According to Iranian foreign minister progress was made in "very difficult" nuclear talks with top US and EU diplomats this week in Vienna. With new threats to global security, how real are the chances they meet the November, 24 deadline? Radio VR discusses the issue with Prof. Seyed Mohammad Marandi of Tehran University and Prof. Anoush Ehteshami, Durham University, UK.
Speaking at a briefing for Iranian media after a six-hour meeting with US Secretary of State John Kerry and European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, held Wednesday, Iran's foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said: "It was very difficult, serious and intensive… but instead of focusing on problems, we discussed solutions as well…. There was progress in all the fields." A senior US official was also quoted as saying some progress was made but that much work remained.
The next round of the 5+1 talks is held in Vienna next week. Iran and the six powers — the United States, France, Germany, China, Russia and Britain – are expected to end a standoff over Iran's nuclear programme by deadline of November, 24.
Professor Seyed Mohammad Marandi: I believe President Rouhani has made it pretty clear that for Iran the most important issue is that the Western countries respect Iran’s nuclear rights. And he specifically said that Iran will not accept nuclear apartheid. So, attempting to decrease Iran’s right within the framework of the NPT (the nonproliferation treaty) or restricting Iran’s right is not going to be acceptable for the Iranian side.
So, ultimately, if there is going to be an agreement, it has to recognize Iran’s peaceful nuclear program, including the right to enrichment. Whereas, on the other hand, the Iranians are willing to be flexible, in order to deal with any question that the Western countries may have, if they are really serious questions, of course, because Iran doesn’t really believe that the West has doubts and Iran rather believes that the West is using the Iranian nuclear program to put pressure on Iran for other reasons.
But in any case, the Iranians are willing to be flexible and to show its good will, in order to resolve the problem, as long as the Western countries respect Iran’s sovereignty.
Do you think that as the situation in the region has been changing so rapidly, the West would show more flexibility in the negotiations with Iran, too?
Professor Seyed Mohammad Marandi: That is a strong incentive for the West, the fact that the Western countries helped create these extremist groups with the help of their allies – Saudi Arabia and Turkey, and Qatar – and now these groups have grown so powerful, that they are out of control. And this has created fear in the West itself. So, they’ve created a monster and now they are living in fear of that monster.
This increases the need of the West to cooperate with Iran and to find a resolution over the nuclear program, so that the different parties could sit down together and solve the mess that the West has created.
But it remains to be seen if the US has the maturity, as well as the courage to change its policy on the nuclear program, so that the rapprochement could begin. The Iranians have said that as long as the nuclear program or the nuclear file is not resolved, Iran cannot sit down with the Western countries to discuss other issues. For Iran this is the litmus test.
What is your vision of the prospects of security situation in Iran and around Iran? Several statements by radical Islamist groups in the Central Asia, in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, vowed their support for the IS. Is Iran also facing the challenge and what could be done by Iran and its allies, perhaps, to stop the spread or is it hopeless?
Professor Seyed Mohammad Marandi: The root of the problem really is Wahhabism – the extremist ideology that has been exported by Saudi Arabia through oil money. The Saudis and Qataris, and the Emirates have for decades now been exporting this extremist religious ideology. And it used to be a very obscure school of thought. But because of this oil wealth and because of the huge investment, it’s become so powerful and we see it revealing itself in Nigeria through Boko Haram, in Somalia – al-Shabaab, in Libya – Ansar al-Sharia, in Pakistan and Afghanistan – the Taliban, and, of course, Al Qaeda and the ISIS. The roots of all of these organizations come from Saudi Arabia and likeminded countries.
So, from the Iranian perspective, unless the international community begins putting pressure on the Saudi regime, the problem is not going to be solved through bombing campaigns. The Iranians believe that the real threat ultimately is more linked to the Western countries, because many of these groups have links in the West. And the threat is also really ultimately directed towards Saudi Arabia, which is itself a Wahhabi country and has the same ideology, as the ISIL.
