Do Western-Iranian Negotiations Establish New Prospects for Cooperation?

The Iranian-American rapprochement, which began with the phone call between President Barack Obama and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, has broken the ice that was preventing the two countries from finding a way to take the edge off the disagreements between them, especially those related to the nuclear program. Consequently, it has opened up new horizons that may pave the way for greater rapprochement in relations between them and, as Iran is now a pivotal state that cannot be circumvented and that can contribute significantly to the resolution of contentious issues, may aid in resolving the issues of the region and in proliferating safety, security and global stability while protecting the interests of the people.

The flexible diplomacy of President Rouhani and the new Iranian leadership played a large part in bringing about the latest round of negotiations in Geneva between Iran and the P5+1 group — the U.S., Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany. In accordance with these negotiations, Iran has presented a plan that may end the Western countries’ concocted concern about its nuclear program — concocted because their policies in this field are selective: They express concern over Iran’s nuclear program despite the latter’s stress and assurance that it is for peaceful purposes, particularly the production of electricity and nuclear fuel for scientific research centers, while they ignore Israel’s nuclear arsenal, which threatens the region’s peoples as well as international peace and security.

The Geneva negotiations that ended last Wednesday have been described in European, American and Russian political circles as positive and were considered the first of the steps that Iran has taken towards the West in relation to its nuclear program. At the same time, the steps emphasize the transparency and seriousness of Iranian officials in Geneva. These officials have wide powers to establish points of harmony in order to build trust with the other side, which indicates the extent of Iran’s interest in removing obstacles to a resolution of the nuclear issue that doesn’t infringe on the Iranian people’s legal rights. At the forefront of those rights are the ones contained in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, such as the right to enrich uranium to the designated, permissible proportions for peaceful purposes.

The recommendation that the Iranian leadership put forth to show its goodwill and build trust with the P5+1 group, which White House spokesman Jay Carney described as beneficial and showing a level of seriousness not seen before, confirms that Iran’s nuclear program is for peaceful and not military purposes. That is especially true because Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of the Islamic Revolution, has issued a fatwa prohibiting the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Consequently, there is seriousness and credibility in [Iran’s effort] to end Western concern, for which there is no justification. If the West honestly intends to resolve the nuclear crisis and preserve the rights of peoples to use nuclear power peacefully, then the U.S. must meet Iran’s serious and reassuring steps with steps of its own to prove its good intent. Subsequently, it must work on lifting the oppressive economic sanctions on the Iranian people.

The negotiations between the two sides that have occurred thus far in the chambers of Geneva have not been leaked to the media. However, the statements and reactions forecast the opening of new horizons between the two sides, horizons that may well take the edge off the tension and pave the way for a new round of negotiations — the date for which has been set to Nov. 7 and 8. This calls for optimism toward the coming round of negotiations, but caution is needed because there are states and entities that have expressed their displeasure about Iran’s current flexibility and America’s welcoming attitude. Their displeasure has prompted them to demand that the U.S. administration ramp up the sanctions on the Iranian people as a means of applying pressure and, subsequently, frustrating the negotiations so that tension with Iran continues to reign. This would make manifest [the goals of] the aggressive agenda that aims to deprive the Iranian people of scientific and technological advancement.

At the forefront of the entities that have expressed their apprehension about the meetings between Iranian officials and their Western counterparts in the chambers of the U.N. General Assembly, one result of which is the resumption of negotiations on nuclear issues, is the Zionist entity.* Its officials have expressed their displeasure over this rapprochement. They have worked with some Arab and regional parties to form a front to frustrate these negotiations (which events so far have proven are beneficial) and to create the state of hysteria that prompted Benjamin Netanyahu, the Zionist entity’s prime minister, to threaten to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities without American assistance — even though he knows there are Israeli studies confirming that even if Iran had the nuclear bomb, it wouldn’t pose a threat to [Israel]. This indicates that the Zionist entity is using the nuclear program in Iran as an excuse to isolate it, prevent it from realizing any scientific or military development and impair its role in resisting [Israel] by supporting all national liberation movements and just causes in the region, especially the Palestinian cause and the rights of the Palestinian people to erect its future state with Jerusalem as its capital.

What Tehran has offered in the Geneva negotiations, which have been described as positive by most political circles, especially the American and European ones, constitutes a breakthrough on the path to ending misgivings and concern about the nuclear program. At the same time, it put the West’s credibility to the test when it comes to resolving controversial issues through peaceful means and discussion. Hence, the West and the United States must meet Iran’s leadership by taking steps that reassure the country and its people. They must not delay in implementing their commitments, which would bridge the trust gap that has existed for 34 years and contribute to the restoration of relations with Iran in such a way that preserves the rights of the peoples in the region, guarantees security and stability therein and ensures nonintervention into the affairs of sovereign states. All the countries of the region and their peoples, as well as those of the West and the U.S., would benefit from that.

*Editor’s note: This is a reference to the state of Israel.