Nuclear Hardliners Could Derail Push for Iran Deal

Oct. 15, 2013, 9:02 a.m.

WASH­ING­TON — As Ir­an starts its re­newed push to peace­fully de­fuse in­ter­na­tion­al ten­sions sur­round­ing its nuc­le­ar pro­gram, hard­liners in both Tehran and Wash­ing­ton are threat­en­ing to pounce on fail­ures in the ne­go­ti­ations to wring ma­jor con­ces­sions from their for­eign coun­ter­parts, is­sue ex­perts said.

Ir­an’s polit­ic­al es­tab­lish­ment could rein in its new, re­l­at­ively mod­er­ate lead­ers if ne­go­ti­ations launched on Tues­day with six oth­er na­tions prom­ise no fast re­lief from glob­al sanc­tions. Hawk­ish U.S. law­makers, though, are press­ing for new eco­nom­ic steps to pun­ish Tehran.

The closely watched two-day meet­ing in Geneva brings Ir­an to­geth­er with the United States and five oth­er coun­tries seek­ing to clear up fears that the Middle East­ern na­tion is pur­su­ing a nuc­le­ar-arms cap­ab­il­ity un­der the guise of a peace­ful nuc­le­ar pro­gram. At­tendees in­clude Ir­a­ni­an For­eign Min­is­ter Mo­hammad Javad Za­rif, U.S. Un­der Sec­ret­ary of State Wendy Sher­man, and Cath­er­ine Ashton, the European Uni­on’s top dip­lo­mat and chief in­ter­locutor for the six powers ne­go­ti­at­ing with Tehran.

At a Monday pan­el dis­cus­sion in Wash­ing­ton, a former Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cial said Tehran’s con­ser­vat­ives “will use any fail­ure in dip­lomacy to bludgeon” Za­rif and Ir­a­ni­an Pres­id­ent Has­san Rouh­ani.

Mean­while, “hawks” in Wash­ing­ton ap­pear ready to “go all in on sanc­tions with the ap­proach of re­gime change,” said Colin Kahl, who was as­sist­ant sec­ret­ary of De­fense for the Middle East from 2009 to 2011.

A vet­er­an U.N. ne­go­ti­at­or, speak­ing with Kahl at the Na­tion­al Ir­a­ni­an Amer­ic­an Coun­cil’s Third An­nu­al Lead­er­ship Con­fer­ence, voiced doubt that Wash­ing­ton’s “ma­jor cen­ters of power have reached a con­clu­sion that a deal must be struck” with the gov­ern­ment in Tehran.

Pro­ponents of fur­ther sanc­tions in Con­gress are “go­ing to com­plic­ate the ne­go­ti­ation pro­cess sig­ni­fic­antly,” said Gi­an­do­men­ico Picco, a former as­sist­ant U.N. sec­ret­ary gen­er­al for polit­ic­al af­fairs.

He ad­ded: “Those in the lead­er­ship of Ir­an who are sus­pi­cious of Amer­ic­an in­ten­tions are go­ing to be­come even more sus­pi­cious.”

The po­ten­tial for Ir­an to en­rich urani­um in­to nuc­le­ar-bomb fuel makes its grow­ing ca­pa­city to re­fine the ma­ter­i­al a key con­cern for the five per­man­ent U.N. Se­cur­ity Coun­cil mem­ber na­tions and Ger­many.

Tehran in­sists the ef­fort would strictly gen­er­ate ma­ter­i­al for en­ergy pro­duc­tion and oth­er non­mil­it­ary atom­ic activ­it­ies.

Steps by U.S. law­makers in the House of Rep­res­ent­at­ives to fur­ther tight­en Ir­an’s eco­nom­ic isol­a­tion, by broad­en­ing sanc­tions against the coun­try, could leave Rouh­ani with little room to ne­go­ti­ate a com­prom­ise, ac­cord­ing to par­ti­cipants on the pan­el at the Wash­ing­ton con­fer­ence.

Ir­a­ni­an ne­go­ti­at­ors are seek­ing curbs on sanc­tions stead­ily piled on the coun­try by the United Na­tions, the European Uni­on, the United States and oth­er na­tions.

However, U.S. Sen­ate For­eign Re­la­tions Com­mit­tee Chair­man Robert Men­en­dez (D-N.J.) and nine col­leagues offered no po­ten­tial re­lief from ex­ist­ing pen­al­ties in a Fri­day let­ter to Pres­id­ent Obama.

In­stead, they offered only to sus­pend “the im­ple­ment­a­tion of the next round of sanc­tions cur­rently un­der con­sid­er­a­tion by the Con­gress.” The House of Rep­res­ent­at­ives in Ju­ly passed a bill de­signed to cut off nearly all of Ir­an’s re­main­ing in­ter­na­tion­al oil sales. The Sen­ate, though, has not yet con­sidered the le­gis­la­tion.

