Difficult Work Lies Ahead on Iran Deal
Pact Buys Time, But Not Necessarily More Agreement
By MICHAEL R. GORDON
The six-month interim plan buys time to work on the more difficult details of limiting Iran’s capacity to make nuclear weapons.
0fficials Say Toughest Work on Iran’s Nuclear Program Lies Ahead
Fabrice Coffrini/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Secretary of State John Kerry
shaking hands with Mohammad Javad Zarif, the Iranian foreign minister,
following the announcement.
By MICHAEL R. GORDON
Published: November 24, 2013
LONDON — The title of the interim agreement the United States and its
negotiating partners reached Sunday with Iran to freeze much of its
nuclear program — the “Joint Plan of Action” — is deceptively simple. A
close reading of the four-page footnote-laden text makes clear that the
most formidable diplomatic and technical challenges lie ahead.
Multimedia
Related
-
Accord Reached With Iran to Halt Nuclear Program (November 24, 2013)
-
Israeli Leaders Denounce Geneva Accord (November 25, 2013)
-
Sunnis Close Baghdad Mosques to Challenge Religious Attacks (November 24, 2013)
“Now the difficult part starts,” said Olli Heinonen, the former deputy
director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
From the start, Obama administration officials described the initial
agreement the world powers have now secured as a holding action that
would keep the Iranian nuclear program in check for six months so that
international negotiators would have time to pursue a more comprehensive
agreement.
But the two sides were able to come to terms on that initial agreement
precisely because it did not foreclose their options and required steps
that for the most part are reversible.
The interim accord, for example, allows Iran to preserve most of its
nuclear infrastructure, including the capabilities it would need to
develop a nuclear device. The United States, for its part, would retain
the core oil and banking sanctions it has imposed.
Negotiating a comprehensive agreement would require much tougher choices
by each side. And while the initial agreement sought to sketch out the
parameters of a follow-on accord it did so in only the vaguest terms.
Would the follow-on agreement last for five years, ten years or even
more? The comprehensive agreement that is to be negotiated will not be
open-ended, and there appears to be no meeting of the minds on how many
years it would be in effect.
“The terms of the comprehensive agreement have yet to be defined, but it
is suggested that that agreement will itself have an expiration date,”
said Ray Takeyh, a former State Department and a senior fellow at the
Council on Foreign Relations. “It would be good if the comprehensive
agreement was more final.”
Enrichment remains another thorny issue. The Obama administration has
made clear that it is not prepared to concede up front that Iran has a
“right” to enrich uranium.
But the interim agreement makes clear makes clear that a follow-on
agreement would provide for a “mutually defined enrichment program with
practical limits and transparency.”
So the question is not whether the Obama administration is prepared to
allow Iran to continue enriching uranium but rather what constraints the
United States and its negotiating partners will insist on in return and
how large an Iranian enrichment program they are willing to tolerate.
The interim accord makes clear that such an enrichment must be
consistent with “practical needs” and Iran and the United States are
likely to have very different ideas of what those requirements would be.
“This, of course, will be one of the central issues in the negotiations
for a comprehensive agreement,” said Gary Samore, who served as senior
aide on nonproliferation issues on the National Security Council during
the Obama administration and is now president of United Against Nuclear
Iran, an organization that urges that strong sanctions be imposed on
Iran until it further restricts its nuclear efforts.
The negotiators will confront a host of other difficult questions in pursuing a comprehensive agreement.
“Will the Fordow enrichment be shutdown? Will the Arak reactor be shut
down or converted into a light water reactor?” said David Albright, the
president of the Institute for Science and International Security.
The interim deal, Mr. Albright added, “did not do enough to narrow down the limitations that will be in a final deal.
With such a formidable array of issues, negotiators left open the
possibility that initial agreement, which is to last for six months, may
need to be extended. Or as the text of the interim agreement states it
is “renewable by mutual consent.”
If a more comprehensive agreement is not reached and an interim accord
is extended Iran will still be able to make a dash for a bomb.
But the United States would have more somewhat more warning time of such
a “breakout” due to increased verification, constraints on Iran’s
installation of new centrifuges, the requirement that Iran convert its
existing stock of uranium that has been enriched to 20 percent to a less
usable form and the cap on Iran stockpile of 5 percent enriched
uranium, among other measures.
Just how much longer it would take Iran to produce sufficient
weapons-grade uranium for a bomb in the face of such constraints is a
matter of debate among experts. Mr. Albright estimates that the breakout
time would increase by several weeks or perhaps close to a month .
“This may seem a small time,” Mr. Albright said. But with international
monitors daily checking films at the Natanz and Fordow enrichment
facilities the increase “would be significant.”
For their part, Obama administration officials acknowledge that any
major breakthrough in ratcheting back Iran’s nuclear program will
require negotiating the follow-on accord.
“Now the really hard part begins,” Mr. Kerry said on Sunday before a
meeting here William Hague the British foreign secretary. “That is the
effort to get the comprehensive agreement which would require enormous
steps in terms of verification, transparency and accountability.”
We know this,” he added, “we will start today, literally, to continue the efforts out of Geneva and to press forward.
Kerry Defends Geneva Pact From Critics on All Sides
By MARK LANDLER
Secretary of State John Kerry offered a robust defense of the interim
nuclear agreement with Iran, insisting that the deal would make Israel
and Persian Gulf allies of the United States more secure, not less so.
Alexander Klein/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
John Kerry speaking after the agreement was reached in Geneva.
In Iran, Deal Is Mostly Seen as a Good First Step
By THOMAS ERDBRINK
Despite criticisms by some hard-liners, even Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called the deal a success.
In Israeli, Accord Is Called ‘a Historic Mistake’
By ISABEL KERSHNER
Officials said that Israel was not bound by the deal on Iran’s nuclear
program and that it would be ready to defend itself without assistance
from allies.
News Analysis
A Step Toward Slowing Iran’s Nuclear Capacity
By DAVID E. SANGER
The deal brings the U.S. closer to its goal: lengthening the time it takes Iran to build a nuclear weapon.
COPY http://international.nytimes.com/
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário