The Deal

This posting focuses more on the actual negotiations and what deal was agreed. From Mondoweiss, Washington Post (Ignatius), Haaretz (Chemi Shalev), Foreign Policy

President Obama addresses journalists in the White House rose garden on details of the deal reached with Iran, April 2nd, 2015. Photo by Susan Walsh AP.

How Obama won on Iran

By Philip Weiss, Mondoweiss
April 03, 2015

The opposition to the president’s historic deal with Iran is clear. It includes entitled foreign heads of state:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: A deal based on this framework would threaten the survival of Israel.

Such a deal would increase the risks of nuclear proliferation in the region and the risks of a horrific war.

Such a deal would not block Iran’s path to the bomb. It would pave it.

Apocalyptic deadenders, like Bill Kristol:

Just FYI: Yesterday, the date of the Iran deal, was in the Hebrew calendar 13 Nissan. Cf. Book of Esther 3:12.

And a cavalcade of establishment hawks and Israel firsters led by Jeffrey Goldberg:

But the great news about the deal is that Obama has managed to assemble a wide coalition of support for peace inside the U.S. establishment. That includes:

Most importantly, Hillary Clinton, who “strongly support[s]” the president, and mentions Israel second;

the liberal Israel lobby group J Street, which also mentions Israel second–

in the essential interests of the United States, its allies in the region–including Israel–and the world…. There must also be no question that, if a final agreement ultimately cannot be reached, the United States is not to blame

the New York Times (which also mentions Israel second, to Sunni Arab nations)–

Yet in today’s poisonous political climate, Mr. Obama’s critics have gone to extraordinary lengths to undercut him and any deal. Their belligerent behavior is completely out of step with the American public, which overwhelmingly favors a negotiated solution with Iran, unquestionably the best approach.

Chris Matthews, who was strong for the deal last night; Jonathan Chait, a neocon-lite commentator who has been appalled by Israel’s conduct in the last year–

I was really hoping @BillKristol would go with 30 Years war negotiations this time, but nope, Munich again.

and Peter Beinart, who is astute as always:

can’t help thinking how different debate in Washington (+ Jerusalem) over #Irandeal would be if Sheldon Adelson had a different hobby.

What you must remember about Clinton, the New York Times, Chait and Beinart is that they all joined Kristol 12 years ago in supporting the disastrous Iraq war (in part, surely, because of Israel’s supposed security interests). So the war coalition of 2002-2003 is shattered. Hillary Clinton is getting beaten in Pennsylvania by Rand Paul in the latest Quinnipiac poll: she cannot run as a hawk.

We can thank history for that, principally, but Obama and Netanyahu also deserve credit. Netanyahu did so by overplaying his hand in the last three months and, in the most entitled manner, seeking to bully and manipulate the American political process. His strategy has backfired completely. It turns out that the U.S. is not something that can be easily moved, as he once claimed.

And Obama deserves credit for his strength throughout the last eight weeks. He allowed the fight with Netanyahu to become public. Doing so was a gamble, but he is a good student of politics and he saw that the lobby was fracturing; and the result was that he actually consolidated political support inside the liberal Jewish establishment.

For another thing, he made sure through John Kerry that the deal that was announced yesterday surprised everyone, overwhelming expectations. Remember that in the days leading up to the deal we thought it either wasn’t going to happen or they were going to kick the can down the road, issuing a flimsy statement of general agreement with June set as the hard deadline. No: they shocked the Lausanne deathwatch crew with pages of specifics.

The effect was electrifying. Reporters like Andrea Mitchell and Wolf Blitzer deferred to the diplomatic stroke on television yesterday. It’s not for nothing that reporters likened the talks to Versailles, which ended World War I; and the president’s speech was elegantly triumphant. Obama and Kerry had seized the moment, using the majesty of their offices to the utmost. With all the drama they could summon, they said, This is our generation’s historic moment. And almost everyone deferred to the presidency yesterday. Obama’s liberal base is over the moon; and the celebration in Tehran is also an element of the historic blow they struck. Reporters are sensitive to the zeitgeist. They sense, this is something that cannot be undone. It’s like the Cuba opening. Who will oppose that?

Of course there will be hardliners who try and block the deal, both in Washington and Tehran. But they already look to be obstructionists, fighting the stream of history. And here is my bet: Chuck Schumer will not be among them. The most important congressional swing vote will survey the political landscape and recognize that he must support the president.

