“The gulf of mistrust cannot be breached by signing a document; it’s about the test of time,” says David Menashri, associate professor of Middle Eastern and African History and founding director of Alliance Center at the University of Tel Aviv. As Iran and the permanent members of the UN security council – the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, China, France – plus Germany (known as the P5+1) reached a historic agreement over Iran’s nuclear programme in Geneva last weekend, Iranwire.com talked to the Iran specialist about the significance of the deal, previous negotiations and the future of Israel’s relations with the UK and the US.
Despite international disgruntlement with the outcome of the last meetings, which took place between 7 and 10 November, Professor Menashri insisted that the deal came through as expected: “It was unlikely to be finalised the first time”.
“All the signs were there. It was in the mutual interest of all sides,” Menashri said when asked if he was surprised that Iran and the P5+1 were able to reach a deal.
“It takes time to internalise the magnitude of change” that this deal actually signifies, he asserted. What was important is that “challenges were turned to to opportunities”.
It was widely reported that Benyamin Netanyahu and Israeli officials viewed the outcome of the negotiation – which included Iran agreeing to stop enriching uranium beyond 5% and stopping work at the controversial Arak plant, as well as the lifting of some sanctions on Iran – as a disaster, a step towards making the world “a more dangerous place”. But in Menashri’s opinion, the deal reached in Geneva does not necessarily spell trouble for Israel. “The US and Israel have come to a real clash of attitudes,” he admits. “But I don’t see that improving relations between the US and Iran works against the interest of Israel. The problem is finding out whether Iran is really interested in changing.”
“Demand for change”
In the run up to June’s elections, Hassan Rouhani spoke of the need for economic recovery. “I’m going to give you back the rial, the value of your passport,” he told the Iranian people. Menashri sees Rouhani’s journey to the presidency as signalling a “demand for change” among the Iranian people and a willingness for Iran’s leaders to acknowledge this need, at least to some extent.
“No one is willing to go to war” any more, Menashri says. The UK parliament “refused to go to war with Syria,” he gives as an example. “It has become important to find alternatives”.
The government “went to the UN with smiles”, with a “willingness to negotiate”. It was also significant and enormously important that President Obama and President Rouhani spoke on the telephone in late September, the first telephone conversation between the leaders of the US and Iran for 30 years. iIt was all, he said, “part of a process”.
It’s important to remember the current agreement is an interim one that will last for a period of six months. The next stage of the process, says Menashri, is key. “What is most important here is not the agreement. It is the implementation.” Iran must now demonstrate that it intends to follow through on its promises – and not backtrack as it has done previously. Earlier this year, in the run up to elections, when President Rouhani asked about why he had suspended Iran’s nuclear programme during his time as chief nuclear negotiator (2003-2005), he claimed that had in fact carried through with plans to build and strengthen the programme, contrary to the announcement he made in 2004 that Iran had voluntarily stalled them.
Europe and the United States must consider how they behave in the coming weeks too, Menashri says. They have agreed to make concessions and allow a certain amount of trust. At the very least, he says, they must “put the new attitude to the test”.
No alternative
Israeli and US critics have predictably condemned the agreement, saying Europe and the US gave Iran too much leeway. But from Menashri’s perspective, Israel’s diplomatic stance was simply not sustainable. “Israel’s diplomacy was such so that no one was listening. The world is tired of this sort of attitude, tired of war.” Israel regards Iran’s nuclear program as a problem that will have a detrimental effect on Israel, he says but this narrow view does not tell the whole story. “It is not only a problem for Israel,” he says. “It is the problem of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Europe and the US. What is the alternative?”
“Israel should be working hard in a diplomatic way to convince Europe and America that it is working to make sure the Iranians will deliver.”
With this deal, Iranians can be proud of Javad Zarif and the other negotiators who played a role in making it happen. Menashri says the lifting of some sanctions is “not a major step”. It means the unfreezing of about $7billion. “It’s not big money, but its the beginning, a step to easing pressure,” he observes.
And if the deal lasts, there will be further reasons for celebration “Who is winning more?Iranians are winning. There is a clear benefit for Iran. The concessions they made on the nuclear programme can be easily reversed. The easing of sanctions is very difficult to reverse. It’s possible, but difficult.”
But there is also big opposition within Iran over the outcome in Geneva. However, the Supreme Leader endorsed the talks and the ensuing agreement; he thanked the negotiating team before opponents had a chance to speak out. “In coming days we will hear more voices from Iran,” Menashri adds.
For Iran, the day the agreement was reached, 24 November, was like a “wedding day”. “Everyone is happy. But it’s about how you maintain the relationship that’s important.”
“If the agreement doesn’t hold, it will be a devastating situation for the countries of the Middle East. It will be seen as the beginning of nuclear race.”
Late on Sunday evening, chief negotiator Javad Zarif and others vital to the agreement process were greeted by hundreds of well-wishers at Tehran’s Mehrabad airport. According to one eyewitness report, people celebrated the nuclear deal by shouting messages of support: “Up with the diplomat; up with the reform!” was one familiar refrain.
Experts like Menashri, who have scrutinised all aspects of Iran’s international positioning as a “pariah state” – its relations with Europe and the US, its nuclear development, and how it has fared under unbelievably tough sanctions – wait with bated breath.
And so do the ordinary citizens of Iran.
A Degree of Normalcy Will Take Three to Four Years: Talking with Bijan Khajehpour
A Prelude to Nuclear Blackmail: An Interview With Davis Lewin
What Would Critics Recommend Instead? A Conversation With Ploughshares
Interested in writing for IranWire?
Share your stories.
comments