Former Negotiator: Promise to Lift Iran Sanctions in 20 Years “Unrealistic”

In a commentary written for the Financial Times, Mousavian has warned that Iran’s administration will be “committing political suicide” should it accede to the world powers’ proposal for the removal of sanctions during two decades.

The former Iranian nuclear negotiator’s comments come amid a decisive round of nuclear talks between Iran and the Group 5+1 (Russia, China, the US, Britain, France and Germany) over Tehran’s peaceful nuclear program.

Since July 2, the negotiating parties have gathered in Vienna in a bid to hammer out a comprehensive deal on Tehran’s nuclear case before a self-imposed July 20 deadline.

Here is the story Mousavian has written for the British daily newspaper:

A dose of realism is needed to resolve Iran’s nuclear crisis

By Sunday, the world will know whether Tehran and six world powers have found a path towards a peaceful resolution of the crisis over Iran’s nuclear program.

Following last November’s interim agreement, the US and its fellow world powers should not miss this chance to seal a comprehensive deal. There is much at stake if the talks fail – and much to be gained from a deal, both in the region and beyond.

Significant obstacles remain. First among them is the demand for Iran to make commitments far beyond those required by the signatories of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. These include the closure of the enrichment site at Fordow, a potential source of weapons-grade uranium; modification of the Arak heavy water reactor, curbing its ability to produce plutonium that could be used for weapons; and submission to monitoring procedures well beyond international protocols. The US, UK, Russia, China, France and Germany – known as the P5+1 – are also seeking to prevent Iran producing fuel for its nuclear power plants; a ban on peaceful nuclear-related research and development; and limitations on missile capability.

Finally, the P5+1 insist it could take 20 years to implement parts of the deal, particularly the removal of sanctions. In other words, Iran is being asked to make significant concessions in return for a promise that sanctions will be loosened in the next two decades. This is not realistic; nor does it play to the long-term interests of the P5+1.

By accepting these demands, the administration in Tehran – the first to engage with the US after decades of enmity – would be committing political suicide. Moreover, a two-decade implementation period would endanger the entire arrangement, placing it at the mercy of political changes in Tehran and Washington.

A dose of realism is urgently needed. The interim deal became possible because the US abandoned its unrealistic “zero-enrichment” policy. Iran, too, has shifted its stance. It is ready to accept the maximum level of transparency based on NPT rules. It is even willing to be flexible over temporary and voluntary measures beyond the NPT rules, such as extra assurances that it will not divert its nuclear programme towards weaponisation.

Furthermore, as proposed by Princeton University’s nuclear scientists, technical changes to the design of Iran’s planned Arak heavy water research reactor could remove its output of potential material for nuclear weapons. In this way, annual plutonium production could be cut to less than a kilogramme, far below the 8kg or so needed for a bomb.

But the demand to close the underground Fordow facility is unrealistic as long as Washington and Israel insist “all options are on the table” to prevent Iran developing nuclear weapons. Fordow is the only facility that would be out of reach of an Israeli or US military strike.

The most challenging issue is agreeing an enrichment capacity consistent with Iran’s practical needs for civilian nuclear power plants and peaceful nuclear research reactors.

To resolve these disputes, steps must be agreed that could be face-saving for both parties, such as limiting uranium enrichment to levels of less than 5 per cent purity; keeping stocks of enriched uranium to a minimum; and using Fordow as an R&D facility to neutralise it as a military threat. Moreover, both sides could agree to replace over a period of a few years the first generation of centrifuges with a smaller number of more efficient uranium-enrichment centrifuges. In the transition period, the total operating enrichment capacity would be limited to the level of Iran’s practical needs.

In a final deal, both sides need to agree on a step-by-step plan founded on proportionate reciprocation. For example, before President Barack Obama leaves office, it is vital that substantial sanctions are lifted. And direct talks between Iran and the US are necessary to any deal.

With Syria and Iraq on the verge of collapse, and Afghanistan facing domestic turmoil, the rise of extremist Sunni terrorism poses a grave and immediate threat to the region and the nations of the P5+1. Washington and Tehran – the central international and regional leaders – have a strong mutual interest in co-operating on these crises. If a comprehensive nuclear deal is reached, significant barriers to doing so will be removed.