“2500 years of civilization assures us Iran will change. Thirty-six years of the Islamic Republic cautions us it won’t be soon, or easy.” — Karim Sadjadpour
__________
THE IRAN NUCLEAR ACCORD (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, summarized) is a Herculean feat for the P5+1 nations, led by the U.S., after 20 months of negotiations. The deal released today could usher in an era of cooperation with a nation considered by many observers to be the chief state sponsor of terrorism and instability in the Middle East. Conversely, this deal could escalate violence among sectarian forces compounding the region’s misery. The proponents are obviously betting that the former scenario is more likely.
As for the terms*, Iran agrees to cut its stockpile of low-enriched uranium by 98% and, for at least 15 years, to reduce by about two-thirds its number of centrifuges. It would also stop enriching uranium above 3.67% while not building new enrichment or heavy-water facilities. In exchange, Iran stands to gain tens of billions of dollars**/*** in relief from US, EU and UN sanctions thereby bolstering its flagging economy. Verifying Teheran’s compliance with its commitments is the most controversial aspect of the deal.
What’s not explicit is that for the covenant to work as intended, Teheran must not only roll back its nuclear capabilities, it must also pursue a more constructive relationship with the West. From a Western perspective, success depends as much on Teheran’s intentions, now and in the future, as it does on compliance mechanisms. That’s a difficult proposition to digest, not only for the West and Israel, but for Sunni states, following decades of mistrust. In any case, the balance of power in the region is likely to shift in ways that are difficult to anticipate.
Here in the US, the public is weighing risks and benefits as the deal is noisily debated on the Hill. Congress has 60 days to conduct its review. Presently, opponents appear to lack the votes needed to scuttle its implementation, but Congress can be swayed by public opinion. The only certainty is that we can expect a maelstrom of competing editorials over the summer months.
Anyone genuinely interested in gaining a clear-eyed understanding of this accord should review the draft (109 pages of text plus 5 annexes) firsthand, assessing the deal’s strengths and weaknesses.
I’d consider informed perspectives of analysts that span the geopolitical spectrum. My short list of foreign policy specialists includes R. Nicholas Burns, Dennis Ross, Richard Haas, Robin Wright, and Vali Nasr. I’d add Iran specialists Ray Takeyh, Karim Sadjadpour, George Perkovich whose reviews have yet to be published.
We can count on them to present weighty, well-reasoned arguments about the deal and the debate should take their views into account.
***
Follow-on reads: Ken Pollack on the deal’s regional implications and on why he’s “torn” about it; along with Bridging the Gulf in the Gulf by Frederic Wehry and Richard Sokolosky
__________
* To summarize the highlights of Iran’s obligations under the deal: the total number of centrifuges would be cut to 5,060 from the current 9,500, for 10 years; and the low-enriched uranium stockpile would be cut from 10,000 kilograms to 300, for 15 years; and extensive monitoring of the uranium supply chain — extraction to enrichment — would persist for 25 years.
The core of the heavy-water reactor at Arak would be removed and no reprocessing capabilities would be permitted. And the Iranians would be obligated to observe the Additional Protocol of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in perpetuity.
** The lifting of sanctions, as defined in Annex II: Iran stands to gain many billions of dollars in frozen oil profits; regain its ability to export oil; and rejoin the global banking system. The net effect is that nation’s economy could grow 5% to 8% annually.
###
Addendum:
1) The U.S. and Iran “Learning to Deal With Each Other.” Asia Society forum (7/23/15) featuring Robin Wright, Karim Sadjadpour, Kevin Rudd, and Frank G. Wisner.
2) Estimate of Iran’s windfall by Bijan Khajehpour in Al-Monitor (7/29/15).
3) Brookings’ Suzanne Maloney explains the implications of lifting sanctions: http://brook.gs/1K12zFO (8/3/15).
4) Carnegie Endowment’s George Perkovich, Mark Hibbs, James M. Acton, Toby Dalton Parsing the Iran Deal.
5) Richard Haas’ WSJ piece (8/28/15).
6) These excerpts of comments (8/31) by U.S. elder statesmen.
7) Among arguments made by Congressional lawmakers to defend their position, this blog post (9/1/15) by Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey stands out. And another by Senator Corrie Booker of New Jersey.
8) “This is not an agreement based on trust or on any assumption about how Iran may look in 10 or 15 years.” Washington post column, Why We Support The Iran Deal (9/10/15), by David Cameron, François Hollande and Angela Merkel.
###