The latest negotiated agreement between Iran and the United States has certainly been applauded by many seeking peace with Iran. There are several problems with this commentary which must be addressed to provide a clear picture of the Iranian nuclear issue.  While a strong diplomatic solution is preferable to other actions, it must be a solution that guarantee’s the security of both America and our allies in the Middle East.  The current deal does not insure this goal.  Some of the stipulations of the current negotiations are the conversion of Iran’s stockpiles of enriched uranium and more thorough inspections by the IAEA.  Iran’s conversion of 20% enriched uranium to uranium dioxide is a step back from developing a nuclear weapon, but according to the Federation of American Scientists, this process is easily reversible.  Iran is also only temporarily halting enrichment above the 5% level and given their past actions, will not give up their desire for enrichment.  Also, Iran’s past cooperation with IAEA inspectors leaves little doubt that they will be open and cooperative with the inspectors.

A recent editorial in my hometown newspaper, the Observer-Reporter describes the “willingness of Iran’s recently elected President Hassan Rouhani to engage constructively with the United States”. Yet, it is important to note that we have heard this same tune from Iran before.  In 2003, after the discovery of Iran’s nuclear facilities in Natanz, Iran negotiated by temporarily halting enrichment in exchange for no additional sanctions.  However, after only two years Iran resumed enrichment.  Iran’s head nuclear negotiator declared afterwards that the diplomacy was merely a tactic to delay the sanctions while giving Iran’s nuclear program more time to develop, an objective Iran accomplished during this period.  For those unfamiliar with these negotiations, it was none other than Rouhani, the media labeled moderate, who according to the editorial will “engage constructively with the United States”, who played this game of deceit with the United States.  Have we learned nothing from Rouhani’s actions ten years ago?  This is the same game and Iran is once again attempting to lull America to sleep while it acquires a nuclear ace.

The peace talks with Iran seem to have taken a step backwards as Iran says it cannot accept the deal as currently worded by the P5+1.  Whether talks will resume smoothly on November 20th is unclear, but the west can take comfort in the fact that Iran has agreed to more extensive U.N. inspections of their current nuclear facilities.  Whether these will be treated any better than the ones in 2003-05 remains a mystery, although the fact that Iran is already forbidding access to its facilities at the military base of Parchin southwest of Tehran is suspicious.  It is especially so given that this site is thought to be where Iran tested a trigger to be used for a nuclear bomb.  Another wrinkle to the situation is the apparent differences between France and the rest of the P5+1 over the deal offered to Iran.  France seems to be taking the side of Israel who are calling the negotiations the “deal of the century” for Iran.  One thing is clear, no deal is better than a bad deal and this must not be mere talk but the firm resolve of the American negotiators at Geneva.

This article by Nathan Donohue is a reaction to another article written by Michael Makovsky and Blaise Misztal of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Foreign Policy Project in the Wall Street Journal.  Makovsky and Misztal argue that the NPT does not give Iran the “right” to enrichment, something Iran stresses at every opportunity.  Donohue however, maintains that the issue is not so clearly defined and examines the wording and history of the NPT to validate his claims.  Donohue argues that the wording of the treaty is one of main reasons the situation is so ambiguous.  Indeed, the wording is often confusing and ambiguous at best.  The treaty declares that states without nuclear weapons are not permitted to obtain a nuclear weapon or develop technology to that end, but that it can develop peaceful nuclear energy to any extent.  Thus, a state such as Iran can maintain it is developing peaceful technology right up until it makes a quick transition to a nuclear weapon.  And while we can argue about the technical aspect of treaty, Iran’s actions leave little doubt of their pursuit for nuclear weapons.  If they desired peaceful nuclear energy, Iran would develop its energy structure and also use its cheaper natural gas deposits instead of undergoing an expensive enrichment program.  In response to both these articles, I would argue it is pointless arguing over a treaty that deliberately contains ambiguous wording and instead concentrate on the real problem of Iran’s continual march towards acquiring a nuclear weapon.

This article from the Washington Institute stresses the need for speedy negotiations with Iran.  It argues that time is not really on our side when dealing with Tehran.  While I am in total agreement with this, another aspect of the article struck me even more.  The article mentions towards the end that by negotiating with Iran, we furthering the perception that Iran is a regional power and perhaps has even attained regional hegemony.  While the author stresses this is certainly not true, perception often equals reality.  We must be careful to negotiate from a position of strength to demonstrate to the Middle East that we do not view Iran as dominating the region and capable of standing up to the United States.

Reading this article made me consider the various methods the US should use when dealing with Iran.  First, cannot let negotiations drag on as this will give Iran time to gain more nuclear material if they are not being honest with us (a likely possibility).  By presenting a clear cut deal up front that states exactly what we want and what we will not deviate from, we can determine if Iran is really serious.  It will also reassure our ally Israel and insure they do not become frustrated with slow negotiations and attempt to take action on their own.   We also must not come up with a temporary deal but one that fixes the problem now.  This will insure a more stable peace and allow us to concentrate on other areas of interest

The current negotiations with Iran are encouraging, if we can take them at face value.  Currently they insist on enrichment as a right due to their participation in the NPT and have said they would agree to more thorough inspections.  Given the past history of the program, I would argue inspectors be placed permanently at Iran’s nuclear sites as a precondition for any form of enrichment.  If Iran is truly honest about its program, they have no reason to decline this demand.  Yet, does the NPT give Iran the right to enrich or merely the privilege of enrichment if they abide by its stipulations.  As the main stipulation is the abandonment of a nuclear weapons program, one could argue they should not use this privilege until they demonstrate their cooperation.  However, if we want to accomplish anything with these talks, we must grant some sort of enrichment capability to Iran or they will abandon the talks and possibly expel all the IAEA inspectors from the country.