Today.Az - The long road to agreement with Iran

Today.Az » Analytics » The long road to agreement with Iran

30 October 2013 [17:35] - Today.Az

By Javier Solana

Former EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy, Secretary-General of NATO, and Foreign Minister of Spain. President of the ESADE Center for Global Economy and Geopolitics and Distinguished Fellow at the Brookings Institution

The latest round of negotiations in Geneva between Iran and the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany) has inspired cautious optimism. A window of opportunity to reach agreement on Iran's nuclear program appears to have opened. Although the details of the meeting are not public, its relative success is clear, as the parties are to reconvene on November 7-8.

Rapprochement between Iran and the West - above all between Iran and the United States - would have positive geostrategic consequences across the Middle East. Iran has a long way to go, of course, to bring about permanent improvement in its relations with the West; but what Iran needs to do is not the only impediment. Other strategic actors must also be taken into account.

Without a doubt, Israel will be a major obstacle to reaching an agreement. At the very moment when negotiations were beginning in Geneva, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said in the Knesset (Israel's parliament) that the possibility of a pre-emptive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities could not yet be ruled out.

Netanyahu has made Iran's nuclear program his highest foreign-policy priority. He is suspicious of Iran's intentions and wants its nuclear power plants to be completely dismantled. The fear is that so long as Iran maintains residual nuclear capacity - even for civilian use - it could develop atomic arms that would threaten Israel. As Netanyahu made clear at the United Nations General Assembly on October 1, Israeli officials do not trust Iran's new government to change course.

But Israel is not alone. Sunni-ruled Saudi Arabia, the regional power competing most directly with Shia Iran for regional influence, feels left out by the incipient rapprochement with the Islamic Republic, to the point of refusing a seat on the United Nations Security Council to express its leaders' anger. Even in the days of the Shah, the Kingdom feared that a strong Iran might become the dominant regional power. Heir to the historic Persian Empire, Iran has the region's second-largest GDP and population (behind Saudi Arabia and Egypt, respectively), and Saudi Arabia worries that a possible agreement - resulting in sanctions being lifted - would allow Iran to revive its economy and extend its influence.

This is not the Saudi-US alliance's finest hour. The falling out over Iran follows America's refusal to bomb Syria (another Saudi rival in the region) and its blessing of the removal in 2011 of former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak (an important Saudi ally). Saudi Arabia seeks the overthrow of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and believes that America's agreement with Russia to destroy the Assad regime's chemical weapons amounts to renunciation of that goal. As a result, the Saudis are now the largest financial backer of the Syrian rebels (and one of the main supporters of the Egyptian Army following its removal in July of Mubarak's democratically elected successor, Mohamed Morsi).

For the West, however, the most urgent goal should be to put an end to the conflict in Syria. Too many people have already died in what has become the worst war of this century.

Iran and Russia are the Assad regime's two main allies and the only external actors able to bring about a change of attitude in Damascus. The Geneva II talks on Syria are tentatively set to be held on November 23, though Lakhdar Brahimi, Joint Special Representative of the UN and the Arab League for Syria, has already expressed doubts about the suitability of the meeting in the absence of credible representatives of opposition forces.

Saudi Arabia is deeply hostile to Geneva II, because formal diplomatic talks with the Assad regime imply de facto recognition that it retains legitimacy. For the Saudis, the only acceptable solution starts with the resignation of Assad and his government, while Geneva II envisages a transitional government in which all of the parties are represented.

American policymakers have another major difficulty: the US Congress. The last-minute agreement to raise the US debt ceiling and reopen the government has left Republican Party extremists in a weakened position, while President Barack Obama has emerged strengthened. But the episode sets a dangerous precedent. Any conceivable agreement with Iran would involve lifting economic sanctions, which would require legislative approval - thus making a proposed deal vulnerable to congressional near-sightedness.

For the US, a concomitant problem is that Secretary of State John Kerry has made peace between Israel and Palestine a high priority. It remains to be seen how Kerry manages to balance the negotiations so that Israeli pressure on the US with respect to Iran does not ruin efforts to achieve peace between Israelis and Palestinians. But if Iran and the West reach an agreement, it will be very difficult for Israel to remain on the sideline.

Europe, for its part, has a good opportunity to vindicate itself by committing to a united, coherent, and effective foreign policy. The European Union, now through High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton, has always been a key actor in the negotiations between Iran and the P5+1. Ashton has the confidence of all the parties. It is important for the EU to be agile and maintain close coordination with the US. When the time comes to lift the sanctions, Europe must coordinate closely with the US in order to maximize the move's effectiveness.

Negotiation and diplomacy are the only sure way to resolve the standoff with Iran over its nuclear program. Another conflict in the Middle East is the worst option. But seizing today's unique opportunity with Iran demands long-term vision from all parties. National interests must be placed above electoral considerations. The window for negotiation is open; it will not remain so indefinitely.

Copyrights: Project Syndicate