and international status.
For this reason, regardless of their political preferences, all political parties support a firm stand in the process of nuclear negotiations and maintenance of independent nuclear fuel cycle. This explains how despite temporal differences and regional and international concerns, each Iranian administration given the different political circumstances has tried to take one step forward in preserving Iran’s nuclear rights.
Meanwhile, the nuclear negotiations have somehow reinforced the democratization of nuclear decision-making process in Iran’s power bases. Efforts to sustain balance in decision-making and push forward the nuclear negotiations have been fairly conspicuous in decision-making bodies such as the Supreme Leader’s office, the President, the Majlis(parliament), National Security Council, and other security and intelligence bodies. increased coordination between these governmental bodies, with a focus on the preservation of national interests, multi-layered, balance-creating decision-making processes enhanced by political safety valves, considering rationality and strategic perspective are all seen in Iran’s nuclear decision-making process. A vivid example is Iran’s responses to the proposed packages of the West since the crisis started in 2003, and Iran’s own independent proposal, during 2004-2009, conveying Iran’s determination to continue with the current pace of its nuclear program with the above-mentioned carecteristics.
Furthermore, national consensus and cooperation over the nuclear issue has led to reinforcement and distinct function of power centers in Iran. This can be adopted as a model in other cases of foreign diplomacy and national security such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Palestine. The Iranian parliament and National Security Council for instance have become institutions with complementary functions in the course of nuclear negotiations. This has a clear message for the West and that is that Iran has a clear strategic understanding of its national security and interests, and the existing nuclear policy is not the sole policy pursued by the current government.
Finally, at the domestic level, as a critical diplomatic issue Iran’s nuclear program has brought the people and the state closer on an important foreign policy issue. Bringing into currency a specialized political-strategic issue will bolster the people’s role in decision-making process and add to their supports for the political elites. Iranians’ voiced support for the continuation of the peaceful nuclear program has shown how the nation of Iran is determined when it comes to safeguarding legitimate interests and increase of national power against the foreign powers’ political pressures. A lesson learnt from this story is the scale of impact that the recognition of people’s role has in advancing national strategic objectives and handling relations with the West.
On the regional level, Iran’s nuclear program is the spearhead of a paradigm shift in Iran’s foreign policy priorities , with an increased emphasis on strategic interests and national security in handling regional relations. Of the potentials of Iran’s nuclear program is utilization of the most crucial leverage, i.e. geopolitical status and ideology, via active presence in regional crises such as in Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq, and formation of coalitions with friendly political factions and states to advance strategic objectives and national interests.
What has also come into focus is the necessity of enhancing Iran’s defense capabilities to safeguard nuclear power plants. This has led to the development of novel national security and defense strategies in Iran’s regional policies. It was the significance of this necessity that brought up the “interconnected security strategy”, according to which Iran’s instability is equivalent to instability for the region. This policy has turned into one of the successful defense strategies for sustention of nuclear program security. The focal point of this strategy has been the Persian Gulf, which naturally positions the issues of this region at the center of Iran’s national and security interests. Naturally, Iran’s active presence in the regional crises has increased its bargaining power in the regional political-security issues, consequently its maneuverability in nuclear talks and dealing with regional and global actors especially the United States.
Given these issues, there are certain lessons by which regional actors can better understand Iran’s actions and calculus in the region. Firstly, Iran will retaliate against any adventurous military action supported by any of regional states, carried out by the United States and Israel against its nuclear program through its regional defensive, political and security potentials. Secondly, the Middle East is now witnessing a powerful Iran with an influential role in regional coalitions, and it has come to find out to what extent Iran applies the strategic view in issues related to its national interests, security and regional crises. A better understanding of politics and power structures, decision-making process and bargaining potentials, along with the mere peaceful goals of Iran’s nuclear program and the real demands of the Iranian public can foster convergence and cooperation between Iran and other regional countries in solving regional crises , particularly in Lebanon and Iraq, and improve relations with trans-regional powers, particularly the United States.
On the international level, Iran’s nuclear program, as a strategic international issue, and the concerned negotiations have opened new diplomatic prospects for relations with world powers. Despite the existing challenges, the nuclear program affords an opportunity for direct talk between Iran and the United States, and moving in the détente path thirty one years after the 1979 Islamic Revolution. From this perspective, the nuclear program has been the only strategic issue that has the required diplomatic potential to initiate strategic dialogue between Iran and the United States. This has been a key turn, not only on the issue of nuclear program, but in solving regional crises such as in Iraq(three rounds of direct talks), and Afghanistan.
