Posted By Trita Parsi
Monday, May 17, 2010 - 8:57 PM
Share
The Brazilian-Turkish diplomatic breakthrough with
Iran has taken Washington by surprise.
Clearly, the geopolitical center of gravity has shifted -- five years of EU-led
negotiations led nowhere while the new emerging powers Brazil and Turkey
only needed a few months to produce a breakthrough. Now, the West needs to pull
off some political acrobatics to avoid being on the diplomatic
defensive.
Before Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da
Silva's trip to Iran this weekend, few among the
permanent members of the U.N. Security Council were optimistic about his chances
of success. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev was charitable when he
put Lula's odds at 30 percent. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton reportedly called her Brazilian counterpart to discourage Brazil
from undertaking the diplomatic mission. And few in Washington seemed to have
been prepared for a diplomatic breakthrough.
But against all odds, Turkey and Brazil seem to have succeeded in resolving the most critical obstacle in the Iranian nuclear standoff: the issue of trust. Both through the modalities of the new deal as well as by virtue of what they are, Turkey and Brazil have succeeded in filling the trust gap.
For the Iranians -- beyond their political paralysis of last year -- the issue of trust was the primary flaw of the October 2009 proposal. As the Iranians saw it, the deal would have required that Iran place disproportionate trust in the Western powers by agreeing to give up its low-enriched uranium stockpile in one shipment, only to receive fuel rods for Iran's research reactor nine to 12 months later. This would have required a significant leap of faith on their behalf.
Iran's relations with most permanent Security Council states (P5) are fraught with tension and mistrust. This includes its relations with Russia. European powers' past support for Saddam Hussein -- including providing him with high-tech weaponry and components for chemical weapons -- has not been forgotten in Tehran, particularly not by those in President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's circles.
Iran's relations with Turkey and Brazil are different, however. Although tensions and rivalry with Turkey have historic roots, relations have improved significantly under Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's government. Although some skepticism remains, Iran has nevertheless noted Turkey's increased independence from -- and at times, defiance of -- the United States. In particular, Turkey's position on the Iraq war as well as its campaign to prevent a new round of U.N. Security Council sanctions on Iran must have impressed Tehran.
Moreover, unlike with the P5 states, Iran does not only have some trust in Turkey, but it also senses that it has some leverage over its Western neighbor. In 2009, Iranian-Turkish trade stood at around $11 billion, with Iran providing a significant portion of Turkey's gas needs. The combination of trust and leverage seems to have been critical in getting the Iranians to agree to put their stockpiles in Turkish territory.
In Brazil, Iran has found an unlikely but much needed ally. Brazil is a rising global power, with a legitimate claim for a permanent seat in the Security Council. It's a state with a long history of sympathizing and identifying with the Iranian position on nuclear matters. If the reprocessing takes place in Brazil, as opposed to Russia, it would be a political victory for Iran to have it occur in an emerging power that for long has endorsed Iran's right to enrichment and that itself achieved recognition of its enrichment right in spite of international pressure.
While Iran has been suspicious of European and U.S. maneuvers and proposals, out of a fear that the West's ultimate objective is to eliminate Iran's enrichment program, that suspicion is unlikely to arise in a Brazilian-sponsored deal due to Brazil's own nuclear program and self-interest in ensuring that Iran's nuclear rights aren't inhibited and turned into a legally binding precedent.
In fact, the Turkish-Brazilian-Iranian agreement explicitly endorses Iran's right to enrichment, a position the United Stats has refused to officially accept.
Beyond economic interests, international prestige, and the opportunity for Brazil and Turkey to become indispensable global actors, it should not be forgotten than both states have viewed war and confrontation as the likely alternative to their diplomacy. In particular, there has been a fear that the current Security Council draft resolution, while not providing an explicit justification for military action, would nevertheless provide regional states outside the Security Council with a legal basis to take military action against Iran's nuclear facilities.
Washington's reaction has thus far been muted. Although details of the agreement remain unknown, two potential points of objection have emerged.
First, the amount of low-enriched uranium (LEU) that will be shipped to Turkey, 1,200 kilograms, constituted approximately 75 percent of Iran's stockpile back in October. Although that percentage has shrunk, it will still leave Iran with less LEU than it would need for a bomb. Still, even though Washington insisted that the deal from October remains on the table and that it is nonnegotiable, it might be the United States itself that ends up seeking to renegotiate the terms. Second, Iran has expanded its enrichment activities and is currently enriching uranium to 19.75 percent. The United States insists that this activity must be suspended.
