My last several posts have been about the negotiations between the members of the U.N. Security Council and Iran over Iran's nuclear program. A 'framework" has been agreed upon which will be used to construct a final agreement by June. The agreement will have to be ratified by the Security Council members and Iran. The New York Times just published an editorial about five things that they think will need to happen before any final agreement can be reached. "In reality -- and as the coming weeks, months, and years will demonstrate -- major issues have yet to be settled. It is closer to the truth to say the real debate about the Iran nuclear accord is just beginning."
First, the agreed upon "framework" will have to be translated into a complete final agreement by June. This allows only ninety days for the participants to work out a number of unanswered questions. Already the different parties are representing the "framework" in different ways to their citizens. There are hardliners in the U.S. and Iran who will fight hard to prevent any final agreement.
Second, the removal of the sanctions has been given no timetable. This is the most important issue for Iran. The only reason they came to the negotiating table was to find a way remove the crippling sanctions that have been instituted by the members of the U.N. Security Council. Iran wants the sanctions to be lifted as soon as a final agreement is signed. The Security Council members want to leave some sanctions in place while they see how well Iran adheres to a final agreement.
Third, Iran has uranium mines and the technological infrastructure to develop civilian nuclear power. The "framework" calls for limits on certain Iranian nuclear activities for fifteen years in one case and twenty five years in another case. There are serious concerns about whether monitoring will be adequate and what Iran will do following the expirations of limits on certain activities. U.S. hardliners and Israel are calling for strict limits on any nuclear activity in Iran. The Iranians are a proud people and the hardliners may be able to use that pride to sink any agreement that places harsh limits on Iranian nuclear research.
Fourth, Iran has been accused of withholding relevant information from inspectors with respect to past agreement. U.S. critics of any deal claim that Iran cannot be trusted and that they will most certainly not abide by the terms of any agreement. Following any final agreement, the question of how to insure Iranian compliance becomes the important issue.
Fifth, critics of the negotiations point out that the "framework" only covers Iran's nuclear program. Iran has been criticized for supporting terrorists and proxies in other countries to extend Iran's influence in the region. There have also been complaints about Iran's missile development program. There are other Iranian foreign policies that other nations find unacceptable. Critics of the "framework" and continuing negotiations insist that any new agreement with Iran should include additional matters beyond their nuclear program.
Any agreement with Iran that slows its nuclear program will benefit their neighbors and other countries. As difficult as it may be to reach a final agreement, it will be preferable to abandoning negotiations, seeing sanctions cancelled and leaving Iran free to develop nuclear weapons if it chooses to do so.