The New political potentials for détente depend on the preference or avoidance of each side to engage in diplomatic talks. On the American side, Iran’s increased role in the region, as well as the country’s involvement in an important global and strategic issue made engagement with Iran an inevitability On the Iranian side, likewise, having a strong and comparable political stance vis-à-vis the U.S. on regional issues, together with Iran’s self-confidence in tackling the U.S. Military threat has intensified the internal tendencies to start direct talks with the United States. Iran’s continuous concern has always been an asymmetry in negotiations which could detriment its interests. Regarding the United States as the key player in nuclear negotiations has also raised the interest inside Iranian political circles for negotiations. This reveals how during the nuclear course, Iranian decision-makers have learnt to be more realistic. Direct talks between Iranian and American diplomats in Vienna and Geneva in the late 2009 were the fruit of such an attitude.
Iran’s nuclear program has been an acid test for the Europeans to test their role and influence on an important political and strategic issue. Nuclear negotiations have for the first time allowed the Europeans to engage with critical strategic issue of Middle East beyond an economic and benefit-oriented approach. Despite challenges between Iran and the EU which deteriorated the relations especially after the Europeans reneged on their commitments despite Iran’s two-year moratorium on uranium enrichment, the transnational community’s emphasis on exhausting diplomacy and time has had an effective role in balancing Iran’s nuclear policy and its avoidance to engage in negotiations. Inside Iran, there is a strong line of thinking which supports limiting EU’s role in the nuclear negotiations, especially after their remarks on the post-presidential election events and their call for tougher sanctions against Iran. An outcome of this approach was probably Iran’s exclusion of France from the nuclear swap deal with the West. Meanwhile there are voices inside Iran calling for a stop on negotiations and withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty(NPT). The Iranian parliament has also frequently called for revision of talks with the European Union.
Undoubtedly, Iran-EU interactions resulted in better understanding of the two sides’ political potentials. At present the EU has found out Iran’s determination to continue its nuclear program as a national campaign and the level of its resistance against sanctions. That explains their support of diplomacy as the only solution to this controversial issue . It took the Americans several years to come to the same conclusion and decide to join the negotiations between Iran and the 5+1 countries.
Finally, Iran’s nuclear program and negotiations became a turning point in discovering the diplomatic potentials of Russia and China in the global scene. The dominant view in Iran regards China and Russia as unreliable and benefit-oriented actors which merely seek their own interests. However, the course of nuclear negotiations has proved that Iran can count on the deterrent power of these countries when it faces intense international pressures. Although the Russians may have taken a few steps away from Iran with Medvedev’s and his surrounding elites getting closer to the West because of the reelection matter , the traditional inclination in Moscow is sustention of an independent line in national strategies thereby reinforcement of Iran’s position in the nuclear issue. Economic benefits also encourage the Chinese to support diplomacy to tackle the challenge and preclude new sanctions. For instance, in the most recent development, China has explicitly opposed any further sanctions against Iran. China and Russia due to their common interests, besides Iran, could undoubtedly impede United States’ unilateralism in the global affairs. At the same time, the course of nuclear negotiations revealed for Iran that these powers always prioritize their national interests. A clear example is the situation of Bushehr nuclear power plant or delivery of S-300 missiles, both are on freeze while Moscow and Washington came closer recently. Therefore, the nuclear talks gave Iran a chance to gain a more realistic picture of the scale of China and Russia support in the international scene.
The nuclear program has revealed new diplomatic potentials and a better understanding for the international community and world powers of Iran’s politics and power structure, the decision-making process and foreign policy strategies and objectives. The course of nuclear talks has also showed that to what extent Iran’s nuclear program is rooted in its geopolitical features, its history, identity and regional and global position. It has also shown how far the Iranian leaders can go to advance the nuclear program. The program could help Iran adopt a more realistic approach towards international affairs, especially in encounters with the United States, and prove the effectiveness of diplomatic tools in foreign relations. During the last decades, the most significant cases of détente have occurred after a period of tense relations, when both sides have decided to admit each other’s status. Good examples are the United States’ reconciliation with China and Russia during the 1960s and 1970s. Iran’s nuclear program is also a good opportunity for détente with both the United States and the international community. It also can lead to bilateral cooperation in solving regional crises.
As observers admit, the West’s lack of sound understanding of Iran’s nature of power and political structures, as well as the objectives and priorities of its nuclear program has been a crucial challenge in the course of nuclear talks. In this respect, the course of negotiations in three levels has helped a better understanding of Iran’s calculus..
