Preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons

Sidney Balman, barely arrived Middle East Institute research assistant, reports:

While attention this week is focused mainly on Syria, nuclear talks with Iran are expected to reconvene this fall after a hiatus due to the Iranian presidential elections.  President Rouhani, who this week shifted the lead negotiating role to Iran’s newly appointed Foreign Minister Zarif, has softened the harsh tone of his predecessor and sought to portray Iran as open to a negotiated solution.  The next 12 to 18 months will prove crucial in the nuclear talks.

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace yesterday hosted three of the leading experts on Iran’s nuclear program—Georgetown University’s Colin Kahl, the Institute for Science and International Security’s David Albright, and the Carnegie Endowment’s George Perkovich—to speak on the prospects for the nuclear negotiations.  The Arms Control Association’s Daryl Kimball moderated

Under the previous Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the talks remained at a stalemate. But with Rouhani in office, the nuclear talks could take a positive turn. Rouhani campaigned in the June elections on a platform of reducing Iran’s international isolation, whereas former Ahmadinejad nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili campaigned on building up the nuclear program and refusing to compromise with the West.  As Colin Kahl said, the election was essentially a referendum, with the Iranian people deciding their suffering economy is far more important than the nuclear program.

David Albright made it clear that a resolution in the diplomatic negotiations during this time is crucial before Iran reaches “critical capability,” which is the point when it has enriched enough uranium to make a mad dash to build a bomb. Therefore, it is important that both Iran and the P5+1 negotiators are prepared to approach the talks with a new and creative perspective.

While Kahl held that the probability of the current government suspending enrichment of uranium is zero, he stressed that it is important for the P5+1 to negotiate “big for big,” and not “small for small” or “more for small.” Moreover, it is vital that the Western negotiators provide the Iranians with a potential roadmap that details an endgame with phased implementations. Kahl’s proposal asks that Iran:

• Cap enrichments at 5 percent

• Limit the domestic stockpile of uranium to less than the amount needed for one bomb

• Restrict the number of centrifuges in its facilities

• Suspend all activity at the Arak heavy water facility, and

• Allow more intrusive inspections by the IAEA.

In return, the P5+1 should offer:

• Relief from economic sanctions

• The right to enrich uranium for energy production purposes

• Future peaceful relations with the West, and

• Possibly even offer Iran a long-term security agreement, which is something it has pursued in the past

If Iran has no intention of building a nuclear weapon, Kahl said, then this deal is optimal. But, if the Iranian government is secretly developing a nuclear weapons program, then this offer would essentially call its bluff.

As George Perkovich explained, it is important to remember that Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, is an important factor. Although he does not follow the details of the nuclear program and the negotiations in depth, he is obsessed with fairness. Thus, in order for any deal to be taken seriously, the P5+1 negotiators have to ensure that the Iranians perceive any deal as fair and that they do not feel as if they are “picked on.” Otherwise, Khamenei will make sure that there are no significant developments in the negotiations during these critical 12 to 18 months.

With a key period of negotiations fast approaching, it is important that both sides take advantage of the opportunity for diplomacy. The P5+1 should infuse its offers with some newfound creativity in order to be successful. Perkovich said we should approach this situation with a Reagan-esque mentality, in that we should not “trust and verify” as former US President Ronald Reagan said, but we should “distrust and verify.” Both the P5+1 and Iran need to put everything on the table and come to a conclusion that satisfies both sides, while ending the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran.