Ask John Kerry
Published in Asharq Al Awsat
(Saudi Arabia) on 16 November 2013
by Camilia Intikhabi Fard (link to
original)
The ending of talks with Iran 10 days before the beginning of the next round has led to a high risk of failure in reaching an agreement in the “Geneva III” talks; it will give enough time for opponents of each party to restore their activities and raise more doubts.
The American Congress was one of those opponents, motivated by the Israeli lobby and conservative Republicans. On the other hand, it was the opposition in Iran, the conservatives, who opposed on a basic level any negotiations and trust in Western countries, particularly the United States.
In the middle of this atmosphere, both parties ran out of patience when they failed to reach a nuclear agreement in Geneva last week. Despite threats by Congress against the Obama administration to impose a new set of sanctions, Secretary of State John Kerry struggled hard to prevent any movement that could hurt the Geneva negotiations, where Kerry feared that it would have a negative effect on the signing of an agreement.
Reaching an agreement means that the option of confrontation will be withdrawn from among the options on the negotiating table. “All options are available and possible.”* That is the phrase American advisers always repeat and which always raises a great deal of anger among Iranian politicians.
One of the choices that both Iran and the United States are avoiding, apart from seriously considering the Israelis and their clear demands, is a strike against Iran. The only thing which could make the Israeli administration happy is an act of war against Iran; otherwise what they are asking for, i.e. no enrichment, is not possible. If Iran demonstrated that the goal of its nuclear program was use for peaceful and civilian purposes, then according to the International Atomic Energy Agency charter, there is no problem with Iran’s enriching uranium with nuclear reactors on its own soil, like many other countries.
In a related context, the IAEA mentioned last Monday that Iran has agreed to solve every outstanding issue with the agency and will permit international inspectors “the ability to directly access” the two important nuclear plants not previously inspected regularly.
Maybe the Iranian agreement with the IAEA will be a surprise to some of the opposition who had enough time to implement a new course of sanctions in Congress.
The agreement follows in the wake of talks that occurred between Iran and six great world powers about Iran’s nuclear program last month during the visit of Yukiya Amano, the general director of the International Atomic Energy Association, to Tehran. The agreement will permit agency inspectors to visit the Gashin mine in Bandar Abbas and a heavy water production plant that is being built in Arak.
In the meantime, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry took extended tours of Middle Eastern countries after the “Geneva II” talks directed at informing the United States’ allies of the negotiation results with Iran.
Thus, it is not possible for Israeli demands to be part of the process of reaching an agreement with Iran. President Hassan Rouhani clarified in his speech last Sunday before parliament that “the enrichment of uranium is a red line for us and the matter is not negotiable.”
Within less than a week, the P5+1 group will resume talks with Iran. The United States, with its status as the most important negotiator in the talks, aims to persuade its allies in the region and make them feel comfortable should an agreement be reached with Iran.
The Secretary of State John Kerry stated during a press conference held in the United Arab Emirates that the Obama administration was a party in the “race” to hold any trades. This affair means that Kerry wanted to reassure America’s allies that, in the case of an agreement, the situation will benefit all of them, not just Iran.
It is interesting to recognize the American administration’s efforts to push the process of securing an agreement and persuade its allies among the Arabs and Israelis to trust the negotiations with Iran, as well as the Iranians. On the other hand, it is very passive about making any efforts to attain neighboring countries’ support.
Why doesn’t Iran have the courage to improve its relationship with its Arab neighbors at a time when the American administration is actively trying to negotiate with internal and external opposition? Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif undertook a wide-ranging tour of Western countries to negotiate the sanctions imposed on Iran, hold talks about the Iran’s nuclear program and appear on many foreign news channels. However, there have not been any trips to Arab countries up to now, and he has not appeared in the media of those countries. Even given the importance of the internal opposition and the Western negotiators to Iran, it is also necessary for Iranians to keep in mind their close neighboring Arab countries; those countries have influence than can make a difference to the talks.
If it were possible for Rouhani and Zarif to bring warmth to Iran’s relationship with the United States, then why not allow Iran to work with its neighbors? It is certain that the support of and impact on those neighboring countries is no less important than their Western counterparts. To realize that, ask to follow John Kerry’s lead.
