Alwaght- In recent years, what is perceived from the US administration's reactions to Iran's nuclear program is the fact that Obama's administration has an urge to reach an agreement, while it is at the same time unable to establish internal coherence and persuade its allies. Accordingly, we intend to examine the clues which reveal the desire of the Obama's administration to strike a nuclear deal with Iran, and the reasons behind this willingness.
The evidence which represents the US administration's desire to resolve the Iran's nuclear issue could be stated in following points:
1. The US sent a message via a special envoy for Iran's leaders and asked to hold nuclear talks
It was the Obama's administration which offered Iran to take advantage of the tools of diplomacy to resolve then eight-year-old nuclear conflict with Iran, and it was Iran which accepted to hold talks in order to solve its nuclear issue. Iran's supreme leader reiterated that "the Americans are the one who asked us to settle the issue through holding talks, they asked a respectable intermediary, the leader of one of our neighboring countries in the region to came here to meet me, he said that the US President had telephoned him and told him we would like to settle the nuclear issue with Iran and lift the sanctions too ... I said to that respectable intermediary that we do not trust the Americans, we cannot rely on what they say. "Why do not you give it a try?" he asked. "OK, we will give it a try this time, too." I replied. And that's how negotiations began.
It appears that the special envoy was Sultan Qaboos, the Sultan of Oman. As over the last forty years, thanks to mutual trust, he acted as an intermediary between Iran and the US. Besides, the initial negotiations with the US began secretly in President Ahmadinejad's government (the 10th Cabinet) in the same country, Oman.
2. Obama recognized the Iranian Supreme leader' nuclear fatwa
The US President in his speech at the United Nations and at his meetings with leaders and representatives of many countries of the world, quoted the fatwa issued by Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, about the prohibition and use of nuclear weapons, taking the fatwa as a basis for moving forward in the confidence-building process. The US officials cited the fatwa several times in their speech about Iran and this represents the determination of the US officials to enter into negotiation and find a way to reach an agreement with Iran, the country which a decade ago they regarded a side of the triangle which they called 'the axis of evil'.
3. The concurrent presence of the US senior officials of the Department of State in nuclear talks
During the talks between Iran and the P5 + 1, in addition to the long-term presence of the US secretary of state in nuclear talks, his two senior deputies at the same time were also present in talks with the Iranian authorities and the P5 + 1. This unprecedented move shows the importance and sensitivity of the issue in the US foreign policy. Before that, on various issues related to the US Department of State, if the Secretary of State went abroad, his or her high-ranking deputies would administer the affairs of state in his absence. However, the presence of the secretary of state and his deputies together with the US national security adviser in nuclear talks reveals the historic importance of the issue.
4. Nuclear deal framework agreed despite fierce opposition from the Israeli regime
It is evident that Israeli regime is the main strategic ally of the United States, and the US spends the highest costs to support the Israeli regime. However, during the nuclear negotiations with Iran, the P5 + 1 granted Iran some concessions which widened the gap between the US and Israeli regime. Netanyahu and the Israeli regime believe that Joint Plan of Action (JPA) was a bad deal, and leveled harsh criticism at the Obama's administration and stressed it will prepare the ground for Iran to make nuclear weapons, while Obama called it an achievement in preventing diversion in Iran's nuclear program. Disputes over the Iranian nuclear issue escalated to the extent that the lobby of Zionism and the Zionist state and its supporters in Congress, created all kinds of obstructions to ensure the failure of the nuclear talks. However, Obama reclined to meet with the Israeli prime minister, and the Obama's administration stressed it would continue the negotiations. This suggests that the Obama's administration is seeking a good deal. Disclosing the Israeli regime espionage activity in venues of nuclear talks somehow reflects Israel's distrust in representatives of the Obama's administration; while in their numerous trips to occupied Palestine, they kept the regime well-informed about the details of the negotiations.
5. Obama vows to veto any new Iran sanctions from Congress
During the sabotage of nuclear talks by the opposition groups in the US, especially the Republicans, and during their efforts to pass new sanctions against Iran while the US administration had signed the Geneva agreement, Obama warned that any move to impose new sanctions could scupper delicate negotiations aimed at reaching a complex nuclear deal. He reiterated that "new sanctions passed by Congress will all but guarantee that diplomacy fails. If the Congress passed new sanctions' bill, this time it will isolate the US in the world rather than Iran." Obama's statements showed his strong determination to strike a deal with Iran. This also shows the clever diplomacy of the Islamic Republic of Iran that after two years of active involvement is able to put the US under media pressure.
6. Obama moderated the congress bill which require the US administration to submit the agreement to Congress
Obama showed backlash against the proposed bill of the Republicans in Congress in which the decision to accept or reject a final agreement with Iran will require congressional approval. While warning to veto the bill, he signed a compromised version of the measure. In the compromised version of the bill, congress will review any prospective agreement and the president gives the Congress the privilege to make the final decision on the sanctions passed by Congress. Nevertheless, in the compromised version, the congress withdrew from inclusion in the final deal some articles concerning alleged Iranian support for terrorism. One of the other differences of the proposed bill with the compromised version was that in the draft version, the approval of two-thirds of the Senate was required to confirm the prospective agreement with Iran. However, in the compromised version the White House needs the approval of just one third of the Senate. In fact, the compromised version of the bill was based on the President Obama's approach.
