Negotiating Team Did Not Cross Red Lines

Excerpts of an exclusive interview with Hossein Mousavian, a former senior member of Iran’s nuclear negotiating team

by Sara Massoumi

More than ten years have passed since the beginning of nuclear negotiations between Iran and the West.  This dossier, which had once become the most controversial file in the IAEA because of certain technical and legal questions, was gradually transformed into a political affair following its referral from the IAEA Board of Governors to the UN Security Council and this prepared the ground for the presence of new players. On November 24th 2013, a document was finally signed between Iran and the P5+1 as a Joint Plan of Action, giving the two sides six months to maneuver in the first step. During this decade of negotiations, the Iranian nuclear dossier has experienced the presence of numerous experts and diplomats with various political views. Iranian Diplomacy recently spoke withHossein Mousavian, a former senior member of Iran’s nuclear negotiating team, about the recent Geneva agreement and the future of the nuclear talks and Iran’s relations with the West, the US, and with countries of the Persian Gulf region. Mr. Mousavian, who is Princeton University, was Iran’s Ambassador to Germany from 1990-1997 and headed the Foreign Relations Committee of the Supreme National Security Council of Iran during the eight years of Mohammad Khatami’s presidency.

What is your assessment of the signing of the Joint Plan of Action between Iran and the P5+1 after many years of ups and downs in negotiations?

In a realistic view of this agreement, I must say that this agreement is neither desirable and ideal for the Iranian negotiating team nor desirable and ideal for the P5+1 negotiators. Neither of the parties has reached its maximum demands by signing this agreement. But considering the conditions or the situation of the nuclear dossier, I believe that neither the Iranian side nor the other party was able to achieve more than they did. The most important challenge and difference of opinion which exists in this agreement is, in fact, the response to the question of whether Iran’s enrichment program has been recognized or not? John Kerry, the US Secretary of State, stated in an interview that we have not recognized this right but the Iranian party reiterates that this right has been recognized. The critics of this agreement in Iran and the US maneuver over this issue. I believe that in order to understand the issue of uranium enrichment in Iran, we must study 40 years of US policy with regard to enrichment.  Following the adoption of the NPT in the late 1960s and its implementation in the early 1970s, the US has never, up until now, officially recognized enrichment in any country.

The second issue is that the US believes that if Iran’s enrichment is recognized, then there will be an international competition over this issue at the global level which would spread the threat of proliferation of nuclear weapons. Therefore, the US has pursued a dual policy, meaning that it has explicitly and practically accepted enrichment in countries which it trusts like Germany and Japan. Unfortunately this issue has not been well-comprehended inside the country. The fact is that the non-recognition of the right to enrichment by the US is not only implemented for Iran but that it is rather a general and 40-year long policy of the US administration.   

You were one of the members of Iran’s team of nuclear negotiation between 2003 and 2005 led by Mr. Hassan Rohani. At that time, Iran accepted to take many voluntary measures including the suspension of enrichment and the signing of the Additional Protocol and according to some critics, retreated from some of its positions. Nevertheless, the negotiations ultimately failed and this case was referred to the Security Council and the sanctions were intensified. What were the reasons behind this failure?

At that juncture, both parties withdrew from their positions. Iran accepted to sign the Additional Protocol and suspend some of its nuclear activities and the other party accepted to take the following measures:

1.       Not referring Iran’s dossier to the Security Council

2.       Not adopting sanctions

3.       Entering the area of comprehensive strategic cooperation with Iran

4.       Accepting Iran’s right to have nuclear power plants

5.       Accepting the provision of fuel for Iran which meant breaking 30 years of deadlock

6.       Accepting Iran’s enjoyment of peaceful nuclear technology in the fields of medicine, agriculture, ...

7.       Accepting the development of cooperation between Iran and Europe in the political, economic and security dimensions. Based on this item, Iran and Europe even reached an agreement over the issue of the common struggle against al-Qaeda and the MKO.

Why did this round of negotiations reach a conclusion?

The reason behind the success this time lies in the US’ change of position. The US position has changed from zero enrichment to an Iran without a nuclear bomb. These two issues are very different from each other for Iran has no problem with observing the red line of the nuclear bomb. Barack Obama has, many times, stated that Iran’s achievement of a nuclear bomb is our red line. Before Obama, the Supreme Leader had reiterated that not only are nuclear armaments Iran’s red line but also any weapon of mass destruction is our red line. Therefore, Iran’s leadership had determined the red line for our country before the western politicians.

In this round of negotiations, the US has accepted that they will not have a problem with enrichment in Iran, although it will be limited in the beginning. Of course, the trust which exists between the US and Germany does not exist between Iran and the US. Gradually and with the development of relations, these limitations in enrichment will also be removed.

