Alphen,
Netherlands. 24 November. On the face of
it the agreement between Iran and the so-called P5+1 (Britain, China, France,
Russia and US plus Germany) group of nations is one of those moments in
geopolitics which could re-order security both regionally and globally. Iran has agreed to slow efforts to enrich
uranium to weapons-grade in return for the relief of some $7bn worth of
sanctions. With inflation running at
around 40% per annum in Iran and the regime under growing domestic pressure
Tehran clearly has a need to end its domestic isolation. However, if this interim agreement is in six
months hence to be confirmed as a permanent agreement it will need to pass two verifiable
tests. Does the agreement reflect a fundamental
shift in Iran’s foreign and security policy posture? Is the Middle East made safer (and by
extension the world) by this agreement?
First the
deal. In return for the easing of sanctions Iran has agreed to give
International Atomic Energy Authority inspectors daily access to the Natanz and
Fordo nuclear sites. Sunday Iranian Foreign
Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif tweeted (a sign of the times?) that under the 1968
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Iran has an “inalienable” right to enrich
uranium. Technically he is correct as a state
may indeed enrich uranium up to 5% beyond which weapons research can commence.
Does the
agreement reflect a fundamental shift in Iran’s foreign and security policy
posture? Critically, the test of Iran’s bona fides will not simply be adherence
to this agreement but whether Tehran’s regional strategy also shifts. That would mean a markedly less hostile posture
towards Israel, including less support for Hezbollah in Lebanon, less
interference in the Syrian civil war (and other neighbouring states) and less
interference in the Gulf. As yet there
are no signs of such a shift. Rather, President
Obama seems to be gambling that this agreement could bolster President Rouhani
and the ‘moderates’ in the Tehran regime and might in time build sufficient
confidence to engender a shift in Tehran’s strategy.
Is the
Middle East made safer (and by extension the world) by this agreement? That depends.
Both Israel and Saudi Arabia have condemned this agreement. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has called
it an “historic mistake” and that Israel reserves the right to defend
itself. Sunday morning the leaders of
several Gulf States flew to Riyadh for talks with the Saudi leadership which has
also privately condemned this agreement.
Critically,
if Iran is not seen to observe and more importantly held to observe this
agreement then Saudi Arabia could well take forward already advanced talks with
Pakistan for the development of a nuclear capability. If that happened then the nuclear genie would
be well and truly out of the bottle and the NPT would finally be seen the world
over as a busted arms control flush.
So, is this
agreement worth the risk? Yes but. Yes, in that any attempt to break the
deadlock with Iran could if successful help eventually (and I stress
eventually) lead to an agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians
which is the cornerstone conflict in the Middle East. However, France was absolutely right to
insist on as tough a verification regime as possible. Indeed, my own sources have told me that the
talks three weeks ago came close to agreeing a very soft accord that would only
have encouraged those in Tehran who believe that in the wake of Syria debacle Obama
is so politically weak at home and so desperate for any foreign policy success
that he would agree to anything. It is
in such ignorance that Tehran could make a dangerous miscalculation.
For the Europeans
at the table there is also serious food for thought. Let me for once pay tribute to Baroness
Ashton, the EU’s foreign policy sort-of-supremo. I have in the past been very critical of the
Lady from Lancashire helped I might add by comments made to me by some of those
close to her. However, she has proven to
be an able chair supported ably by diplomats from Britain, France and Germany. If this is a way Europeans can begin to exert
real influence then it could help end Europe’s interminable strategic
shrinkage.
However,
one of Ashton’s weaknesses is that she hails from the old CND (anti-nuclear)
left of the old British Labour Party.
She has singularly failed to understand that Europe’s much-talked about soft
power only makes sense if there is credible hard military power that underpins
it. If she and others in the Euro-elite believe
this accord is proof that Europe can exert influence thought soft power alone
then she and the rest of Europe are at some time in for a rude awakening.
As I wrote
in a previous blog – Europe must together speak softly but work out how to carry
a bigger stick!
Julian Lindley-French
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.