Iran close to diplomatic victory

In politics, victory and defeat are both relative factors and achievements and timeframe are two key factors in victory and failure.

An achievement may be interpreted as victory in a specific timeframe while the same achievement could be regarded as defeat under different circumstances.

A new round of talks has started between Iran and the E3+3 (Britain, France, Germany, the United States, Russia and China) in Geneva about the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program.

Media and political circles in Iran and in the E3+3 countries are speculating about the outcome of the long-awaited talks. However, the main issue in the talks is Iran’s right to enrich uranium on its own soil as part of its peaceful nuclear energy program. The Islamic Republic’s officials have noted that the enrichment of uranium will be a red line in the nuclear talks. Coincidentally, Israel is focusing on this red line and has incessantly asked the six world powers not to accept Iran’s enrichment right. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has described any agreement allowing Iran to enrich uranium as a “very bad deal”.

French President Francois Hollande, who was recently addressing Israeli lawmakers in the Knesset, echoed the Israeli prime minister’s position. French Foreign Minister Lauren Fabius’ move in scuttling the previous round of talks was due to Israel’s stance. The fact is that all countries engaged in negotiations with Iran have concluded after ten years of pressure, intimidation and threat against the Islamic Republic to dissuade Tehran from acquiring peaceful nuclear technology that the Iranian nation and government will not back down from this position and the nuclear issue has got a nationalist aspect and has become a question of prestige and belief.

This rightful position of Iranians now needs a seal of approval from international bodies to be registered as an international legal document. Iranian nuclear negotiators will hopefully realize this objective and the Iranian people and government will be awarded for ten years of resistance against external pressure, and the influential political powers in the world will recognize Iran’s undeniable right to peaceful nuclear energy.

International norms which must be taken into account require the resolution of technical and minor issues before a deal could be reached on Iran’s nuclear activities. The details which are currently being discussed at the negotiating table are important, but at stake is Iran’s right for enrichment, the amount of stored enriched uranium and operation of some power plants versus freeing up Iran’s frozen assets and capitals.

The big mistake committed by some media and analysts following up on these negotiations is that they seek to replace the position of winner and loser in this game by highlighting minor issues. In the event of agreement between Iran and the E3+3 reach about Tehran’s nuclear rights, a win-win game would have occurred, but since the nuclear issue has merely been a pretext for ramping up pressure on Iran over the past decade, Iran will be the winner. The Zionists have been well aware of this issue and have spared no efforts to wreck any deal.

Another important issue currently being talked about pertains to the United Nations Security Council’s unilateral and multilateral sanctions against Iran. These sanctions are a cruel act under legal cover. One may ask if a possible agreement between Iran and the E3+3 will have any impact on the UN sanctions. In response to this question, several points must be noted:

1. One has to accept the fact that these anti-Iran sanctions were designed meticulously by the White House advisor Dennis Ross and they cannot be lifted so easily because a politically-motivated decision has become a legal regime and they are estimated to need at least 10 years to be relieved. Given the growing developments in the world, removing the sanctions ten years after will be of no help to Iran.

2. The sanctions have apparently been imposed to restrict Iran’s nuclear activities, but political pundits say the main objective pursued by these sanctions is to bring a halt to Iran’s progress and development and the Western sanctions target the development of the Islamic Iran and unfortunately negligence of international norms and procedures played into the hands of enemies. Therefore, it will be impossible to defer the development and progress of the country by waiting for the enemies and rivals to lift their sanctions first.

3. Under such circumstances where the bulk of sanctions would remain in effect, why should Iran condition talks with the E3+3 to an impossible gesture? Even though the Western governments promise sanctions relief in the long term the country will gain nothing. Therefore, it would be better for Iranian negotiators to get sufficient guarantees from the Western countries regarding a halt to approval of new sanctions and enforcement of the current ones. If any agreement is to be reached it must focus on minimizing the impact of or neutralizing sanctions. In fact, the E3+3 countries must recognize Iran’s right for peaceful nuclear activities within the framework of its right for development. To that effect, they must not only steer clear of creating any obstacles on its way toward development, but also make up for their injustice against Iran by investment in the country and new economic cooperation with Iran. Future talks between Iran and the West must focus on these issues to satisfy people and strengthen the Islamic establishment.

In short, one can say that Iran is one step to a diplomatic victory and if this victory is achieved the way will be cleared for more victories and then, the country will face difficult options. Therefore, the future of the country must not be tied to minor issues and obstacles and problems must not be highlighted. Furthermore, national factors like political unity, human resources, consensus among elites, production and economic growth are more decisive than international factors. These domestic factors boost Iran’s national power and will serve as bargaining chip in the hands of Iranian negotiators.

Let’s not forget that the main objective of this revolution is to present an effective model of an Islamic society and establishment through achieving progress and justice. Since the very beginning of the Islamic Revolution in 1979, enemies have targeted this objective through different methods. Therefore, Iran must also envisage progress in foreign politics and make judgments based on the harmony of actions and decisions with progress and justice.