Therefore, by getting the acceptance of even 5% enrichment in Iran by the P5+1, the new administration has bypassed the main obstacle in the trend of negotiations.

Yes. Don’t forget that the principles of the plan which we presented to the Europeans in 2005 are the same as the principles of the plan which was put on the table in November 2013 in Geneva. The principles that we have accepted in the Joint Plan of Action are as follows:

1.        Agreeing to IAEA inspections

2.       Enrichment up to 5% and not more

3.       Non-storage of more than necessary materials

4.       Non-reprocessing of materials

These principles, not the details of the two agreements, are similar to each other. The principles of Iran’s latest proposal in Geneva were the same as in March 2005, which was of course approved by the high-ranking officials of the country at that tiem. But in 2005 no agreement was reached due to the US position with regard to enrichment but in 2013 this agreement was reached because the US changed its position in this regard.

The implementation of the Joint Plan of Action has officially begun. Nevertheless there are waves of protests against this agreement both inside Iran and in the US Congress. What issues threaten the future of these negotiations?

There are 4 threats on the other side:

1.       US Congress

2.       Pressures exerted by some Arab states

3.       Pressures of the Zionist lobby

4.       Mobilization of the anti-revolutionary forces led by the MKO

These 4 opponents pursue 5 objectives:

1.       Failure of direct talks between Iran and the US

2.       Failure of nuclear negotiations

3.       Re-establishment of the sanctions which are to be removed during the next 6 months

4.       Adoption of new sanctions from next fall

5.       Directing the US towards a military attack against Iran

In general, it must be said that these four fronts seek an all-out confrontation with Iran.

You mentioned that, due to the change in the US position, this round of negotiations succeeded. What were the causes of this change?

The US and the West assumed that by referring Iran’s nuclear dossier to the Security Council and imposing numerous sanctions, Iran would withdraw from its position. All of the Iranian negotiators in 2003 to 2005, from the highest ranking negotiator of the time who was Mr. Hassan Rohani to me, as the less senior one, had repeatedly reiterated Iran’s red line and stated that if the case was referred to the Security Council, sanctions were intensified and even if they moved towards military confrontation, Iran’s red line which is enrichment on its soil would not change. Of course, during all those years, the western countries considered Iran’s insistence on this issue as a bluff. In the end, Iran continued its uranium enrichment and the sanctions were intensified. During these years Iran was under the most oppressive sanctions. In my opinion, right now no country has ever been more damaged than Iran within the framework of the UN resolutions and unilateral sanctions.

Following the sanctions, the number of Iran’s centrifuges has increased from 3000 to 11000. Iran’s enrichment was 5% and after the imposition of the sanctions it reached 20%. Today the P5+1 has reached the conclusion that it must accept enrichment inside Iran.

The Western countries had reached this conclusion during Ahmadinejad’s presidency and in November 2010, Hillary Clinton said in an interview with BBC that if Iran remains committed to its obligations, they would accept enrichment.

If the West had reached this conclusion during the previous administration, then why was no agreement reached in the nuclear negotiations in the ninth and tenth administrations?

The atmosphere of relations between Iran and the West was so tense that there was no possibility of making a deal. In the second term of Barack Obama’s presidency, the presence of John Kerry as the US Secretary of State and Chuck Hagel, as the Defense Secretary, returned diplomacy to this country. Never before in the 34-year history of relations between Iran and the US, had such a triangle been formed in the White House where each element of it believed in interaction and improvement of relations with Iran. Therefore this matter helped this issue.

The second issue was Iran’s elections which changed the negative atmosphere against Iran at the international level.

The combination of Mr. Zarif, Rohani, Shamkhani and Salehi, who are the main decision-makers in Iran’s nuclear program after the Supreme Leader also attracted the positive view of the world towards Iran.

The ice of relations between Iran and the US has recently melted. If the two foreign ministers had talked with each other for only a few minutes last year, it would have been breaking news but today we see that the two sides negotiate with each other for hours on the sidelines of the nuclear negotiations. What perspective would you predict for these relations which are filled with mistrust?

I agree with this point that direct negotiations between Iran and the US reached its highest level in the history of political relations between the two countries during the presidency of Mr. Rohani. The negotiation between the two foreign ministers and the phone conversation between the two presidents happened for the first time in this administration. But this phenomenon was formed during Mr. Ahmadinejad’s presidency. The first bilateral meeting was held between the US and Iranian ambassadors in Baghdad and the subject was Iraq and its problems. The second meeting was held between Mr. Saeed Jalili, as the Secretary of the High Council of National Security, and William Burns, the third highest-ranking person in the US Department of State at that time. Iran entered into direct negotiations with the US at the level of the Secretary of the High Council of National Security. These historical facts cannot be forgotten. In a fair judgment, I must say that, during his second presidential term, Mr. Amadinejad used all of his potentials and capacities to reduce the tension between Iran and the US.