So, I think the Iranians are still confident that they can manage their own security. They’ve dealt with the Taliban and Al Qaeda for decades and they’ve been successful, relatively speaking. But on the other hand, this monster, this unholy alliance between the US and the Saudis, and the Turks, and so on – this monster is something that is really unmanageable by the Saudis and the US, or even Turkey.
So, ultimately, the real threat is going to be directed towards the US regional client regimes, its friends, as well as the European states. That’s why they need Iran so much and that’s why they are so keen on the negotiations with Iran. But again, the litmus test for Iran is the nuclear file. If the West is serious about cooperating with Iran, then they have to solve the nuclear issue.
Professor Anoush Ehteshami: I think this is a very slow-moving train – that’s the best way of putting it. They are all on the same train, they all seem to want to go in the same direction, but they are going awfully slowly, because, even though they can see the end of the road on this train, they are not quite convinced that they can get there in one group.
As you know, the November deadline is fast looming. And it will be a year since Iran has held the direct talks with the US. And there have now been several rounds of discussions with the 5+1 group, but also, as you know, through the IAEA and also through other forums at the UN, in Geneva and such like. So, you would think that they’ve said everything that they needed to say to each other.
But obviously, reaching an agreement is a different set of problems altogether, particularly for the US and Iran. I don’t think the other parties are that bothered. I think Russia, China, France, Britain and even Germany are more or less convinced of what needs to be done.
I think France is taking a slightly harder line than the other European countries, which includes Russia. France’s position is, I think, closer to the US’s. Britain will also want to stay closer to the US. But the other key parties are happy to see a deal to be crafted. The sticking points are, of course, satisfying the US Congress of the nature of the final agreement, and on the Iranian side – satisfying the leader and the Iranian Parliament that the deal is a good one.
I think President Rouhani has the support of the Iranian people to close this once and for all. His problem is the right-wing dominated Parliament and also to overcome what the leader has called the red lines. And some of it has do to with enrichment – how much for how long enrichment of uranium, and some of it has to do with what happens after an agreement is reached – does that mean that then the US is backing Tehran with the American flag flying, how long will it take for the sanctions to be lifted, where there are multilateral sanctions – how quickly can you remove them. But the real sticking point is – how will take the US to remove its unilateral sanctions against Iran, because most of those will require an act of Congress.
So, these are the details that they seem unable to overcome, partly because they haven't got choreography of a timetable. And in that, I don’t get a sense that the other parties – Russia or China – are pressing the Iranians and the Americans to agree on a timetable. Nobody seems to be in a hurry to bring this to a closure, unfortunately.
Isn’t it that the US now needs Iran far more than Iran needs the US?
Professor Anoush Ehteshami: To be honest, they both need each other very badly, because it is clear that Iran cannot contain Iraq with the American support. Iran’s air force simply doesn’t have the capacity, for example, to do those sorts of airstrikes that the American air force and its NATO allies are undertaking right now over the Iraqi territory.
And yet, Iraq’s weakness is a real strategic concern for Iran. Iran does not want to move troops into Iraq, it doesn’t want to be seen in another conflict in Iraq. And it certainly doesn’t want to be having lorries of martyrs going back to Iran, after the really devastating 8-year long war.
Also the country doesn’t have much appetite for a conflict of this nature in any case. They are having to deal with Syria as Bashar al-Assad’s backers. They don’t want another front opened in Iraq. So, they do need the Americans there in the air, but also on the ground. But they will never admit the need to have the Americans on the ground, nor would the Americans admit needing Iran to keep the Iraqi Government intact, for example, or to help the Peshmergas in Kurdistan, because the Americans don’t want to be seen dependent on Iran either.
So, the two of them are still playing this game of smoke and mirrors, with the rest of the knowing full well that the stabilized Iraq is in the interest of both, and that ultimately they will need to cooperate to ensure that Iraq is stable, if they are to push the ISIL back to Syria and then deal with it as a single state problem in Syria.