In spite of these potential sticking points, it is important to note that both Brazilian and Turkish decision-makers have intimate knowledge of the U.S. position. The United States' red lines are crystal clear to both. And even though both have shown significant independence from the United States, it is unlikely that they would announce a deal with Iran that wouldn't meet U.S. requirements.
Rather, the Obama administration's problem with domestic actors may be a greater challenge. Both the House and the Senate have prepared broad sanctions bills, which they intend to send to the president in the next few days. Even if the deal meets U.S. security requirements, Congress may still push forward its extraterritorial sanctions bill, citing other concerns with Iranian behavior.
With the November elections only months away, President Obama may face some stiff opposition from Congress, even over a deal that meets America's red lines on the nuclear issue.
Trita Parsi is president of the National Iranian American Council and author of Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the U.S.
Sign up here to receive the Middle East Channel's twice-weekly brief in your inbox, and follow the Middle East Channel on Twitter.
AFP/Getty Images
EXPLORE:MIDDLE EAST, MIDDLE EAST, INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, IRAN, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, TURKEY, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY, UNITED NATIONS 
Great article as always. But a couple of quick points. Doesn't the passage of time from the original deal make the iranian position, in effect, an agreement where nothing is conceded? The purpose of the original agreement was to allow breathing room by reducing the stockpile below breakout capacity. Didn't the Iranians just run out the clock and use the time to bring their stockpile so far above the original amount, that they can agree to the original deal and keep breakout potential?
They also stated they were enriching at 20% in order to get the medical isotopes, yet after the deal they want to continue to enrich at this level. It seems the western countries concerns aren't addressed while Iran gets to look reasonable by agreeing to terms of a deal that long since passed. It's as if someone wants to buy a house on last year's prices.
Israel and its American chela has only one answer: No
Israel and its American chela has only one answer: No
The well-rehearsed answer is no, so why change it.
And see what wonderful results Israel and its American chela were able to obtain in Iraq after 20 years of siege, two invasions, occupation and total destruction of the fabric of the Iraqi society.
Now the same morons want to do the same destruction in Iran an another Muslim country.
Nobody trusts Israel or its American chela anymore and these two do not form the international community, so tough luck.
As a sophomore student in one of Iran's universities, the argument of "trust" and "geopolitical alliance", is what I used to hear from my "Islamic Revolution" lecturer all the time, this last semester. and hearing it from you, Mr Parsi, is just plain sad. you're making it seem like Iran is ruled by sane people. you're making it seem like the decision about not giving the low-enriched uranium stockpile to the Western powers, was politically logical.
you're making it seem like that this agreement is a breakthrough. Iran didn't agree to stop enriching uranium to higher levels, and you're arguing that is not important, nor is it dangerous.
If a group of rulers, decide to KILL their OWN people on the streets, if they decide to imprison, torture, and execute their opponents with the charge of being "an enemy of God", you think it's just plausible that they're going to take actions as they say? you think it's really inconceivable that they're actually going to build an atomic bomb, the ultimate "deterrent" ?
Where I live, inside Iran, the majority of people I know think they have a body of fascist rulers.
We don't like any war to happen, just as you don't. but it's weird for me how you refuse to aknowledge, that it was the weseterners pressure that made this "agreement" a necessity for Iran's ruling body.
Iran is probably ruled by half-mad rulers
Iran is probably ruled by half-mad rulers. Unfortunately, the same was true about Iraq under Saddam or various other "rulers" in the entire region.
But the BIGGER thugs sitting in Washington DC and Israel have much worse plans for each of these countries. It's the devil you know and the devil you don't know issue.
Iran is probably ruled by half-mad rulers
Iran is probably ruled by half-mad rulers. Unfortunately, the same was true about Iraq under Saddam or various other "rulers" in the entire region.
But the BIGGER thugs sitting in Washington DC and Israel have much worse plans for each of these countries. It's the devil you know and the devil you don't know issue.
You see, I said a majority of people "I know". I can never claim a majority of people of Iran think this or that, because there's no polling data available from my country. why do you think that is? why do you think Iran's government doesn't ever let any organization outside of its influence gather public opinion data from its people?
meanwhile, as Mr. Parsi did, you too are trying to demonstrate this nuclear issue as a "business matter", something about money. That's a very naive outlook.
