15/04/2015
On April 2, negotiators from the five permanent members of the Security Council of the UN, plus Germany and the EU representative on the one hand, and the Iranians on the other, finally reached a framework agreement on which to build a final agreement on the Iranian nuclear program. The White House rushed to announce the benefits of this framework agreement, while the Iranian leadership did the same.
Before going into the core issue of the impact of this framework agreement (for Obama, the only hope for peace and for its detractors, this agreement paves the way to the Iranian bomb), there is one essential matter that needs to be clarified first: What exactly has been agreed in Lausanne?
This is not a rhetorical or cynical question. The reality is that only one joint statement emerged from the negotiating table, from the High Representative of the EU, Federica Mogherini, and the Iranian foreign minister, Javad Zariv. A statement comprised of 7 paragraphs of which more than two thirds were to praise the parties and only one third described the agreed targets. Neither the US nor Iran submitted any joint document. And hence the subsequent problem we are now facing.
According to the description of some of the journalists present in Lausanne, Secretary of State Kerry was unable to convince his Iranian counterpart to ratify a common text. That is why the White House published a highly detailed sheet with the parameters of the agreement in the early hours of 2 to April 3, European time. But while Westerners uncorked the champagne, Javad Zariv published on his Twitter account his disagreement with the American text, accusing it of being a product for domestic consumption and political sale of Obama's team. Indeed, on the following day, the official Iranian newspaper, The Tehran Times, denounced the clauses of the American document as a blatant lie and submitted a very different interpretation from what was announced by President Obama.
Differences in interpretation proved surprising: where Americans said freeze centrifuge R&D, Iran stated that it would continue upgrading its models during the duration of the agreement; on the clandestine Fordow facility where Obama said no uranium enrichment activities would be carried out, the Iranians claimed that they were to maintain two fully operational waterfalls; on the nuclear plutonium reactor in Arak, one side spoke of precluding plutonium production, the other of reducing it; Americans presented a very intrusive inspections system while the Iranians one which was practically voluntary; and about sanctions, the Americans said they would be gradually lifted, the Iranians said they would be lifted at the signing of the final agreement in June.
Then, last Thursday 9, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei delivered a speech in which he warned that they might not sign the final agreement. And "moderate" president Ruhani said that very same day that if sanctions were not removed on the day of the agreement, there would be no agreement.
Some downplay these differences as mere tactical manoeuvres, but the fact that Kerry had to cling to the Russian interpretation of the framework agreement points to essential differences still unresolved. Not to mention that their meeting took place at the same time Putin announced the end of the Russian restriction to deliver to Iran the sophisticated anti-aircraft system S-300, in force since 2010.
Ever since a good British ambassador defined the Iranians as people who do not say what they think and do not do what they say, deception is a quality ascribed to them. But I am afraid that in this case they may be more sincere than the current US administration, in a more delicate position because of an agreement difficult to justify. As Secretaries of State Kissinger and Schultz reminded us in the Washington Post, negotiations with Iran were opened to end its nuclear program and they have ended acknowledging it.