But the ISIL seems to be spreading to Turkey now and God knows where else. Is there anything that Iran could do, to contribute to containing this threat?
Professor Anoush Ehteshami: Iran opposes ISIL and regards it as an apparent terrorist organization, which has nothing to do with religion. Iran’s main card is to show Islam as a peaceful accommodating religion. But the problem is that its previous Government was so hostile to the world, that it is unable to prove that case without making some fundamental compromises – compromises with the West, but also compromises with the rest of the Muslim world.
As you know, the Saudis, for example, regard Iran as a negative force in Iraq and in Syria, in particular. Iran needs to satisfy Saudi Arabia that it is a force for peace and stabilization. Iran needs to satisfy Pakistan, for example, that it is in support of stabilization of Afghanistan, and to prevent the spread of ISIL to Pakistan. You may also know that in Pakistan 6-7 groups have now declared allegiance to the ISIL.
So, as you say, this is a spreading disease and Iran is geographically sitting right in the middle of all this. If you draw a line around where the ISIL is, you will see that it is in fact Iran which is being surrounded. And yet it is unable to deal with this by itself, nor can it call on the regional and international partners to help it in addressing the problem.
The only way they can do so, is to remove the nuclear problem as an ongoing issue, so that it can then provide confidence to the international community, and then get involved. But what kind of involvement, frankly, it is still open to question, because I cannot see that the Arab forces land in Iraq and they would work alongside the Iranian military. I simply cannot see that happening, so long as the Iran’s military supports the Syrian regime in Damascus.
So, there are real ideological, structural, geopolitical matters to be overcome, even if there was any prospect for Iran to get involved directly in this coalition of the willing.
And I have also heard there is some concern over the situation in Azerbaijan?
Professor Anoush Ehteshami: Iran and Azerbaijan have got several ongoing problems over the territory, over the water ways in the Caspian, over energy, over pollution, even over ethnicity. As you know, Azerbaijan regards most of Iran’s Azerbaijan, as its territory with Baku, the capital. So, they have a lot of bilateral problems to overcome. But if there is any sign of Azerbaijan getting involved in this broader South Caucasus problem, that would include Turkey, Turkmens and Kurds, then Iran would have, again, a very new set of concerns.
But also, remember that Azerbaijan is a majority Shia country, but it has nothing to do with Iran in terms of its religious norms.
So, just to draw a line. Over roughly a recent year of Mr. Rouhani’s presidency Iran has been actively integrated into the international community regardless the sanctions?
Professor Anoush Ehteshami: Well, the sanctions are still in place, the ones that hurt are still in place. As you know, the EU has lifted some of its sanctions. And all of these meetings that the Iranian ministers have with the European and America, and the other counterparts, is to continuously find ways of reducing burden on both parties in these negotiations.
The problem is – it is true that Iran is pushing to lift the sanctions and it is getting more integrated, but it is unable to bring its influence to bear, so long as it remains isolated against the West and in the region against the Arab world. Those are the two problems that it needs to overcome. And it is still to do that effectively, given the crisis, as you say, but also the nuclear negotiations are not making a sufficient progress.
So, what do we need to expect?
Professor Anoush Ehteshami: I think they will have to couple a deal together. It won’t happen in November, I don’t suppose, unless Iran is prepared to make a major and timely compromise on enrichment that the West is adamant about. And once they have an agreement of thoughts, then they can begin to look at other issues of mutual interest that they keep talking about, which obviously is – ISIL, stabilization of Iraq, but also to sort Syria.
Iran has already said that it is not indefinitely wedded to Bashar al-Assad being in power. That is a real signal that once things are sorted, it is prepared to even discuss Syria, which must come as good news to the West, because, obviously, they want Iran on side if and when they manage to stabilize Iraq, push ISIL back and then deal with Syria as a going concern.