At the domestic level, the nuclear program has turned out into a national issue and a factor of balancing the diverse political factions. This empowers the role of the Iranian state as the driving force of progress and development. During the past two centuries, critiques have blamed each government as the culprits of Iran’s backwardness and its failure to acquire wealth and power. The nuclear program seems to serve multiple functions. While it is a technological development, it brings national pride and unity, reinforces the Iranian identity, and epitomizes the nation’s quest for a better regional and international status.
For this reason, regardless of their political preferences, all political parties support a firm stand in the process of nuclear negotiations and maintenance of independent nuclear fuel cycle. This explains how despite temporal differences and regional and international concerns, each Iranian administration given the different political circumstances has tried to take one step forward in preserving Iran’s nuclear rights.
Meanwhile, the nuclear negotiations have somehow reinforced the democratization of nuclear decision-making process in Iran’s power bases. Efforts to sustain balance in decision-making and push forward the nuclear negotiations have been fairly conspicuous in decision-making bodies such as the Supreme Leader’s office, the President, the Majlis(parliament), National Security Council, and other security and intelligence bodies. increased coordination between these governmental bodies, with a focus on the preservation of national interests, multi-layered, balance-creating decision-making processes enhanced by political safety valves, considering rationality and strategic perspective are all seen in Iran’s nuclear decision-making process. A vivid example is Iran’s responses to the proposed packages of the West since the crisis started in 2003, and Iran’s own independent proposal, during 2004-2009, conveying Iran’s determination to continue with the current pace of its nuclear program with the above-mentioned carecteristics.
Furthermore, national consensus and cooperation over the nuclear issue has led to reinforcement and distinct function of power centers in Iran. This can be adopted as a model in other cases of foreign diplomacy and national security such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Palestine. The Iranian parliament and National Security Council for instance have become institutions with complementary functions in the course of nuclear negotiations. This has a clear message for the West and that is that Iran has a clear strategic understanding of its national security and interests, and the existing nuclear policy is not the sole policy pursued by the current government.
Finally, at the domestic level, as a critical diplomatic issue Iran’s nuclear program has brought the people and the state closer on an important foreign policy issue. Bringing into currency a specialized political-strategic issue will bolster the people’s role in decision-making process and add to their supports for the political elites. Iranians’ voiced support for the continuation of the peaceful nuclear program has shown how the nation of Iran is determined when it comes to safeguarding legitimate interests and increase of national power against the foreign powers’ political pressures. A lesson learnt from this story is the scale of impact that the recognition of people’s role has in advancing national strategic objectives and handling relations with the West.
On the regional level, Iran’s nuclear program is the spearhead of a paradigm shift in Iran’s foreign policy priorities , with an increased emphasis on strategic interests and national security in handling regional relations. Of the potentials of Iran’s nuclear program is utilization of the most crucial leverage, i.e. geopolitical status and ideology, via active presence in regional crises such as in Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq, and formation of coalitions with friendly political factions and states to advance strategic objectives and national interests.
What has also come into focus is the necessity of enhancing Iran’s defense capabilities to safeguard nuclear power plants. This has led to the development of novel national security and defense strategies in Iran’s regional policies. It was the significance of this necessity that brought up the “interconnected security strategy”, according to which Iran’s instability is equivalent to instability for the region. This policy has turned into one of the successful defense strategies for sustention of nuclear program security. The focal point of this strategy has been the Persian Gulf, which naturally positions the issues of this region at the center of Iran’s national and security interests. Naturally, Iran’s active presence in the regional crises has increased its bargaining power in the regional political-security issues, consequently its maneuverability in nuclear talks and dealing with regional and global actors especially the United States.
Given these issues, there are certain lessons by which regional actors can better understand Iran’s actions and calculus in the region. Firstly, Iran will retaliate against any adventurous military action supported by any of regional states, carried out by the United States and Israel against its nuclear program through its regional defensive, political and security potentials. Secondly, the Middle East is now witnessing a powerful Iran with an influential role in regional coalitions, and it has come to find out to what extent Iran applies the strategic view in issues related to its national interests, security and regional crises. A better understanding of politics and power structures, decision-making process and bargaining potentials, along with the mere peaceful goals of Iran’s nuclear program and the real demands of the Iranian public can foster convergence and cooperation between Iran and other regional countries in solving regional crises , particularly in Lebanon and Iraq, and improve relations with trans-regional powers, particularly the United States.
