Iran Framework: Give an Inch, Give a Mile

‘The U.S. negotiating team are mainly there to speak on Iran’s behalf with other members of the P5+1 countries and convince them of a deal.’ What type of hawkish bigot could possibly have made such a claim? Well, it was actually said by an Iranian journalist Amir Hossein Motaghi, a close aide of President Rouhani who headed his public relations team during the 2013 Iranian Presidential elections. While covering the nuclear negotiations in Lausanne Mr. Motaghi decided to defect because he said he was fed up writing what he was told to write by the regime.

Mr Motaghi’s insight is particularly revealing because so comparatively little has emerged from Switzerland this week. Despite the timeline for talks continuously over-running and continuously being extended. The reasons have been rumoured but rarely confirmed. Each time the deadline on the talks has expired the Americans have leaked that they are getting close and that there is no point in halting the talks because of such ‘arbitrary’ deadlines. There are obviously sticking points, as anyone could have foreseen. Though what those sticking points are nobody yet knows.

What does seem to be known is that the Americans have rolled over on a number of concessions. One particularly notable concession which has apparently been made is that the Americans have agreed to allow the Iranians to continue spinning the centrifuges in their Fordow facility. That is the underground facility which President Obama himself has previously said is one that the Iranians do not need if their ambition is to develop a purely peaceful nuclear facility.

The short explanation for what is going on in Lausanne is that the U.S. negotiating team’s position has fundamentally changed. Having promised the American people repeatedly that no deal would be better than a bad deal, they seem to have decided that any deal is better than no deal. There are a variety of reasons people will give for this ranging from malign intent to wilful optimism via the usual problems caused by the fog of negotiations.

In any case it is striking that of the few leaks that have come out from the talks one fact remains clear – that the Iranians haven’t budged an inch. While the Americans continue to try to persuade their negotiating partners to give more concessions to Iran, the Iranians seem perfectly happy where they are. And why would they not be? For even while standing still everything seems to be able to fall into their lap. Just this week they have been able to make further territorial and political gains not just in Iraq but also in Yemen. Indeed the one clear message that is coming out from the region’s instability at the moment is the fact that the only winner anywhere, repeatedly, is Iran.

The American negotiating team in Switzerland may indeed think that their primary requirement in the negotiations is to persuade their European partners to budge in Iran’s favour. The future of the nuclear consensus and the security of the future of the world depends on the Europeans ignoring them.

---

FROM THE DIRECTOR’S DESK 

One of the unintentional consequences of America’s Middle East policy in recent months has been to encourage those Arab states threatened by the rise of Iran’s nuclear power and of the spread of Islamic State (IS) to take their security matters into their own hands.

In various iterations, we have seen alliances of different Arab states come together to conduct bombing operations in Libya, participate in air strikes in Syria and Iraq and engage in ground operations in Yemen. Now cooperation has been taken a step further, with the announcement this week that for the first time, the Arab League will develop a multi-national military force capable of insertion into local conflicts.

The last time there was any similar degree of unanimity in the Arab world was in the heady days of Nasserite Pan-Arabism in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Then, Egypt’s President bestrode the region like a colossus, looking to cajole his fellow Arabs into a united socialist nirvana. But whereas Pan-Arabism proved disastrous for the Arab World – and led directly to provocation of Israel and the events of the Six Day War that killed the concept – this new development should be welcomed.

For too long, wealthy states in the Middle East have freeloaded their security requirements off the US commitment to stability in the region. In a world of shrinking defence budgets, this is now an unaffordable luxury. That these states are now feeling the effects of this over-reliance on a US administration whose policies they dislike is no bad thing in and of itself. If it encourages a greater sense of taking control of destinies in the Middle East, then we may even have found one aspect of the Obama administration’s policies – albeit unintentional – to applaud.

Dr Alan Mendoza is Executive Director of The Henry Jackson Society

Follow Alan on Twitter: @AlanMendoza