Agreement and compromise may be possible with political cost.
Agreement and compromise may be possible with political cost.
The US has called uranium enrichment within Iran’s borders a red line in the negotiations.
Tehran says the Islamic Republic of Iran, as a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), has the right to enrich uranium and will not forgo it.
Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, has also emphasized this right and red line as the highest authority of the Islamic Republic.
In the US, although Donald Trump has not explicitly mentioned enrichment as the highest political authority, his special envoy in recent negotiations with Iran has specifically stated Washington’s red line is the issue of enrichment on Iranian soil.
When the diplomatic process for reaching an agreement on Iran’s nuclear file publicly began over a month ago, it was not expected that the parties would have such a deep disagreement on the most fundamental issue of Iran’s nuclear program.
However, initiatives are being proposed in this area, including the formation of a consortium with the participation of Gulf countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates for enrichment within Iranian soil.
Robert Einhorn, a senior analyst at the Brookings Institution and a well-known analyst in the field of disarmament, discusses the complexities of the negotiations and their outlook in the following interview, believing that compromise will have political costs for both sides.
Before joining Brookings in 2013, Mr. Einhorn was a special advisor to Hillary Clinton on disarmament matters at the US State Department and played a crucial role in shaping US policy at that time regarding Iran’s nuclear program, sanctions, and negotiations.
Mr. Einhorn, why does the situation today seem as if there is a serious knot in the diplomatic process compared to about two months ago? If it seems more complicated now than a month or two ago, it’s simply because we understand it a little better.
There are still significant disagreements between the United States and Iran in these negotiations.
However, it seems both sides are presenting the best image of what is happening now and emphasizing the positive aspects.
I think both sides are motivated to show the best image of progress.
The Trump administration wants to tell its domestic audience that the government’s efforts in advancing the negotiations have been successful.
Some of the president’s diplomatic initiatives have not gone very well, but I think the administration wants to show the best image of the negotiations with Iran to present a picture of forward movement.
Iranian leaders also want to show the best image of progress.
They know the deadline for the return of UN sanctions is near. I think Iran wants to avoid this deadline, and the progress being made can help dissuade Europeans from resorting to the snapback mechanism.
At the same time, Iranian leaders want to assure the public that their economic problems can be solved with a new nuclear agreement, and by presenting an image of negotiations that have a prospect of success, they want to address this concern in public opinion.
So if this is the public image, what should we think about behind the scenes? Overcoming disagreement is difficult, and the fundamental disagreement is whether Iran should be allowed to maintain uranium enrichment capacity.
One of the obstacles to an agreement is that there is a lot of internal disagreement on this issue in both Washington and Tehran.
The Trump administration is under intense pressure from conservatives in the United States to insist on a complete ban on enrichment in Iran.
Similarly, Iran’s leadership is under a lot of pressure domestically to resist any attempt to ban its enrichment program, which is a source of pride for various political factions in Iran. Therefore, there are serious internal constraints that prevent the possibility of compromise on this fundamental issue.
But is there a way for these two very contradictory positions to somehow align with each other, come closer to each other, to pave the way for an agreement? It seems we are facing a kind of lack of creativity in this area.
There are reports that both sides are looking for a way to solve this problem.
One way to postpone this issue is to agree on a temporary measure in the next month or two that does not include a complete ban on enrichment forever but includes significant limitations on enrichment that the American side can portray as a first step towards completely abandoning the enrichment program, and the Iranian side can show as a sign of continuing its enrichment program.
Accepting an agreement that defers this issue to the future may be a way for both sides to show progress in the medium term, but of course, this is just postponing the fundamental addressing of this issue. Ultimately, they have to reach an agreement.
What you’re saying is somewhat similar to the initial agreement before reaching the JCPOA, but it’s hard to imagine Donald Trump wanting to present something similar to that agreement to the public, right? Yes, it’s difficult. I mean, if it seems Trump is moving towards JCPOA 2, he will face a lot of criticism from US hardliners.
I read somewhere that two hundred members of the US Congress, all Republicans, have written to Trump saying not to back down on this issue and to insist on a complete ban on enrichment.
But there are reports that previously Steve Whitcraft, Trump’s special envoy, was considering the idea of allowing Iranians to have a limited enrichment program.
However, since expressing these more flexible views, Whitcraft has retreated and is now aligned with the hardliners’ stance that Iran’s enrichment program should be dismantled, so both sides will face political costs in case of a compromise.
Can you imagine the United States getting involved in Iran’s nuclear program itself to verify the situation and at the same time give Iranians some of what they want, but limit the program to the extent that there is no risk of nuclear proliferation? With President Trump, you have a very unconventional approach to negotiation, and you can imagine him adopting a stance that no government before him was ready to take, such as the idea of involving some American companies in Iran’s civilian nuclear program.
I think this would be very controversial, but one can imagine a kind of partnership that gives some Americans more confidence that Iran is adhering to any agreement.
I think the most likely topic and possibility that has been mentioned by both the Iranian and American sides is that an agreement could, for the first time in years, enable economic interaction between American and Iranian businessmen.
This would be a major shift in US policy, but from Iran’s perspective, it could be that US involvement in Iran’s economy gives the US a greater stake in maintaining the agreement.
And one of Iran’s main concerns is that the future US government might withdraw from the agreement, and apparently many Iranians believe that if the US is involved in mutually beneficial economic cooperation with Iran, future governments will have a greater stake in maintaining the agreement.
But this is also a major shift in US policy with various sanction laws that prevent Americans from engaging with Iran.
And does Donald Trump have enough support in Washington from think tanks, policy institutions, and thinkers to pursue this agreement? You might remember that the JCPOA faced very strong domestic opposition during Obama’s presidency. If President Obama had put this agreement to a vote, it would not have succeeded because most Republicans and even some very influential Democrats opposed this agreement.
The only way the administration could implement the JCPOA was that opponents couldn’t gather the two-thirds majority needed to oppose this agreement.
So there wasn’t even a majority in favor, but the opponents couldn’t get the two-thirds majority needed to prevent it, so there was a problem.
The question is whether Trump will have a hard time domestically.
I think Trump will have an easier time domestically.
Of course, it depends on the content of any agreement he negotiates, but even an agreement that allows enrichment but under very strict conditions and very rigorous regulatory measures will gain the necessary support.
Because ultimately, Congressional Republicans tend to support Trump’s policies, and I think any agreement negotiated by Trump, any respectable agreement, will also have the support of many Democrats who generally favor negotiating with Iran.