The Iran deal is done. It was cut during the last eight weeks, first when Netanyahu tried to commandeer Congress and then when he issued his racist appeal against droves of Arabs on election day in Israel. Obama played that moment like a chess master. Netanyahu’s “kind of rhetoric… starts to erode the meaning of democracy,” he said. And today he has gotten his wish, of moving the U.S. and Iran forward, at last. The result will be growing pressure on the Israeli occupation.

A better-than-expected nuclear deal with Iran

By David Ignatius,  Washington Post
April 02, 2015

The most compelling argument President Obama made Thursday for the nuclear framework deal with Iran was also the simplest one: The pact, once concluded, would be preferable to any realistic alternative.

It’s not a perfect agreement and certainly not a permanent solution to the threat an aggressive Iran poses for Israel and other nations in the Middle East. But the framework delivered more than many skeptics had feared. The problem is that the enervating bargaining will continue for another three months (at least) before the accord is final.

Obama defended the deal by invoking the early arms-control agreements with the Soviet Union, which had far more loopholes and potential dangers than the Iran pact. But those U.S.-Soviet accords, as Obama said, “made our world safer.” From Switzerland, a sleep-deprived but determined Secretary of State John F. Kerry stressed that the agreement was better than the “unacceptable” status quo.

What’s worrisome is that this deal still isn’t done: There’s no final handshake. All the late-night sessions and threats to break off the talks weren’t enough to get Iran to commit formally to the terms the United States laid out in a meticulous, four-page list of “parameters” for a binding “joint comprehensive plan.” The Iranians instead postponed that sign-off to another day, after the final, final negotiations.

One signal of the incompleteness of what was announced Thursday was the mismatch between the detail-rich U.S. fact sheet and the thin, page-and-a-half statement read jointly by European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. “We can now restart drafting the text and annexes [of the final agreement], guided by the solutions developed in these days,” the joint E.U.-Iranian document said. That hardly sounded like hitting the “done” button.

The key U.S. point of leverage, if I read these documents accurately, is that economic sanctions against Iran won’t be removed until the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog, verifies “implementation by Iran of its key nuclear commitments” after the final deal is struck. Thus, it shouldn’t seem to be in Iran’s interest to stall.

A troubling aspect of the deal, in terms of leverage, is that once initial Iranian compliance is verified, all U.S. and U.N. economic and financial sanctions related to the nuclear issue would be lifted, and a new U.N. resolution would be drafted to guide future Iranian compliance. Yes, there’s a so-called “snap-back” provision that would allow sanctions to be reimposed if Iran were found to be violating the agreement. But that’s a formula for a potential U.N. nightmare.

The United States had hoped for something more stringent: A calibrated reduction in sanctions, in which Iran would have to earn each additional concession. That was seen as a constraint on Iranian behavior, and it was repeatedly stressed by Kerry to the Iranians. It’s hard to be sure, because information is still fragmentary, but the United States seems to have softened its terms on this key issue. That’s worrisome.

The tentative terms of the deal, as described in the U.S. “parameters” memo, actually exceed what many had thought possible. The Iranians would be allowed to operate 5,060 centrifuges for the next 10 years, rather than the 6,000 or 6,500 that earlier leaks had suggested. For 15 years, enrichment would be banned at the hardened, underground facility at Fordow, longer than some had expected. The Iranians could enrich some uranium at Natanz but only to the 3.67 percent level, vastly below weapons-grade, and the stockpile of enriched material would be capped at 300 kilograms for 15 years.

Iranian research (or at least the fruits of it) would also be capped. About 1,000 advanced IR-2 centrifuges would be removed from Natanz, and no other advanced centrifuges could enrich uranium anywhere for at least 10 years. A heavy-water reactor at Arak would be reconfigured so it couldn’t produce bomb fuel.

Perhaps the most important part of the framework involves inspection and verification plans. Here, too, the United States seems to have obtained most of what it wanted. The IAEA could permanently monitor all of Iran’s nuclear facilities, using an intrusive measure known as the “additional protocol.” Inspection of Iran’s mines, mills and other elements of its nuclear supply chain would continue for 25 years. It’s a tougher package, in terms of preventing Iranian breakout, than many critics feared.

