The Iran nuclear talks have dragged on and have now been postponed till June. The hopeful news is that a far more comprehensive agreement, The Joint Comprehensive Plan, than was expected has been reached. The final details still have to be hammered out and even the POTUS cautioned that it ain’t over till the Muezzin calls the believers to prayer from the Mosque Minaret. Also a concordat suddenly doesn't turn the Iranian frog into a Princess.
The talks have been ongoing, having started in 2009, and have as their objective to rid the world of an Iranian nuclear threat in return for lifting the crippling economic sanctions on the theocratic Shiite Republic. There are several interested parties in this controversy ranging from the six major nations lead by the USA, who represent the UNO, Iran’s Middle Eastern neighbors of which the Sunni Arab nations and Israel are the most prominent and the American legislative body where Iran and Israel have become central issues. On its face it appears that the fact that Iran is on its knees with runaway inflation, no trade, and are teeming with restless natives who Jay H. Ell believes ultimately forced them to ignore their own grandstanding. While Jay H. Ell has been critical of President Obama’s shambolic foreign policy, (Blog: The New Middle East - Obama’s Failure To Create a Coherent Policy), he is convinced he is no pushover and he better than anyone else knows that no legacy is better than a Bush Iraq or a Johnson Vietnam legacy. And in case anyone has forgotten, he has achieved what no Republican has - he vanquished the Clintons!
As every facet of Iran and its nuclear program raises such debate let us start and see what is and what is not in dispute. In so doing it will be found that there is very little if anything that is not in dispute.
WHY THE TALKS AT ALL?
The world would be better a place without Iran having a nuclear program:
If one agrees with that statement than there have to be talks. That basic premise is challenged by Israel’s Netanyahu.That has been Bibi’s war cry all along but he reinforced it when the Iranian Military Commander of the elite Basij, Commander Mohammed Reza Naqdi, who as recently as March 31, 2016, said the destruction of Israel was “non negotiable”. The Israeli PM angrily retorted that it was “monstrous” in the light of that genocidal statement for it to be acceptable to negotiate to give Iran a clear path to the bomb.
Mohammed was purposively oblivious to what was going on in Lausanne nor he did not care as he added Saudi Arabia to the “non negotiable” list. The Saudis were going to be stuck out just like Saddam Hussein which is a bit ironic because Iran in an 8 year war couldn’t destroy him and just left it to King George 43. It has been reported that, behind the scenes, the Saudis, Gulf States, the Egyptians and the Jordanians feel the same way as the Israelis which would not be surprising taking into account the Iranian rhetoric. (Maybe that is the way the Iranians communicate love, respect and friendship).
The reason behind hanging in there is if the six can somehow limit Iran’s nuclear arsenal then Iran is less likely to be able to do these terrible things that they unashamedly threaten to do. This is not a marriage commitment that is being negotiated between a loving couple but an anti nuptial contract in an arranged marriage between two waring parties. And there are ample precedents for this type of shot gun marriage - Stalin and the allies, Nixon and his visit to China, Kissinger and north Korea and Reagan who persuaded Mr. Gorbachev to “tear down that wall” and on and on.
WHAT IS A GOOD DEAL?
It will be fine as long as there is a good deal:
There are those that believe that a good Iranian deal is an oxymoron because any deal with Iran is a bad deal. They counter that there is negotiation on the very issues that define what a “good deal” might be and negotiation means compromise. They continue that if Iran is really serious about not wanting a nuclear weapon why are they hanging onto every possible means to create one? They are not persuaded that Iran are doing this for their “self respect”. If they are tough tittie as this is all about potential genocide not the Ayatollah’s psyche.
Broadly speaking the six are practical as to what they define a “good deal” to be. The central thrust is that Iran must be left in a situation that it would take them a year to build a nuclear capability if they defied the accord. This would allow the world ample time to intervene. That circumstance the six would consider a giant step up from the estimated three months it would take the Iranians to launch a nuclear warhead now. In order to reach this year long lead time a number of parameters have been defined. It is instructive to examine these and see how these are met by the preliminary Joint Comprehensive Plan framework:
Verification: Before considering the Lausanne outcome even the most enthusiastic negotiation supporters were skeptical unless the question of oversight of Iran was conclusively answered. Reassurance up the ying yang has been built into the “Joint Comprehensive Plan”, (JCP), presented by the two parties. Under the heading of “Inspections and Transparency”, unfettered access is provided in some instances for up to twenty to twenty - five years. This includes intrusive inspections and monitoring the process from beginning to the end from the mining of the ore to observing the reactors to the disposal of the radioactive spent rods.