And the way you simplify things, about how a revolution happens, is naive also. A minority can remain in power, as long as they exercise enough brutality and Machiavellianism, or in our case, religious indoctrination and censorship.
"If you are right about the majority, then it is only a matter of time until you and your majority friends do something about it.
They will infiltrate the army until any unrest will leave the army divided and useless. They will infiltrate further until an insurrection leaves the part of the army that supports the fascists immobile while the part that opposes them acts freely."
and based on this very wise statement of yours, I suppose you have no idea of Afghanistan back under Taleban rule, or the current Zimbabwe situation. I suppose you also think that insurgency is Iraq is non-existent. the situation where religious fanatics who ARE in the minority, are ready to kill themselves for a "supreme" cause.
the very basis of Iran's Revolutionary Guards and Basij Militia is religious dogma. they BELIEVE that the army on the side of God is the army of minority, that will by God's will, prevail. they believe in martyrdom. they think killing "infidels" is justified. and they have a cute sense of confidence when it comes to redefining who'd be an infidel for the moment.
Who says there are no polls from Iran? University of Maryland has conducted many polls in Iran. So has Terror Free Tomorrow as well as Zogby. You can find them here:
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/652.php?nid=&id=&pnt=652&lb=brme
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/640.php?nid=&id=&pnt=640
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/639.php?nid=&id=&pnt=639
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/468.php?nid=&id=&pnt=468
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/469.php?nid=&id=&pnt=469
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/380.php?nid=&id=&pnt=380
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/311.php?nid=&id=&pnt=311
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/311.php?nid=&id=&pnt=311
http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/TFT%20Iran%20Survey%20Report%200609.pdf
http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/TFT%20Iran%20Survey%20Report%200609.pdf
http://www.rd.com/images/content/071306/iranpollresults.pdf
LOL, you think I'm an Israeili imposter!?
?? ???? ?? ?? ???? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???!? ???? ???? ??? ?? ????? ??? ??:??
you remind me of someone! Mahmoud Ahmadinejad used the same argument against his rival candidate in the election debates on TV. He said the statistics and charts that Mousavi used is produced by Zionist organizations!! No, I'm not an Israeili. I'm a 21 year old Iranian, born and raised in a religious city.
And for the atrocities it has done and continues to do, I hate Israeil's government, and if you had made the effort to read my previous comment objectively, you'd have seen I was critisizing religous dogma. and as long as I know, Israeili's are the most bigoted people on earth in terms of religion, and they're running that country just with indoctrinating religion on their people. The exact same things our Mullas are doing. I suppose you're religious yourself, and aren't comfortable with discussing the justification of brutality layed in the scriptures of Quran , Bible, and Torat.
And a quote from the terrorfreetomorrow.org poll you just posted a link to:
"Independent and uncensored nationwide surveys of Iran are rare. Typically, polls
in Iran are either conducted or monitored by the Iranian government and other
affiliated interest groups, and can be untrustworthy. By contrast, our poll—the
third in a series over the past two years—was conducted by telephone inside Iran"
I'm not quite sure how much you can trust a telephone survey in a country whose people believe their communications is monitored, and any communication with a foreign organization can be used against them as evidence of "propaganda against Islamic governemnt" in a court. As crazy as that. This is not a claim I made. After the elections, one of the charges they brought up against citizens was "communicating with a foreign radio/television". Google and see for yourself. Although I doubt that you will. As you're already thinking Ahmadinjead has actually won the election without widespread fraud. and you probably have no idea about the 370-pages-long evidence of election-fraud that Mousavi's camp published in Farsi.
and to answer your question, I was a supporter of our Nuclear program. until the election came and the absolute savagery I saw from the Basijis in dealing with the protesters. Now I'm not. go to youtube and listen to Mohsen Makhmalbaf 's words in the European Parliamant, to see that there are other Iranians, fluent in English, that have opinions like me.
Well sir, the fact that you are so suspicious of the identity of the poster of a comment on the Internet, and the fact that you value "who one his" more than "what one says", and the fact that you think you should be so paranoid of the "source" of ideas flowing around you, signals to me that you have probably lived in a place satiated with conspiracy, maybe Palestine? and if that is the case, I sympathize with you.
And to address your comment, it seems that when Shah started the CURRENT nuclear program 30 years ago, nobody had any problems with it. and it seems that the Western powers never really care about how other countries enrich their uranium.