Men­en­dez and the oth­er sen­at­ors wrote that in re­turn for a “sus­pen­sion” in im­ple­ment­ing po­ten­tial new sanc­tions that Con­gress is weigh­ing, they want Tehran to fully sus­pend urani­um en­rich­ment, among oth­er steps.

“The in­tent of sanc­tions is to force Ir­an to halt and dis­mantle its nuc­le­ar weapons pro­gram,” their let­ter to Obama states. “Once this goal has been ac­com­plished in a real, trans­par­ent, and veri­fi­able way we will be pre­pared to re­move ex­ist­ing sanc­tions in a meas­ured, se­quenced man­ner.”

Rouh­ani has de­clared any per­man­ent urani­um-en­rich­ment halt to be off the table. Ir­a­ni­an ne­go­ti­at­ors re­portedly want a “road map” from this week’s meet­ing to es­tab­lish Tehran’s right to a do­mest­ic urani­um en­rich­ment pro­gram as a longer-term ob­ject­ive of dis­cus­sions.

At the Wash­ing­ton con­fer­ence, the one-time Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cial voiced doubt that Tehran would agree to fully cease its urani­um en­rich­ment.

“A deal that zer­oed out Ir­a­ni­an en­rich­ment … would be bet­ter from a non­pro­lif­er­a­tion per­spect­ive [but] I just don’t think that this Ir­a­ni­an re­gime can agree to such an ar­range­ment,” Kahl said.

The former Pentagon of­fi­cial ad­voc­ated a “good-if-im­per­fect deal” that would re­duce Ir­an’s en­rich­ment ca­pa­city and urani­um stock­pile, bol­ster in­ter­na­tion­al audits of its nuc­le­ar sites and bar the na­tion from en­rich­ing urani­um bey­ond a low pur­ity suited only for use in power plants. He ad­ded it would be cru­cial to ad­dress Ir­an’s pre­par­a­tion of a heavy-wa­ter re­act­or that could give the na­tion a route to a plutoni­um-based bomb.

“In the ini­tial stages of a deal, you wouldn’t re­quire con­gres­sion­al ac­tion,” Kahl said, not­ing that Obama could act alone in lift­ing ex­ec­ut­ive-branch pen­al­ties.

“The real chal­lenge is if a series of con­fid­ence-build­ing in­ter­im steps is ac­tu­ally suc­cess­fully im­ple­men­ted, then the ad­min­is­tra­tion would have to make the case to Con­gress for more en­dur­ing sanc­tions re­lief, and that will be a very tough sell,” he said.

Ir­an is on track by the middle of next year to be­come cap­able of gen­er­at­ing enough highly en­riched urani­um for a single bomb fast enough to evade de­tec­tion by in­ter­na­tion­al mon­it­ors, ac­cord­ing to a Ju­ly ana­lys­is by the In­sti­tute for Sci­ence and In­ter­na­tion­al Se­cur­ity in Wash­ing­ton.

“At that so-called ‘break­out point,’ I think de­cisions re­lated to when dip­lomacy comes to an end may have to be reached,” Kahl said.

Fri­day’s let­ter was signed by Men­en­dez as well as sen­at­ors Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Robert Ca­sey (D-Pa.), Chris­toph­er Coons (D-Del.) Lind­sey Gra­ham (R-S.C.), John Mc­Cain (R-Ar­iz.), Bar­bara Mikul­ski (D-Md.), Patty Mur­ray (D-Wash.) and Charles Schu­mer (D-N.Y.).

What We're Following See More »
Kelly Craft Nominated for UN Post
3 hours ago
Trump Blocks Federal Funding to Groups that Make Abortion Referrals
7 hours ago

"The Trump administration took aim at Planned Parenthood Friday, issuing a rule barring groups that provide abortions or abortion referrals from participating in the $286 million federal family planning program — a move that is expected to direct millions toward faith-based providers."

House Expects Tuesday Vote to End National Emergency
10 hours ago

"The House plans to vote Tuesday on legislation to formally block President Donald Trump’s attempt to circumvent Congress to fund his border wall, Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced Friday. The privileged resolution to stop Trump’s emergency declaration — which has 226 co-sponsors, including one Republican — is expected to easily pass the House. It then will be voted in the Senate within 18 days."

Trump Signs Border Deal
1 weeks ago

"President Trump signed a sweeping spending bill Friday afternoon, averting another partial government shutdown. The action came after Trump had declared a national emergency in a move designed to circumvent Congress and build additional barriers at the southern border, where he said the United States faces 'an invasion of our country.'"

Trump Declares National Emergency
1 weeks ago

"President Donald Trump on Friday declared a state of emergency on the southern border and immediately direct $8 billion to construct or repair as many as 234 miles of a border barrier. The move — which is sure to invite vigorous legal challenges from activists and government officials — comes after Trump failed to get the $5.7 billion he was seeking from lawmakers. Instead, Trump agreed to sign a deal that included just $1.375 for border security."


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.