Zarif’s characterization of the deal was far different from Kerry’s or Obama’s. But such spin-doctoring is to be expected in any negotiation. This looks like a pretty good deal. I just wish it were signed.

David Ignatius writes a twice-a-week foreign affairs column and contributes to the PostPartisan blog.

After Iran deal in Lausanne, perhaps it’s Netanyahu’s turn to ‘reassess’ his strategy

Obama is going all out to defend the new nuclear understandings, even citing the emotional refrain of the Civil Rights Movement: ‘It’s been a long time coming.’

By Chemi Shalev,
Apil 03, 2015

The deal took many observers, including journalists following the talks in Lausanne, by surprise. After repeated extensions of the March 31 deadline and leaks about producing only a sort of general and nonbinding proclamation, the “parameters” were more detailed and extensive than expected and seemed to justify more efforts to achieve a detailed accord. Critics are likely to point to gaps and holes and concessions in the agreement, as they should, but initial reactions seemed to indicate that the Administration’s achievements could not be dismissed and might suffice to persuade Congress to hold off final judgement until the June 30 deadline.

Obama probably has no illusions about persuading Republicans in Congress to support him: his immediate targets are “hawkish” Democrats who will make or break a veto-proof majority on any new Iran-related legislation. Cognizant, perhaps, of their anxiety with the harshness of his statements on Israel after the recent March 17 elections, Obama reaffirmed his “unshakeable commitment to Israel’s defense.” After hemming and hawing about a post-elections congratulations call to Netanyahu, Obama now volunteered to brief the Israeli prime minister, albeit after updating various other world leaders.

It’s still reasonable to believe that part of Obama’s stand-offish attitude towards Netanyahu was tactical and meant precisely for this minute: to push Netanyahu into a corner and to depict his expected objections to an Iran deal as one more element in his overall anti-Obama and pro-Republican stance. But after he talks to the president and issues his expected condemnation of the deal, Netanyahu would do well to do his own “reassessment” on the efficacy of his own strategy and tactics until now.

Some of the questions Netanyahu might ask himself: Did his anti-Obama intifada increase or decrease the chances of blocking the “dangerous deal” in Congress? Did it help or hinder his ability to influence the administration’s positions in the negotiations? Were his achievements worth the damage done to the U.S.-Israeli relations? Will continuing with the same attitude increase or decrease his leverage? Will he now devote the three months until June 30 to efforts to derail the talks or will he try to influence what seems to many people, especially after Lausanne, to be a done deal?

After the Purim/Haman analogies, many Israelis and Jews around the world will find it easy to couch what seems to be an Iranian-American rapprochement in apocalyptic redemption terms of the Passover Hagaddah: “In every generation they stand up against us to destroy us, but the Holy One, Blessed Be He, redeems us from their hands.” But it’s Netanyahu’s response that will mostly determine whether Israel reacts with cool rationality to the new challenges it faces, or descends into the hair-tearing gevalt-screaming hysterics which have characterized its response until now.

In any case, Netanyahu, who coined the term “Tehran-Lausanne-Yemen Axis” this week, could end it with the title of a 1939 column written by Israel’s venerated columnist-poet Natan Alterman. It was published in Haaretz on July 18, 1939 under the title “the London-Moscow-Paris Talks,” which was later changed to “Diplomatic Talks” and actually became a big hit for the late Israeli singer Arik Einstein. The lyrics became famous for their clever depiction of endlessly fruitless diplomatic talks that go on and on with no result or purpose – like some people’s view of the talks that ended in Lausanne yesterday.

But Netanyahu might find the historical context that Alterman wrote about much more useful for his rhetorical purposes: the tripartite Russian-British-French talks on the eve of the Second World War that were aimed at guaranteeing Poland’s safety against the aggression of Nazi Germany. Like Munich, 1938, we all know how that ended, Netanyahu might very well say.

Iran, World Powers Strike Tentative Nuclear Accord

The landmark agreement includes steep concessions on both sides and would dismantle Tehran’s ability to build a nuclear bomb anytime soon.

By Colum Lynch and John Hudson, Foreign Policy
April 02, 2015

Iran and world powers reached the outlines of a critical interim deal on Thursday that aims to contain Tehran’s capacity to develop nuclear weapons. The agreement ends an exhausting stretch of overnight negotiations and marks the strongest signal yet that the United States and the Islamic Republic are prepared to set aside decades of distrust and embrace diplomacy.

