Iran and big power negotiators reached a historic deal on Iran's controversial nuclear programme early morning Sunday in Geneva. The deal has a six-month timetable during which Iran must prove that its aims are sincere and its nuclear programme peaceful. At that point, a more permanent agreement would be reached between the parties. The harder part of the negotiations lies ahead in the months to come while critics on both sides question and express doubts over the agreement. The main achievement, perhaps, is that the agreement reached gives the US and Iran as the major players room to breathe after being under intense pressure from hardliners in their respective countries. In the US, congress and Israeli lobbyists, who have been against lifting the pressure from Iran and have been preparing, indeed, a new round of sanctions, were left shocked Sunday. In Iran, too, extremists who are against any talks and negotiations with the US were caught off guard when waking up Sunday morning to learn that a deal had been made. Iran and the US both claimed victory despite their contradictory interests. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohamed Javad Zarif said Sunday's deal was an “opportunity to end an unnecessary crisis and open new horizons, based on respect for the rights of the Iranian people, and the removal of any doubts about the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme”. Zarif also said that the agreement explicitly recognised that Iran had a right to enrich uranium. But US Secretary of State John Kerry, shortly after the deal was struck, appeared before the media, saying: “This first step does not say that Iran has a right to enrichment. No matter what interpretive comments are made, it is not in this document. The scope and role of Iran's enrichment, as is set forth in the language within this document, says that Iran's peaceful nuclear programme is subject to a negotiation and to mutual agreement. And it can only be by mutual agreement that enrichment might or might not be able to be decided on in the course of negotiations.” The differences between the two top diplomats caused much controversy and confusion, especially in Iran, with hardliners asking if Iran has the right to enrich uranium or not. Is Zarif or Kerry right? Logically, it cannot be both. Perhaps the Geneva agreement was drafted in such a way that each side could claim victory. A day before the agreement was reached, Iran's deputy foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, told journalists in Geneva that the differences between the two sides in negotiations were over words in the draft, not principles. Differences in words left enough room, it seems, for both sides to manoeuvre and interpret the deal in such a way that would suit their respective peoples and allow each to claim victory in the face of domestic opponents. The text of the four-page document published by Fars News Agency states clearly that the final deal “would involve a mutually defined enrichment programme with practical limits and transparency”. Yet, in spite of all hopes and enthusiasm among ordinary Iranians, whose lives have been gravely affected by the international sanctions, dragging the middle class in particular into rising poverty, news of the deal didn't spur the stock market or increase the local currency's value against the US dollar. Zarif said the deal was an achievement for Iran, because it means avoiding any new sanctions for six months. Also, the agreement gives Iran access to some currently frozen funds from oil sales, and eases sanctions on precious metals and petrochemical exports, and on car and airplane parts. The implementation of the deal may not immediately pave the way to easier lives for Iranians, or decrease inflation that is running at around 40 per cent. But Zarif promised that within a month the lifting of some of the sanctions would give a boost to the economy. Of course both sides have taken a big political risk. If the deal fails, the fallout would be significant for the players involved. But the Iranian regime has proven that the unexpected can happen. Left aside is the US hostage crisis 34 years ago and the occupation of the US Embassy in Tehran — which remains a bugbear in the US Congress. Likewise the Iranian Embassy crisis in the UK that interrupted diplomatic ties between the two nations. It's hard to gamble when the elected government in Tehran is always under the tight grip of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, the extremist clergy and their radical followers. Meanwhile, President Barack Obama now has to face his adversaries in congress, and also major ally Israel, that is very upset with the deal with Iran. So the deal has been made, but it is fragile and uncertainty lies ahead. Zarif and his team still have a long way to go to secure a positive outcome for Iran.
ELEMENTS OF THE GENEVA AGREEMENT: The temporary deal requires Iran to halt all its uranium enrichment at 20 per cent purity and convert its 200-kilogramme stockpile into oxide for fuel. Iran is able to continue enriching uranium to below five per cent purity, which is usable for nuclear energy reactors. Iran can also continue work at its two primary enrichment facilities. But those facilities will now be subject to daily, instead of weekly, inspections, with video monitoring, and there will be new access to centrifuge production locations. For the half-year timeframe of the deal, Iran agrees not to add to the 19,500 centrifuges it has already installed, or turn on any of the 11,000 centrifuges that are not yet operating. Iran will also stop building fuel assemblies for the Arak heavy water reactor, which is still under construction. The total value of incentives is a “modest and reversible” $6-7 billion in sanctions relief. In this first-step accord, core US and EU sanctions on oil and banking would not be touched.
