Huffington Post
Bahman Baktiari
Charles Randall Paul
Diplomats from the P5+1 countries (China, France, Germany, Russia and
the United Kingdom) and negotiators from the United States and Iran
have been diligently striving to meet the July 20 deadline for signing a
historic and unprecedented accord assuring that Iran will not build
nuclear weapons. Although the interim agreement signed in November 2013
allows for a six-month extension, prolonging these crucial negotiations
in a time of extreme turmoil in the Middle East region is not in the
interest of either Iran or the U.S. It is time to end 35 years of
wasteful cold war and mutual satanization with Iran. Both nations must
instead focus their full diplomatic powers on stabilizing the
deteriorating security conditions in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and
beyond.
Both sides know that a successful settlement on the nuclear issue
rests on reliable trust-but-verify protocols. For the United States and
the P5+1 group, three main trust-confirming objectives are essential:
continual Iranian cooperation with random inspections to verify that
nuclear weapons are not being built; expansion of the IAEA’s ability to
effectively monitor Iranian nuclear-power activities to allow discovery
and neutralization of any breakout attempt; and voluntary adoption of
verifiable legal and technical restrictions to ensure that Iran is not
pursuing nuclear weapons.
To address these concerns effectively, Iran must sign the IAEA
Additional Protocol, a legal document that grants the IAEA complete
authority over inspection of nuclear facilities on declared and possible
undeclared activities. Under the protocol, the IAEA can initiate
surprise inspections with expanded rights of access to sites and
pertinent information.
Because the Iranian parliament has to vote to endorse the IAEA
Additional Protocol, it is vital for President Rouhani’s administration
to obtain this approval even though the parliament has not been
generally supportive of his win-win approach with the West. President
Rouhani can still remedy this problem if he submits the Additional
Protocol along with the fatwa (ruling) issued by Ayatollah Khamenei that
religiously forbids the development of nuclear weapons. Submitting
these together as effectively one piece of legislation will dissuade
hardliners from rejecting the protocol supported by the fatwa of their
Supreme Leader.
Both in Tehran and in Washington, D.C., domestic political opponents
of détente are loudly criticizing the naïveté of any agreement between
historically untrustworthy adversaries. Negotiators on both sides know
that they can only secure a lasting accord if it is supported by a
majority of their fellow citizens, who will want to feel that their
nation is acting wisely, not weakly, in coming to such terms. Still,
with a balanced agreement, the majority of Americans and Iranians desire
the chance for a new future. Despite reservations on both sides, now is
the time to complete this long-neglected work and enter a new era based
on a verifiable experiment in mutual trust.
Some Americans are trying to keep sanctions in place until all
substantive foreign-policy disagreements can be resolved. This is
utterly overreaching and disrespects the good-faith intentions of the
negotiations.
Even if we could pressure the Iranians to sign a verifiable
nuclear-weapons agreement without lifting all the punishing sanctions,
it would be a self-defeating diplomatic disaster not unlike what
happened with the Versailles Treaty, signed 95 years ago. That treaty
imposed such harsh penalties on Germany that the resentment among the
German people erupted in virulent retaliation that set off a chain of
violent events unlike the world had ever seen. It should matter deeply
to us all how the Iranian people feel about the fairness and
respectfulness of this agreement. In a real way World War I and World
War II finally ended when the United States decided to reject
punishments of former enemies and generously reconstruct all of Europe
with the Marshall Plan. Within less than a decade, against all prior
assumptions, the U.S. made friends of adversaries, with enormously
positive political ramifications for the world. With that same practical
spirit, fully acknowledging our rival interests and views, is it not
obvious that America is better off with the Iranian people as strong and
trustworthy collaborators for stability in a region of dysfunctional
states and violent movements?
The Iranian leaders certainly know that if they fail to live up to
their commitments, the United States and others will reimpose the
sanctions. Furthermore, this time, if Iran violates the terms of the
agreement, the Iranian people will clearly blame their government for
such a failure, meaning uncertain consequences for the regime.
If Anwar Sadat of Egypt and Menachem Begin of Israel were able to
sign a peace treaty in 1979 that has stood the test of time despite
their countries’ continual differences and the tumultuous instability in
the region, cannot the world powers seize this moment for a
comprehensive, verifiable and respectful agreement with Iran that opens
the way for normalization of the relationship between Iran and the
United States?
Winning the peace based on prudent trust between countries with rival
interests is never easy, but it is the summit of statesmanship. A new
future based on growing mutual trust is now a real possibility, and it
would be tragic to waste this opportunity. The United States and its
European partners should let the Iranian people know that they desire a
balanced, verifiable agreement that lifts all sanctions and launches a
new relationship with Iran.
Bahman Baktiari holds a Ph.D. in political science from the
University of Virginia. He is the executive director of the
International Foundation for Civil Society in the Middle East and North
Africa.
Charles Randall Paul holds a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago
Committee on Social Thought. He is the president and founder of the
Foundation for Religious Diplomacy.