On the international level, Iran’s nuclear program, as a strategic international issue, and the concerned negotiations have opened new diplomatic prospects for relations with world powers. Despite the existing challenges, the nuclear program affords an opportunity for direct talk between Iran and the United States, and moving in the détente path thirty one years after the 1979 Islamic Revolution. From this perspective, the nuclear program has been the only strategic issue that has the required diplomatic potential to initiate strategic dialogue between Iran and the United States. This has been a key turn, not only on the issue of nuclear program, but in solving regional crises such as in Iraq(three rounds of direct talks), and Afghanistan.
The New political potentials for détente depend on the preference or avoidance of each side to engage in diplomatic talks. On the American side, Iran’s increased role in the region, as well as the country’s involvement in an important global and strategic issue made engagement with Iran an inevitability On the Iranian side, likewise, having a strong and comparable political stance vis-à-vis the U.S. on regional issues, together with Iran’s self-confidence in tackling the U.S. Military threat has intensified the internal tendencies to start direct talks with the United States. Iran’s continuous concern has always been an asymmetry in negotiations which could detriment its interests. Regarding the United States as the key player in nuclear negotiations has also raised the interest inside Iranian political circles for negotiations. This reveals how during the nuclear course, Iranian decision-makers have learnt to be more realistic. Direct talks between Iranian and American diplomats in Vienna and Geneva in the late 2009 were the fruit of such an attitude.
Iran’s nuclear program has been an acid test for the Europeans to test their role and influence on an important political and strategic issue. Nuclear negotiations have for the first time allowed the Europeans to engage with critical strategic issue of Middle East beyond an economic and benefit-oriented approach. Despite challenges between Iran and the EU which deteriorated the relations especially after the Europeans reneged on their commitments despite Iran’s two-year moratorium on uranium enrichment, the transnational community’s emphasis on exhausting diplomacy and time has had an effective role in balancing Iran’s nuclear policy and its avoidance to engage in negotiations. Inside Iran, there is a strong line of thinking which supports limiting EU’s role in the nuclear negotiations, especially after their remarks on the post-presidential election events and their call for tougher sanctions against Iran. An outcome of this approach was probably Iran’s exclusion of France from the nuclear swap deal with the West. Meanwhile there are voices inside Iran calling for a stop on negotiations and withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty(NPT). The Iranian parliament has also frequently called for revision of talks with the European Union.
Undoubtedly, Iran-EU interactions resulted in better understanding of the two sides’ political potentials. At present the EU has found out Iran’s determination to continue its nuclear program as a national campaign and the level of its resistance against sanctions. That explains their support of diplomacy as the only solution to this controversial issue . It took the Americans several years to come to the same conclusion and decide to join the negotiations between Iran and the 5+1 countries.
Finally, Iran’s nuclear program and negotiations became a turning point in discovering the diplomatic potentials of Russia and China in the global scene. The dominant view in Iran regards China and Russia as unreliable and benefit-oriented actors which merely seek their own interests. However, the course of nuclear negotiations has proved that Iran can count on the deterrent power of these countries when it faces intense international pressures. Although the Russians may have taken a few steps away from Iran with Medvedev’s and his surrounding elites getting closer to the West because of the reelection matter , the traditional inclination in Moscow is sustention of an independent line in national strategies thereby reinforcement of Iran’s position in the nuclear issue. Economic benefits also encourage the Chinese to support diplomacy to tackle the challenge and preclude new sanctions. For instance, in the most recent development, China has explicitly opposed any further sanctions against Iran. China and Russia due to their common interests, besides Iran, could undoubtedly impede United States’ unilateralism in the global affairs. At the same time, the course of nuclear negotiations revealed for Iran that these powers always prioritize their national interests. A clear example is the situation of Bushehr nuclear power plant or delivery of S-300 missiles, both are on freeze while Moscow and Washington came closer recently. Therefore, the nuclear talks gave Iran a chance to gain a more realistic picture of the scale of China and Russia support in the international scene.
The nuclear program has revealed new diplomatic potentials and a better understanding for the international community and world powers of Iran’s politics and power structure, the decision-making process and foreign policy strategies and objectives. The course of nuclear talks has also showed that to what extent Iran’s nuclear program is rooted in its geopolitical features, its history, identity and regional and global position. It has also shown how far the Iranian leaders can go to advance the nuclear program. The program could help Iran adopt a more realistic approach towards international affairs, especially in encounters with the United States, and prove the effectiveness of diplomatic tools in foreign relations. During the last decades, the most significant cases of détente have occurred after a period of tense relations, when both sides have decided to admit each other’s status. Good examples are the United States’ reconciliation with China and Russia during the 1960s and 1970s. Iran’s nuclear program is also a good opportunity for détente with both the United States and the international community. It also can lead to bilateral cooperation in solving regional crises.