A Ramezani
28 December 2013
Tehran and Washington have engaged in a round of tit-for-tat diplomacy since the recent interim agreement reached in Geneva between Iran and the six world powers including the United States.
Immediately after the Iranian negotiating team returns home after the November talks that led to the historic deal, conservative parties and individuals challenged the agreement, insisting that Iran will neither halt enrichment activity nor shut down any of its current 16 nuclear facilities.
The pressure from the right wing eventually led to a public announcement by moderate President Hassan Rouhani who set, as believed by many in the West, a new condition for the ongoing nuclear talks: Tehran will not negotiate closure of any facility. The first condition was the recognition of Iran’s enrichment right by world powers.
Some US State Department officials acknowledged that they agreed to Iran’s first condition during the Geneva talks but empathized that the country would not be allowed to enrich more uranium above a level of five per cent.
In the United States, Secretary of State John Kerry came under similar criticism when he came back from Geneva mainly by GOP members in Congress who were calling for more pressure on Tehran over its nuclear energy program. They demanded that Iran should completely give up enrichment activity, shut down operations at the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant and avoid launching the Arak Heavy Water Research Reactor if it desires a deal with the US.
The US Treasury Department soon bowed to pressures by adding 19 more Iranian companies and individuals to a sanctions blacklist aimed at Iran’s nuclear program, a move that drew harsh criticism from Tehran which said the decision “violated the spirit of the Geneva deal.”
Now it was the turn of lawmakers from both sides to get involved in a game believed by many as harmful to the fragile deal.
Almost one-third of the Iranian lawmakers on 25 December introduced a bill that would require the Rouhani administration to enrich uranium up to 60 per cent, a level far above the limit set in the Geneva deal, if the agreement fails.
The bill, which is yet to be approved by the 290-seat parliament, comes in retaliation for “America’s hostile measures,” hardline lawmaker Mehdi Mousavinejad told the official IRNA news agency, in a clear reference to the last week’s bill introduced by 26 US senators to impose further sanctions on Iran if Tehran breaks the six-month deal.
“If the US Congress introduces legislation to impose pressures on us, our parliament should also do that,” said Hossein Naqavi Hosseini, a member of the parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Committee.
Proponents say the bill will force the administration not only to produce high-enriched uranium but to bring the Arak Heavy Water Research Reactor, which is currently under construction, into operation.
But the move also has opponents who believe it could harm Iran’s position. “We should not be in a hurry. Approving such legislation will give pretext to the other party,” said lawmaker Hossein Sobhaninia.
Among moderate and pro-reform political figures who are keen to end years of hostility between the country and the US, opposition is stronger.
The bill, if approved, will pave the ground for Iran to get closer to the red line defined by the US and its allies which insist high-enriched uranium will only be aimed at building atomic bombs, and not producing fuel for nuclear submarines as claimed by Iranian lawmakers.
Moderate and pro-reform forces fear that this ongoing tit-for-tat diplomacy might run out of control soon or late, given the fact that hardliners from both sides are well prepared to use any opportunity to kill the Geneva deal.
But Hawks in the US reject the idea that Iranian hardliners are not in coordination with other players directly involved in the nuclear talks. Some believe Iran has adopted a good cop-bad cop strategy.
Last month, US Democrat Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey, who along Sen. Mark Kirk introduced new legislation that proposes new conditional sanctions on Iran, said, “We consistently hear about how we have to worry about the hardliners in Iran. And it seems that the Iranians get to play good cop-bad cop, Rouhani as the good cop, the hardliners as the bad cop.”
Menendez did not dispute that the US Senate might also be playing “bad cop” to the Obama administration’s “good cop.”
A third group in Iran, different from either of proponents and opponents, is confident that neither the tit-for-tat diplomacy nor the hardliners can harm the new effort for talks since a secret deal has already been reached between Tehran and Washington. The idea has supporters among people loyal to both wings – conservatives and non-conservatives --, though they are in minority.
Such an idea emerged after media reports that Iran and the US had secretly engaged in a series of high-level, face-to-face talks over the past year, months before Mr Rouhani, whose election campaign rode on the promise of sanctions relief, took office.
The secret negotiations, which paved the way for the historic Geneva deal after a decade-long dispute, were kept hidden even from America’s closest allies, including Israel, until a few months ago. Most of the meetings were allegedly held in Oman, a Middle Eastern nation which has a long history of friendly ties with both Tehran and Washington.
The secret talks were given the go-ahead by top authorities from both sides, including Iran’s Leader Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khameniei who has a final say in state affairs.
The nuclear negotiation effort therefore will most likely result in a comprehensive agreement, supporters of the latest idea argue, noting that the Iranian side has never been more keen to reach a deal with the United States, after years of frustrating negotiations and more importantly crippling sanctions, which have pushed the nation’s economy to the verge of collapse.
So will the tit-for-tat diplomacy work or is it just a show as the deal has already reached in secret?