The broad outlines of the deal, announced in a joint statement in Switzerland by the European Union’s chief diplomat, Federica Mogherini, and Iran’s foreign minister, Javad Zarif, included steep concessions on both sides.

In Washington, U.S. President Barack Obama said the accord, if followed, would “cut off every pathway” that Iran could take to develop a nuclear bomb.

Zarif struck a tentatively optimistic tone on the negotiations that will follow toward a June 30 deadline for a final deal. But he said “serious differences” between Tehran and Washington remain. “I hope that at the end of this process, we will all show that through dialogue and engagement with dignity, we can in fact resolve problems, open new horizons, and move forward,” he told reporters in Lausanne, Switzerland, where the accord was reached.

Under the agreement, Iran will either dilute or ship abroad its stockpile of enriched uranium, which is a necessary ingredient for a nuclear weapon. An underground bunker at Fordow, Iran, will no longer produce fissile material and will be converted to a physics and technology center for research. A reactor at Arak would be rebuilt with international assistance in order to render it incapable of producing weapons-grade plutonium. And only the hardened facility at Natanz would be allowed to enrich uranium for a period of 10 to 15 years — and only then under heavy scrutiny by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

In exchange, the European Union and the United States agreed to end most of their respective nuclear-related economic and financial sanctions against Iran, but only after the IAEA confirms that Iran has fulfilled key commitments on its nuclear program. In another significant concession to Iran, the world powers pledged to adopt a new resolution at the United Nations Security Council that would recognize Iran’s right to enrich uranium. The new resolution would also terminate a raft of U.N. sanctions imposed on Iran since 2006 and impose certain restrictions on Iran’s ability to acquire some sensitive nuclear technologies for an undisclosed period of time. The U.S. contends that Iran would have to address a number of international concerns over the nature of Iran’s program, including the disclosure of information on suspected research in the past on nuclear weapons, before receiving sanctions relief. But the joint statement endorsed by Iran contained no such commitment.

However, U.S. sanctions on Iran for its promotion of terrorism, abuses of human rights, and development of ballistic missiles will remain in place, according to the White House.

Obama said Iran agreed to “the most robust and intrusive inspections and transparency regime ever negotiated for any nuclear program in history.”

“So this deal is not based on trust,” Obama said. “It’s based on unprecedented verification.”

The pact is expected to face intense criticism in the coming months from Republicans who control the U.S. Congress. Key Mideast allies also likely will be skeptical in the face of longtime fears that Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will remain intact even as it gains greater freedom and the political and economic ability to project its power in the volatile region.

Following the announcement, Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz said the “smiles in Lausanne are detached from grim reality in which Iran refuses to make any concessions on the nuclear issue.” Obama was set to call Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu later Thursday, April 2, to brief him on the details of the agreement.

Saudi Arabia has signaled that it may be forced to launch its own nuclear program as a hedge against Iran’s nuclear prowess. But on Thursday, shortly before the accord was unveiled, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, Adel al-Jubeir, offered cautious support for the negotiations. He declined, however, to pass judgment before absorbing the details of the deal.

“Everyone wants a serious agreement,” Jubeir told reporters in Washington. Meanwhile, in a phone call to Saudi King Salman, Obama made clear that the agreement does not negate U.S. concerns about Iran’s destabilizing actions in the Mideast — a nod to the kingdom’s ongoing military campaign against Houthi rebels in neighboring Yemen, who are backed by Tehran.

The draft agreement leaves unanswered some key questions about the duration of nuclear restrictions on Iran and the extent of Tehran’s ability to engage in research and development of new technology that could enrich uranium at a far more efficient rate than is currently possible. A U.S. fact sheet outlining specific provisions of the deal, many of which are still under negotiation, claimed restrictions on Iran’s nuclear activities would be phased out over 10 to 25 years.

Iran must also provide international inspectors with insight into its past nuclear activities, which have raised worldwide suspicions. But there is no explicit requirement that it meet IAEA demands to reveal information about its alleged efforts to design a nuclear detonator or to develop a nuclear warhead for long-range missiles. Iran has long denied it is pursuing nuclear weapons, and the IAEA has accused Tehran of refusing to come clean.

