Running into a 10-year-old trap
By Vestnik Kavkaza
After the signing of the Geneva accords by Tehran and the ‘5+1’ international mediators on first steps in the settlement of the Iranian nuclear issue, events in Iran began to develop rapidly. Tehran has already invited inspectors from the IAEA to visit a research center in Arak on December 8th, where heavy water is produced for nuclear reactors. Moreover, yesterday the foreign minister of the UAE, Abdullah ben Zaed al Nahaian, arrived in Tehran to meet President Hassan Rouhani. The BBC recalls that the UAE and Iran are still regional rivals, while the Iranian nuclear program concerns the whole Arab world.
Meanwhile, experts have different views on the essence and prospects of Geneva accords. Rajab Safarov, Director of the Center for Modern Iran Studies, states that “if we compare liabilities which are taken by Iran and liabilities which are taken by the international society represented by ‘5+1’ and put them on a weight scale, it will be clear that Iran took a huge volume of liabilities. And only due to its desire to fix the situation, only due to its desire to create an atmosphere of trust, eliminate concerns of the Western countries, Iran made the step.”
Vladimir Yevseyev, Director of the Socio-Political Studies Center, considers the signed accords without optimism. He told Vestnik Kavkaza: “A long path for a settlement of the Iranian nuclear crisis began. The first step has been taken only because the Iranian president is Hassan Rouhani. But it is not enough to take the Iranian will and the American will to solve its tactical problems to settle the situation. The West has to make a strategic choice in favor of improvement of relations with Iran. The West hasn’t made the choice yet. The signed accords are not based on gradual and mutual principles. The problem is not being solved.”
According to Yevseyev, Iran accepted the ultimatum not because it gave up, but because it achieved the most important result – its right to uranium enrichment was recognized. “It is thought that the accords will operate for a year, and in a year a full-scaled agreement will be signed. For example, it requires that the parliament of Iran will ratify an additional protocol of 1997 of the IAEA agreement on guarantees. I doubt that it can happen within a year. It seems a new parliament should be elected for this,” Yevseyev thinks.
He believes that the West won tactically, while Iran strategically from the accords: “I feel déjà vu from the Western behavior. The West is running into the same trap which caught it in 2003. It believes that once the Iranian program is stopped, it will develop the situation. That’s why no basic sanctions were eliminated. It seems sanctions will be loosen, but the crisis won’t be resolved. The first step was made due to Iran, but there is no future for the settlement. The accords don’t enable to form a basis for further development. $7 billion which could be given to Iran is such a minimum for the big state. Iran needs absolutely different money for development. The West made a mistake, insisting on a deadlock approach which was implemented in 2003. Then, for two years Iran hadn’t been enriching uranium, but in the end we returned to the situation which we have today.”
