Will the progress in Iran nuclear issue sustainable?

  2013/12/21 source：china.org.cn

The interim agreement on the Iran nuclear issue reached on Nov. 24 is neither a historical breakthrough nor a historical mistake. It is just modest progress. Despite optimism as a result of the deal, the progress is not necessarily sustainable, judging by the difficulties ahead.

A breakthrough means substantial progress in the sticking points of a specific standoff. It also implies that the follow up process should be easier than the previous process. Judging by these, the Nov. 24 deal is not a breakthrough. There are at least two sticking points of the Iran nuclear issue, but neither of them has been meaningfully addressed.

The first one is what kind of uranium enrichment capability Iran has for its nuclear program. Prior to signing the agreement, Iran requested that its rights for peaceful enrichment should be recognized and clearly worded in the deal, which was rejected. The West, the United States in particular, looks at the Iran nuclear issue mainly in terms of security, and the lower the level of Iran's uranium enrichment is, the more secure the United States will feel.

Though the agreement implicitly recognizes Iran's rights for uranium enrichment at 5 percent purity by requesting Iran to freeze all the enrichment activities beyond this limit, it does not mean that this will be the West or Iran's final position. The division and the problem still remain.

The second point is whether the sanctions on Iran's oil and financial sectors can be removed. The West agreed to remove sanctions on some of Iran's overseas assets, worth 7 billion U.S. dollars, and on Iran's trade in aircraft parts and metals, but this is insignificant for Iran, which is a nation with a population of 75 million.

What affect Iran seriously are sanctions on Iran's oil and financial sectors. The oil sanctions reduced Iran's oil exports from 2.5 million barrels per day to 1 million barrels per day in 2012. The sanctions on Iran's financial sector even resulted in the collapse of Iran's international trade by separating Iran from the international market. Or, to put it another way, if sanctions in these two areas are not removed, Iranian hardliners will think that Iran has not adequately rewarded.

Politicians can always politicize international issues. This is also the case for the Iran nuclear issue. By boasting that it is a breakthrough, the politicians involved intend to enhance their legitimacy at home. By disparaging it, Benjamin Netanyahu is actually motivated by his strong disfavor of any progress not only in the nuclear issue but also in U.S.-Iran relations.

Though the possibility of a breakthrough cannot be excluded, it is even more likely that the Iran nuclear bargain will finally turn out to be a half-baked product. On the one hand, the executive branches of the United States and Iran are eager to improve relations by solving the nuclear disputes. But on the other hand, the obstacles are also obvious, especially on the U.S. side. That is whether the United States will be able to implement the deals signed and potential deals.

It will be less difficult for Iran to implement the interim deal since all the requirements for Iran are technical. That is to say, the executive branch of the government can do it with an order whether it is freezing the installation of new centrifuges, diluting half the stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium or accepting intrusive inspections of some sensitive sites.

By comparison, the United States will have more difficulty in implementing it since its requirements in the agreement are not technical. Barack Obama and John Kerry will have to persuade the congress to hold off additional sanctions. Despite difficulties, this is likely to happen. The President can also veto the new bill passed by the congress. Analysts believe, otherwise, the United States will lose international credit. But it is ironical that it is the executive branch that has announced new name list of sanctions in the last week.

But the real problem is whether the United States can remove the sanctions on Iran's oil and financial sectors if the parties reach a comprehensive agreement. It seems that Iran will be ready for real substantial concessions, due to its economic and diplomatic difficulty and the deal is highly likely. Can the U.S. congress remove the sanctions with voting?

Iran is one of the two countries, toward which the U.S. policy is severely emotional. The other one is Cuba. The UN General Assembly passed resolutions in the last 22 consecutive years demanding the United States to remove the sanctions, which have lasted more than half a century. But it seems that the United States will not do that until the Castro brothers step down or pass away.

Iran will not be better off than Cuba. The hostage crisis is still looming in the minds of ordinary Americans. Not to say that Jewish lobbies are actively pushing for tough actions on Iran.

Nevertheless, Barack Obama, free from election pressure, will certainly try to find middle ground for the sanctions. Observers believe that the president might suspend the sanctions for 120 days when needed, and another 120 days after that. But is that the solution? And can Iranian hardliners be satisfied?

Last but not least, though Iran is in the dilemma, that is concession without being adequately rewarded, yet it does not mean that Iran has no gains. By the negotiation and the deal, Iran actually made the United States in a difficult situation as the United States is facing challenges from its Middle East Arab and Israeli allies. Iran has also improved relations with its neighbors and EU countries. The U.K. in particular is exploring the possibility of renewing its diplomatic relations with Iran.