The Bushehr nuclear power plant in the Iranian port town of Bushehr on February 25, 2009. (Behrouz Mehri/AFP/Getty Images) [/caption]
The Geneva agreement to freeze key parts of the Iranian nuclear program in return for relaxing some of the sanctions, announced early Sunday morning, instantly became the major news story around the world. For the first time in ten years, it seemed like a permanent agreement was a real possibility. But the fact is that despite this interim agreement, there is no guarantee a permanent deal will be reached. I might be wrong, but I haven't seen any recognition in the media, on blogs, or by a government official that we still do not know what the future will bring.
There have been many negative charges in the news from both sides railing against the positions of the other. These tend to fall into one of two categories: either blaming the other side for their political positions or saying that the other side does not understand “our” political position. For example, Iranians have come out with comments accusing the US of being imperialist toward the Middle East in general and Iran in particular. The Israeli and French governments and the US Congress have made statements (whether overt or implicit) that Iran cannot be trusted to abide by an agreement and that it will always ultimately seek to create nuclear weapons.
Of course, there have also been many optimistic comments. This has been especially true if something positive was in the news that day, such as when the US Congress agreed to put off escalating the sanctions. Until the agreement on Sunday, virtually all these comments were based mainly on emotional positions, rather than empirical analysis.
That said, having a positive outlook before any deal is reached is also not necessarily a case of stupidity or ideology. Most governments—including those involved in these negotiations—have professionals who are well aware of the cultural, political and economic interests at home and abroad, but when their policy choices are extremely difficult to make, they are faced with a “damned if you do and damned if you don’t” scenario.
Coupled with that expertise is the fact that, while a foreign policy is supposed to focus on a country’s national interest, positions taken by policymakers must look beyond what foreign policy positions are best suited to meet that interest. Today, most national governments have multiple and conflicting foreign and domestic interests. That is certainly the case on both sides of the Iranian nuclear issue. For example, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani stated that Iran would never seek atomic weapons for the benefit of foreign parties, while he repeated Iran’s right to maintain its nuclear program to his own people.
Ordinary people who follow issues like the Iranian nuclear deal must, first, keep up with the news each day. But that is not enough. If you only read the news, it will still be easy to look at the other country and what its government leaders have said and what they have done through your own eyes, from the perspective of your own desires—not theirs. We all have to work on understanding the other side’s social culture and values, political system, economy and ego.
We also know that Iran and the US have cooperated before. Even passive observers of history will know about the Iran–Contra Affair in the mid-1980s, when the US secretly sold weapons to Iran (despite it being the subject of an arms embargo), first to obtain the release of hostages in Lebanon and then as a way to fund the Contras in Nicaragua despite a ban on federal money being used to support them. The Iranians knew the US was being a “rug merchant,” but they were happy to get the arms. In other words, both sides have worked together in the past when it was in their mutual self-interest to do so.
It may be that the nuclear negotiations are another case where the two sides will cooperate to secure their respective interests, but as I’ve said, we won’t know until it happens. Until late last week, the momentum toward finally reaching a mutually acceptable agreement on the Iranian nuclear issue didn’t look very strong. The mood became far more optimistic on Friday when John Kerry and other P5+1 foreign ministers headed to Geneva, and even more so when the interim agreement was announced on Sunday morning.
That said, however, there are still those on both sides who will do what they can to try to scupper the negotiations. But as the saying goes, “The opera isn’t over until the fat lady sings.”
All views expressed in this blog post are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, The Majalla magazine.