So if somehow someday a government of people, came into power, No, I suspect that the world powers will back Israel, if the Israeilis decide to make a baseless claim about the new government. I know, The hardliners in Israel do need an enemy to survive politically, and that enemy is Iran. but if these religious dogmatic fanatics went out of power in my country, I think it would be pretty hard for the Israeilis to present the new government as dangerous. And I think that would be the beginning of the demise of the political life of Israeli's hardliners, and the one-state Israel.
and again, you're trying to argue that the current government of Iran CARES FOR ITS PEOPLE. I don't believe that way. and it's not very hard to see why. either you don't know about the economical situation in Iran and the way they're ruling this country, or you don't care about it. A view I have shared by many other Iranians (read some Iranian opposition websites) is that Mullas would LOVE it if Israel struck the nuclear facilities. They have already labeled the demonstrations Israeli/American plot, and by a simple attack, they would get much more comfortable clamping down any dissent.
Why is Trita defending this deal?
Far - As Thomas Friedman of NYT said the picture of the Brazilian and Turkis leaders next to Ahmadinejad is 'As Ugly As It Gets'. Shame on both Brazil and Turkey for making a deal with a murderer. But at least they do it for political and financial gains for their own country and people. You would have to wonder why an Iranian would defend the deal unless this particular Iranian has something to gain by it.
Trita is a KNOWN IRI LOBBYIST. It's not weired that he does everything possible to buy more time for IRI to complete its nuclear weapon program. The sickening thing about his approach is that he takes us, Iranians, for a fool by spinning his argument in such way to give it a human rights and anti-Ahmadinejad flavor. SHAME ON HIM.
The developments are indeed very sad.
I am confident that if US would introduce a new round of sanctions on Iran, even if it fails (which I doubt), that would have the same effect rejecting the 2003 proposal had; Iran will become convinced that US/Obama is not interested in a change of behaviour but a change in regime. And you all know what that would mean; Iran will become more hostile, less cooperative, and a lot more aggressive on all fronts. If US introduces the sanction today, from this day on, anybody in Iran supporting a more cooperative conciliatory policy is just going to shut up. This is indeed the best gift Obama/anyone could have possibly given to the hardliners.
It seems that the Jews of Israel understand only one language
It seems that the Jews of Israel understand only one sort of language, viz. the language of paying back in the same coin.
When Israel terrorises all the countries in the region with its Illegal nuclear bombs then it must be payed back in the same, viz. every country bordering Israel or in the vicinity of Israel must build or acquire nuclear bombs.
The Israeli bully must be dealt with as a bully.
Is that your solution to peace?
You have obviously enjoyed the 100 years of terrorism
You have obviously enjoyed the 100 years of terrorism inflicted by the Jews and Jews-turned-Israelis in all the neighbouring countries.
So you should continue doing what you have done for the past 100 years because it has produced such beautiful results in Palestine, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and now Pakistan. Of course, one should not mention the cozy relationship of SAVAK with Mossad & CIA that used to spread such love, joy and mirth amongst the Iranian civilians.
oh yeah? So that's your argument? because Shah used to be cozy with Israeil, and it used to murder, imprison and intimidate dissident civilians in Iran, now Iran needs to build bombs aimed at Israeil?
and you probably want to overlook the fact, that right now, without the backing of Israeil or the U.S., the Iranian government is doing MORE atrocities to its people than Shah did? and you probably want to overlook the fact that after the election, among the security forces there were reportedly ARAB SPEAKING giants beating the hell out of protesters?
Just because you as an Arab are enjoying the bullying tone of discourse Ahmadinejad has, doesn't mean it's a good strategy for Iranian interests. You can just compare Iran's political and economical standing in the world at the time when Khatami was president, and right now.
and your strategy of obtaining nuclear weapons and not trying to to get rid of them, seems not wise to me. although with the rise of technology, say in 30 years, it might be easier to build a more devastating new-age bomb than it is to build an atomic bomb. So what we should discuss, I think, is HOW certain countries justify war and killing and bloodshed, in the eyes of their people.
scripture, anyone?!
by the way, "terrorizing enemy" is something Israel does, correct, but it's a concept discussed in Quran too, right?
The Middle East Channel offers unique analysis and insights on this diverse and vital region of more than 400 million.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(18)
SHOW COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE