Netanyahu’s Iranian ‘hurrah’

The long and convoluted negotiations over Iran’s nuclear programme are expected to resume in Geneva, probably tomorrow. They were adjourned inconclusively earlier this month in Montreux, Switzerland, after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered an unusual address in the US Congress at the invitation of Republican House Speaker John Boehner as a rebuke to President Barack Obama’s policy of pursuing what he called “a bad deal” on Iran’s nuclear programme, which according to him, will pave that country’s path to a nuclear bomb rather than blocking that path.

Netanyahu warned: “The deal won’t be a farewell to arms; it will be a farewell to arms control. And the Middle East would soon be crisscrossed trip-wires. A region where small skirmishes can trigger big wars would turn into a nuclear tinderbox.” President Obama quickly countered Netanyahu by dismissing his speech as mere “theatre” and as “nothing new”. According to him, Netanyahu had no better idea than maintaining the status quo with no deal or alternatively military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities. Obama warned that having no deal with Iran or alternatively launching military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities would only prompt Iran to begin pursuing its nuclear programme, accelerating it without any constraint and oversight.

Netanyahu’s speech was seen as a crude attempt to make it more difficult for Obama to strike an initial agreement by the end of March to limit Iran’s nuclear programme, which Tehran insists is for peaceful purposes. The US and the other world powers, which make up the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany, the so-called P5 + 1, were aiming to reach a framework agreement with Iran by March 31 and a final deal by July 1. Their ultimate goal is to bind Iran not to produce nuclear weapons. On its part, Iran, too, is keen for a deal that recognises its right to enrichment under the NPT and gives it relief from international sanctions.

Whether or not Netanyahu’s hurrah will bring about any change in Obama’s strategy on the Iranian nuclear issue, he certainly has managed to trigger a bipartisan controversy within the US on this question. Democrats blamed Netanyahu and Speaker Boehner for arranging the event without consulting the White House in an effort to undercut the president while Republicans faulted Obama for showing total insensitivity to the “genuine concerns of an endangered ally”. While Democrats have been defending Obama’s efforts for a negotiated deal with Iran, the Republicans are afraid that Iran is not negotiating in good faith and that a deal would be insufficient and unenforceable. They have made a series of proposals to undercut or block it — from requiring Senate approval for any agreement to ordering new penalty sanctions against Iran or even making a pre-emptive declaration of war. This controversy reached new heights this week with a group of 47 Republican senators addressing an open albeit ‘provocative’ letter to Iran’s leadership, in which they warned that any nuclear deal the Iranians cut with Obama may not last beyond his presidency ending in 2017. It was an unprecedented move in diplomatic history with a group of legislators coming together to scuttle a governmental initiative with a foreign government.

Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif was quick to respond by dismissing the letter as a “propaganda ploy”. It was a classic message that any foreign minister in his situation could have given. He said: “I should bring one important point to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not by US domestic law. The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfil the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations.”

Indeed, the Republican letter does show poor judgment of its signatories on issues of international law. What they don’t seem to understand is that any deal emerging from the current US-led P-5+1 negotiations will not be a bilateral deal between Iran and the US; it will be an international agreement to be enacted under a UN Security Council resolution. This is the legal position not only in this case but also in the case of all other UN Security Council resolutions, including those on Kashmir and Palestine. If Congress or a future US president were to unilaterally break US commitments under any deal, it would amount to violating a UN Security Council resolution.

Both Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have ruled out any departure from the dialogue course, stressing that none of America’s negotiating partners (the UK, France, Germany, Russia and China) would support a sudden break from the US-led negotiating position of the past few years. European diplomats agreed such a move would break up the six-nation group, whose unity has until now been arguably the West’s biggest strategic asset in keeping pressure on Iran. Even the Iranians are clear on this issue. Zarif has frequently argued that the stand-off over Iran’s nuclear ambitions is unnecessary and easy to solve, as Tehran has no intention of making a bomb and would accept a deal that reassures the international community.

The Iranians, however, are worried if Congress, pushed by Netanyahu, succeeds in blocking a comprehensive nuclear deal, then it is a distinct possibility that there will be a return to the process of mutual escalation. In that case, the US may not be able to rally other partners to impose more sanctions on Iran. The European Union and China are eager to lift them. Amid the stand-off with the West over Ukraine, Russia is unlikely to give any support in the UN Security Council. Iran may also not accept any more renewals of the interim deal signed in Geneva in 2013, which has already been renewed twice. It fears it will keep substantive sanctions as well as a nuclear freeze in place. In this murky atmosphere, the Iranian and US negotiators in Geneva will find themselves in a cul-de-sac with neither side in a position to make the last big concession or a walk-away bargain. Given the complexities involved, setting deadlines in this case is easier said than done. The crisis is already in its twelfth year. It remains to be seen how the two sides will bridge the remaining gaps.

Published in The Express Tribune, March  14^th,  2015.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.