Fordow Underground facility for Uranium enrichment: This facility more than any others conjured up nightmares for the opponents of an accord, especially Israel, as it was an impregnable fortress . The JCP addresses this fear directly - “This entity will no longer enrich uranium for at least fifteen years”.
Natanz Uranium Facility: This is currently the breadbasket of uranium production in Iran with close on 20,000 nuclear reactors. The number of the latter would be drastically reduced to six thousand and the reactors would be highly inefficient in enriching uranium being first generation reactors. The latter are relics from the 50s to the 70s and were used for commercial purposes.
Enrichment: Notwithstanding all of the above if Iran could enrich its Uranium to nuclear weaponry level they would still have attained their means for holding the Middle East and the world to ransom. Any enrichment above five percent is on its way to the slippery slope of the ninety percent needed for nuclear warheads. Iran agreed not to enrich its uranium above three point sixty - seven percent for fifteen years. Also there would be no plutonium manufacturing, the other commodity used for nuclear weaponry, during this period.
Stockpiles of enriched uranium: Iran at the time of negotiations had over 8 tonnes of enriched uranium so even with all the other provisions they had the potential to proceed with their obvious sinister objectives. The JCP includes a section that mandates that all enriched uranium stockpiled and any that results from future energy and research activities will be exported.
Arak heavy water facility: Another realistic angst was the Plutonium heavy water facility at Arak which also had the potential to produce a Plutonium armed nuclear weapon. The latter would be reconfigured by an agreed upon design so as not to be able to bring about weapon’s grade plutonium.
Sanctions Lifting: All this is nice and dandy but the detractors countered that the moment sanctions are lifted and the Iranians achieve their economic recovery they will tear this all up and do as they please. The JCP only allows for a gradual lifting of sanctions depending on the progress of the mandates. Furthermore it stipulates the immediate reintroduction of these if there is any breach of the protocols.
AT THE END OF THE DAY IN LAUSANNE:
While the JCP itself outlines in its preamble that, “Nothing is agreed upon till it is agreed upon”, the six nations led by America have won the framework for a “Good Deal”. The Iranians, despite their rhetoric, have caved, for the moment. The jubilation in the streets and the outpourings in the social media in the theocracy give you a clue as why they felt they had no choice. If the deal holds and the hardliners of either side don’t derail it, it has placed a decided dampener on Iranian imperialist ambitions for the foreseeable future. This does not mean they will stop them but without a nuclear threat to back them up they will not be nearly as menacing. The outcome also forestalls a nuclear race in the region.
If however the hardliners on either side sabotage the deal one is back to square one. The Ayatollah fundamentalist can say to hell with the world we will take them on and the American Legislature can stick to their belief that the Iranians cannot be trusted and any deal is a bad deal. While the latter sentiment has to be the belief of Netanyahu and the Sunni Arab Gulf States they have no veto of the outcome of this transaction.
THE POLITICS OF THE JCP IN THE USA and ISRAEL
As Jay H. Ell has already blogged the American public are in favor of negotiations and they will certainly be more so after this lot. In addition he warned that BIbi’s self serving intervention to the Joint Congress Meeting would be counterproductive and in the light of this outcome Netanyahu’s prophesy of the deal was way off the mark to the point of sounding hysterical. His counterproductive intrusion into the American political process has served to smash the bipartisan support Israel has always had and now among the Democrat rank and file, that were Israel’s strongest supporters, Israel is regarded after Mexico and the UK as America’s third closest ally. While sentiment in America, especially Congress, will remain pro Israel, Netanyahu’s Republican obsequious followers may begin to distance themselves from him.
Obama while he may have had a resounding triumph in outstaring the Iranians still has to put together a coherent Middle East policy taking into account the priorities of his allies in the region. He has to unambiguously dissociate himself from the Iranian camp in their regional expansionism and support of terror. If they can deal with him and still shout destruction to America and her main allies he can at least say sucks to Assad. Remember this is not an arrangement built on love but rather on business. As the POTUS himself said this has nothing to do with trust.
Maybe just maybe the world has just become a better place.
Netanyahu for his part has proved that his Intelligence core was right when they told him to stay at home and shut up and wait. They and the generals hold much sway in Israel. How this will effect the byzantine Israeli political process is hard to tell but one fact is certain it will not strengthen Bibi and Obama stocks will once again rise in the land of the bible.
No comments:
Post a Comment