7. Obama called the framework agreement a historic one
On 2 April, 2015 in Lausanne, Switzerland an understandings was achieved between the negotiating parties to outline the framework of a joint plan of action. On 2 April, 2015, the US President Barack Obama said an "historic understanding" had been reached with Iran. Obama also stated that the deal with Iran is a good deal in that this deal could meet core objectives of the US. He called the framework agreement a historic one to show the Republicans in Congress that the negotiations have not failed and have had significant progress. He somehow pretended the remaining differences are nothings but some more details. Despite Obama's enthusiasm, one week after Lausanne negotiations, Iran’s Supreme Leader, neither accepted nor rejected the framework deal and stated that: "nothing has happened yet, and the press release is not a special event that with reference to its content one can judge it good or bad". Ayatollah Khamenei, noting his red lines to sign the agreement, reiterated that the Obama's administration needs the agreement more than Iran does.
8. Acknowledging the right for Uranium enrichment on Iranian soil
Before the Joint Plan of Action was achieved in Geneva, the US officials jointly insisted on dismantling Iran's nuclear power, and its transfer to a foreign country. However, according to JPA, the P 5 + 1, especially the US had to acknowledge Iran's right for uranium enrichment inside the country, where it was mentioned in the Geneva agreement: "This comprehensive solution would enable Iran to fully enjoy its right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes under the relevant articles of the NPT in conformity with its obligations therein. This comprehensive solution would involve a mutually defined enrichment program with practical limits and transparency measures to ensure the peaceful nature of the program…. a mutually defined enrichment program with mutually agreed parameters consistent with practical needs, with agreed limits on scope and level of enrichment activities, capacity, where it is carried out, and stocks of enriched uranium, for a period to be agreed upon." Henry Kissinger, Secretary of State and the head of the National Security Council under President Richard Nixon and George Shultz, Secretary of State in Ronald Reagan administration wrote in their articles: "Until now, the U.N. resolutions and IAEA directives have demanded an immediate halt to all activities related to uranium enrichment and plutonium production, and unconditional compliance with an IAEA inspections regime as a matter of right. Under the interim agreement, Iranian conduct that was previously condemned as illegal and illegitimate has effectively been recognized as a baseline, including an acceptance of Iran's continued enrichment of uranium (to 5%) during the agreement period. And that baseline program is of strategic significance."
9. Fordow underground facility and the Arak heavy water continue their activities
Obama in his speech, in early talks publicly announced that "the underground Fordow facility at Qom, its size and configuration are inconsistent with a peaceful program." However, the Iranian government expressed its opposition to the dismantling of nuclear facilities. Gradually and with the agreement achieved in Lausanne, Obama agreed not to shut down the Fordow enrichment facility. Obama's stance in the final round of negotiations was more flexible. Fordow underground facility, the main cause of concern for Israeli leaders, not only will remain active, there would be some centrifuges running as well. Besides, Obama, in his official speech, also opposed the Arak heavy water facility, but it was agreed that Arak heavy water reactor would be redesigned to reduce plutonium production. This also showed that the US has had to retreat from its former position.
10. The US dispensed with PMD in favor of the final agreement
Possible military dimensions (PMD) of Iran’s nuclear program, according to Iranian officials, are about nuclear activities prior to 2003 and the Western countries' claims about Iran's military nuclear program with the intention of developing nuclear weapons." Most of those who opposed to the agreement with Iran, insist on the inclusion of an article in the prospective nuclear deal with Iran which suggest that Iran's nuclear program has had a military aspect. The Iranian negotiators voiced opposition to the idea, and called it a major obstacle to strike a deal. Two weeks before the deadline of June 30, John Kerry, the secretary of State, on the issue of possible military dimensions of Iran's nuclear program suggested that Iran would not have to fully account for any past atomic weapons research as part of reaching a nuclear deal. “The possible military dimensions, frankly, gets distorted a little bit in some of the discussion, in that we’re not fixated on Iran specifically accounting for what they did at one point in time or another,” Kerry said. “We know what they did. We have no doubt. We have absolute knowledge with respect to the certain military activities they were engaged in. What we’re concerned about is going forward. It’s critical to us to know that going forward, those activities have been stopped, and that we can account for that in a legitimate way.”
John Kerry has publicly announced that the final agreement and the lifting of sanctions imposed on Iran do not have to do with Tehran's accounting for its nuclear program in the past. In another part of his speech, Secretary Kerry, for the first time pointed out that the US is ready to lift Iran's economic sanctions without full evidence indicating that Iranian scientists are not secretly building nuclear weapons. This issue also represents an attempt to rescue the negotiations and prevent its failure.
11. The US moderated its containment policy towards Iran in the West Asia (particularly in Syria and Iraq).
It is evident that Obama Seeks détente with Iran in the West Asia. It might seem a small change, but in fact, it is a great one. The measures that the US took in Syria are not what Arab countries and Israeli regime expected the US administration to do; these measures are suggesting a kind of compromise. The containment policy of the US towards Iran, as one of the main principles of the US foreign policy, has been pursued in all of the US administration. However, in issues happening over the last two years, some signs of change are evident. Nevertheless, Obama seemingly opposes Iran's influence over the region. At the same time, the US is serving as a partner of Iran, in the fight against ISIS in Iraq.
12. The US urges anti-Iran countries of the region to pursue domestic political reforms
The US President in his interview with Thomas Freidman and in response to his allies in the West Asia that believe Iran is the biggest threat to their security, stated that" The biggest threats that they face may not be coming from Iran invading. It’s going to be from dissatisfaction inside their own countries." He explained that young (Arab) people in their countries have no legitimate ways to express their dissatisfaction; therefore, their first priority should be domestic political reform. According to Michael Doran, a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, Obama's message to Israeli regime and Persian Gulf countries is the same: "The problem is not Iran, it is you. Make the right order at your home." Recommending such preparation, President Obama prepares his allies for a nuclear deal. Besides, it could be inferred as a sign of Obama's desire to reach a comprehensive agreement, and also a sign of a major change in future strategies of this country.
There are also some other reasons which explain why Obama and his administration seek to achieve a nuclear deal with Iran. They are to be discussed in the second part of this news article.