The pact, however, would grant Iran greater scope to engage in research activities with foreign scientists. Zarif said none of the provisions in Thursday’s interim accord will be implemented before a comprehensive deal is reached.

The Obama administration’s efforts to secure a nuclear deal has been hailed by supporters as a critical milestone that could re-alter the Middle East, providing new opportunities for the United States and Iran to work together on crises in Afghanistan and Iraq, and against the Islamic State. Also known as Daesh, the extremist Sunni terrorist group is viewed by both Washington and Tehran as a threat to their interests in the region and beyond.

A diplomatic breakthrough could constitute a “new parameter in the Middle East,” opening the door to increased U.S.-Iranian cooperation, said Thomas Pickering, a veteran U.S. diplomat who has worked behind the scenes for years to improve U.S.-Iran relations.

Thursday’s preliminary pact comes about 18 months after the United States began secret talks with Iran, facilitated by the Omani sultanate. Those talks jump-started stagnant negotiations between Iran and other world powers — Britain, China, France, Russia, Germany, and the European Union — and led to a historic September 2013 telephone call between Obama and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani on the sidelines of the annual U.N. General Assembly meeting in New York.

But the rivalry between the Islamic Republic and the United States — which has long been referred to by Iranian leaders as the “Great Satan” — is likely to endure, ensuring that any shift in the balance of power in the region is “not so large, in fact, that it should shake the fillings out of the teeth of our Saudi friends,” Pickering told reporters Wednesday at a news teleconference hosted by the Atlantic Council.

In the months leading up to the June 30 deadline, the tentative deal must also pass muster before Congress. Already, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker has scheduled an April 14 committee vote on legislation that could force the White House to win congressional approval for a nuclear deal before it is finalized. The bill could also limit the president’s power to waive congressional sanctions for 60 days, a provision that could potentially spook the Iranians at a critical stage in the negotiations.

“[W]e must remain clear-eyed regarding Iran’s continued resistance to concessions, long history of covert nuclear weapons-related activities, support of terrorism, and its current role in destabilizing the region,” Corker said in a statement after the deal was announced.

Obama has threatened to veto any law that threatens the Iran talks, and Corker will need support from Senate Democrats for his bill to pass. Although a significant number of Democrats have sided with him recently, a host of liberal lawmakers voiced support Thursday for the new pact.

“This deal has the potential to cut off all of Iran’s paths to a nuclear weapon in a verifiable way,” said Rep. Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee. He said opponents should “not attempt to derail a final comprehensive deal.”

Ilan Goldenberg, a former Defense Department expert on Iran, said the Obama administration must persuade fellow Democrats on Capitol Hill that the tentative agreements is “serious and credible enough to hold off congressional action.” Goldenberg also said the partisan nature of the debate on Iran may well play into the Obama administration’s hands.

“If you ask members of Congress, ‘Do you trust Iran?’ — the answer is no,” Goldenberg said. “But if you ask, ‘Do you want to support President Obama or the Republicans?’ — the answer is President Obama.”

If the talks break down before June 30, it’s likely that Iran will reverse a number of steps it took last year to limit its nuclear activities, Pickering said. That could include: dropping a moratorium on the production of its most purified form of uranium, restoring a stockpile of low-enriched uranium, flicking the switch on some non-operating centrifuges, and eliminating other constraints — including a commitment to stall construction on a heavy-water reactor that Washington fears could be used to produce weapons-grade plutonium.

Richard Nephew, a former State Department expert on Iran sanctions who participated in the nuclear talks, said another U.S. goal is to ensure timely access to possible undeclared, covert nuclear facilities.

“It’s clearly understood that any Iranian breakout scenario at a declared facility is the least likely scenario,” Nephew said. “The idea that they would use a well-known, well-inspected site like Natanz to break out is almost farcical. They would invite an immediate military response.”

Nephew believes that the marathon talks were severely complicated by mounting congressional opposition to a deal. In March, a group of 47 Republican lawmakers threatened to oppose the deal in a letter addressed to the Iranian leadership.

“What I’m hearing is there is a lot of nervousness on the Iranian side about the sequence of sanctions relief,” Nephew said. “Part of the reason there is difficulty is that there is a deep suspicion on the Iranian side that future commitments on sanctions will be upheld.”

A State Department fact sheet of the agreement [Parameters for a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Nuclear Program] is available for viewing here.