November 30, 2014
This week’s extension in the negotiations between Iran and
the P5+1 is a welcomed jolt of composure and realism in a process that for
years has been characterized by wild allegations, emotional retorts and
intemperate actions. The decision to extend talks and keep negotiating to
achieve a final agreement by next summer seems to cement the decision to deal
with the accusations of Iran’s alleged desire to obtain a nuclear bomb as a
technical issue that has a technical solution, rather than a continuation of
the tendency of the United States and Israel, primarily, to treat Iran as a
hapless colonial subject.
Once the two sides started negotiating seriously
last year, and placed their concerns, aspirations and rights on the table, it
quickly became clear that an agreement was possible, but it would require
serious mutual concessions. Two bottom line positions are absolutely
non-negotiable, and reasonably so: Iran’s insistence on its right to enrich
uranium for peaceful purposes, short of a bomb-making capability, and the P5+1
determination to prevent Iran from being able to assemble a nuclear bomb
quickly and surreptitiously. These two requirements are absolutely
reconcilable, and they will both frame and seal a final agreement when one is
reached next year, one hopes.
For now, the extension decision reflects
welcomed wisdom and rationality on both sides, and a deeper expectation that a
final permanent agreement can be reached soon. For now, the maturity, patience
and seriousness on both sides are impressive, and a far cry from the almost
lunatic threats, insults and deprecations that had defined
Iranian-American-Israeli exchanges in recent years. The change in tone all
around is probably due to two main reasons — the need to resolve this matter so
as to address the dangerous situations across the Middle East, especially in
Syria-Iraq, and the realization that the cost of failure is too high all
around. The precarious state of the Middle East has added urgency to the
matter, because both Iran and the concerned foreign powers are deeply engaged
and invested in the region, and vulnerable to retaliatory punitive mischief in
case of failure.
The shift from political posturing and colonial
confrontations to actually looking at the technical issues related to both the
Iranian nuclear industry and the sanctions on Iran has allowed for the progress
of the past year. We now know that all issues of concern to both sides can be
addressed seriously and dispassionately, and disagreements gradually resolved,
if hysterical positions and wild accusations are ignored in favor of focusing
on practical reciprocal measures that meet the needs of both sides.
Simultaneity and reciprocity of concessions, it is confirmed again, are
critical elements for success.
This is a big loss for the Israeli position, and
its supporters and pavlovian attack dogs in the US Congress, who would not
consider any serious rollback of sanctions against Iran until they guaranteed
that Iran would not have any enrichment capacity that could help it produce a
nuclear bomb. In part because the primacy and political prioritization of
exaggerated and unrealistic Israeli concerns were not allowed to shape the
diplomatic dynamic, progress happened. (This lesson is relevant to the stalled
Palestinian-Israeli peace negotiations, which remain moribund in large part
because Israeli positions that enjoy American acquiescence dominate the
negotiations, rather than a serious desire to respond to the legitimate rights
of both Israelis and Palestinians. There is no more important lesson to learn
in such situations than the fact that simultaneity and reciprocity rule in such
negotiations.)
Decisive yet sensible leadership among those
involved in the talks has been able to triumph over extremist ideological positions
of domestic foes, and scare tactics of perturbed foreign parties like Israel
and Saudi Arabia. In particular the continuing serious negotiations are a big
blow to the power of the pro-Israel lobbies in Washington, D.C. that had argued
for zero enrichment in Iran. This is another setback to the Zionist attempt to
give Israel’s self-defined security concerns priority over the dictates of
existing international law and conventions, whether related to nuclear
proliferation, refugee rights, the Geneva conventions or other issues.
Iran also has provided an important lesson for
the world on how a firm, law-and-legitimacy-anchored position on the right to
enrich uranium for peaceful purposes can be vindicated, if a country does not
allow itself to be bullied and threatened by primarily American-Israeli-driven
accusations and assumptions that are rarely supported by hard, credible
evidence. Self-respect is an effective diplomatic tool when one has facts at
hand to reinforce one’s case, and agrees to address the legitimate needs of
both sides simultaneously.
Rami G. Khouri is published twice weekly in
the Daily Star. He was
founding director and now senior policy fellow of the Issam Fares Institute for
Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut. On
Twitter: @ramikhouri.
Copyright © 2014 Rami G. Khouri—distributed by
Agence Global