*Editor’s note: Although accurately translated, this quote could not be verified.
The American Congress was one of those opponents, motivated by the Israeli lobby and conservative Republicans. On the other hand, it was the opposition in Iran, the conservatives, who opposed on a basic level any negotiations and trust in Western countries, particularly the United States.
In the middle of this atmosphere, both parties ran out of patience when they failed to reach a nuclear agreement in Geneva last week. Despite threats by Congress against the Obama administration to impose a new set of sanctions, Secretary of State John Kerry struggled hard to prevent any movement that could hurt the Geneva negotiations, where Kerry feared that it would have a negative effect on the signing of an agreement.
Reaching an agreement means that the option of confrontation will be withdrawn from among the options on the negotiating table. “All options are available and possible.”* That is the phrase American advisers always repeat and which always raises a great deal of anger among Iranian politicians.
One of the choices that both Iran and the United States are avoiding, apart from seriously considering the Israelis and their clear demands, is a strike against Iran. The only thing which could make the Israeli administration happy is an act of war against Iran; otherwise what they are asking for, i.e. no enrichment, is not possible. If Iran demonstrated that the goal of its nuclear program was use for peaceful and civilian purposes, then according to the International Atomic Energy Agency charter, there is no problem with Iran’s enriching uranium with nuclear reactors on its own soil, like many other countries.
In a related context, the IAEA mentioned last Monday that Iran has agreed to solve every outstanding issue with the agency and will permit international inspectors “the ability to directly access” the two important nuclear plants not previously inspected regularly.
Maybe the Iranian agreement with the IAEA will be a surprise to some of the opposition who had enough time to implement a new course of sanctions in Congress.
The agreement follows in the wake of talks that occurred between Iran and six great world powers about Iran’s nuclear program last month during the visit of Yukiya Amano, the general director of the International Atomic Energy Association, to Tehran. The agreement will permit agency inspectors to visit the Gashin mine in Bandar Abbas and a heavy water production plant that is being built in Arak.
In the meantime, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry took extended tours of Middle Eastern countries after the “Geneva II” talks directed at informing the United States’ allies of the negotiation results with Iran.
Thus, it is not possible for Israeli demands to be part of the process of reaching an agreement with Iran. President Hassan Rouhani clarified in his speech last Sunday before parliament that “the enrichment of uranium is a red line for us and the matter is not negotiable.”
Within less than a week, the P5+1 group will resume talks with Iran. The United States, with its status as the most important negotiator in the talks, aims to persuade its allies in the region and make them feel comfortable should an agreement be reached with Iran.
The Secretary of State John Kerry stated during a press conference held in the United Arab Emirates that the Obama administration was a party in the “race” to hold any trades. This affair means that Kerry wanted to reassure America’s allies that, in the case of an agreement, the situation will benefit all of them, not just Iran.
It is interesting to recognize the American administration’s efforts to push the process of securing an agreement and persuade its allies among the Arabs and Israelis to trust the negotiations with Iran, as well as the Iranians. On the other hand, it is very passive about making any efforts to attain neighboring countries’ support.
Why doesn’t Iran have the courage to improve its relationship with its Arab neighbors at a time when the American administration is actively trying to negotiate with internal and external opposition? Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif undertook a wide-ranging tour of Western countries to negotiate the sanctions imposed on Iran, hold talks about the Iran’s nuclear program and appear on many foreign news channels. However, there have not been any trips to Arab countries up to now, and he has not appeared in the media of those countries. Even given the importance of the internal opposition and the Western negotiators to Iran, it is also necessary for Iranians to keep in mind their close neighboring Arab countries; those countries have influence than can make a difference to the talks.
If it were possible for Rouhani and Zarif to bring warmth to Iran’s relationship with the United States, then why not allow Iran to work with its neighbors? It is certain that the support of and impact on those neighboring countries is no less important than their Western counterparts. To realize that, ask to follow John Kerry’s lead.
*Editor’s note: Although accurately translated, this quote could not be verified.