Nuclear agreement with Iran crucial for peace

There is still a long way to go in negotiations with Iran aimed at curbing its uranium-enrichment programme. But a deal with the US and other Western nations is on the table and the two sides need to stay the course and not give in to their respective hard-liners. 

Conservative elements in Tehran have made known their opposition to the negotiations via state-run media. In Washington, members of Congress are calling for more sanctions against Iran. 

US Secretary of State John Kerry this week urged US lawmakers not to impose new penalties on Iran as talks on its nuclear programme gain ground. “Our hope is that no new sanctions would be put in place for the simple reason that, if they are, it could be viewed as bad faith by the people we are negotiating with,” Kerry said. 

“It could destroy the ability to be able to get agreement and it could actually wind up setting us back in dialogue that’s taken 30 years to achieve.”

For good reason, many in Congress lack trust in Iran’s leaders and would like to step up pressure on the regime through sanctions. But talks have only just started and they need a little breathing space for the negotiation to develop. 

Iran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani, and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif might have taken a more moderate stance at home and abroad. But they work for a group of hawkish clerics who see their capacity to build a bomb as the ultimate insurance of maintaining their power. They don’t have to look far to find support for this view. The late Muammar Gaddafi provided a sobering reminder of what happens to a dictator who gives up his weapons of mass destruction.

Rouhani came to power on the back of campaign promises to improve relations with the West and strengthen the economy at home. To do that, he will have to get the West to lift some of its sanctions.

Unfortunately, some in the US Congress are refusing to see the nuclear negotiations as a give-and-take process and are choosing to take up a zero-sum game approach to issue.

Besides US lawmakers, Kerry and the participants in the talks have to contend with Iran’s neighbour and bitter enemy, Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has described any approaching agreement with Tehran as a “bad deal” that could trigger war. It would be worse than no deal at all, he believes. 

No deal with Iran would permit nuclear-armed Israel to maintain its vow of military action if Tehran crosses the “red line” of nuclear capability set out by Netanyahu. But a deal would mean Israel would have to readjust its benchmark of what constitutes a threat to its existence and thus a reason to go to war. That would be welcome news indeed for a world anxious not to see another war in the Middle East.