Can the common regional and extra-regional concerns lead to the reduction of tension between Tehran and Washington and the expansion of cooperation between the two countries?

Since 4 years ago when I started my research activities at Princeton University, I have frankly expressed my political opinions in hundreds of articles that have been published. I believe in two parallel negotiations; one negotiation between Iran and the P5+1 about the nuclear issue and another direct negotiation between Iran and the US with regard to the issues of concerns of both sides. I believe in comprehensive negotiation. There is instability in Iraq and the stability of this country is one of the priorities of Iran’s national security. Whether we like it or not, Iran and the US support the same government in Iraq. Iran and the US are the most influential powers of the region and the world in Iraq. That is why at one juncture, the meeting between the ambassadors of the two countries in Baghdad was allowed. The same issue exists in Afghanistan as well. Despite all their differences, Iran and the US support the same government in Kabul. Iran and the US also play significant roles in the Syrian crisis.

Iran must negotiate and cooperate with the neighboring countries and the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council. I believe that a system of regional cooperation must be formed between Iran, Iraq and the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council and I believe that the US must leave the Persian Gulf and render the provision of security in this region to the regional countries. Of course this is a gradual process and needs time and will not happen without direct negotiations between Iran and the US.

What is the problem in the relations between Iran and the Arab states and the neighboring countries?

In response to this question, all of the Arab states must not be studied collectively. There are even two trends in the member countries of the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council: Oman believes in a high-level and strategic relation with Iran and some other countries believe in confrontation with Iran.

The strategy of Iran’s new administration must be the creation of comprehensive cooperation in the Persian Gulf region between Iran and the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council and Iraq. This cooperation must include the 8 Persian Gulf Littoral States. This system of cooperation must be similar to that of the EU. All political, economic and security cooperation must be covered within this framework.

sowing discord and promoting extremism, arrogant powers’ plot for Islamic communities

Today, the world of Islam feels that it is awake. It is exactly at this point that the enemies of Islam – those people who are opposed to Islamic Awakening, independence of nations and the domination of aGod’s religion in all countries – enter the arena. It is exactly at this point that all kinds of tricks are used for creating obstacles in the way of Islamic societies. And the most important trick that they use is creating discord.

It is 65 years now that the world of arrogance has been trying with all its power to impose the existence of the Zionist regime on Muslim nations and to make them accept this regime. But it has failed. We should not look at some countries and governments which are willing to act against their national interests in order to safeguard the interests of their foreign friends – who are the enemies of Islam – and to consign Islamic interests to oblivion. Peoples are opposed to the presence of the Zionists.

It is 65 years now that they have been trying to erase the memory of Palestine, but they have failed. During the 33-day war in Lebanon and during the 22-day war and – for the second time – the eight-day war in Gaza which were waged in recent years, Muslim nations and the Islamic Ummah showed that they are alive. The Islamic Ummah showed that despite the investment of America and other western powers, it has managed to preserve its identity, to slap the fake and imposed Zionist regime across the face and to frustrate the allies of oppressive Zionists who did their best during this time to preserve this imposed, oppressive and criminal regime. The Islamic Ummah showed that it has not forgotten about Palestine. This is a very important issue.

It is in such conditions that the enemy is focusing all its efforts on making the Islamic Ummah forget about Palestine. How do they want to do this? They want to do this by creating discord, waging domestic wars, promoting deviant extremism in the name of Islam, religion and Islamic sharia. They want a group of people to say takfiri things against Muslims. The existence of these takfiri orientations which have emerged in the world of Islam is good news for arrogance and the enemies of the world of Islam. It is these takfiri orientations that attract the attention of Muslims towards insignificant issues instead of letting them pay attention to the truth about the existence of the malevolent Zionist regime.

This is the exact opposite of what Islam wants. Islam has asked Muslims to be “strong against unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other” [The Holy Quran, 48, 29]. Muslims should be strong against the enemies of religion. They should stand firm and they should not be influenced by the enemies. Being “strong against unbelievers” is the clear message of this ayah. Muslims should be compassionate towards one another, they should stay together and join hands and they should hold fast to the rope which Allah stretches out for them. This is the command of Islam.

Now what happens if an orientation emerges which divides Muslims into believers and unbelievers, which targets a group of people as unbelievers and which pits Muslims against one another? Who can doubt the role of arrogance and the security services of arrogant and malevolent governments in creating, supporting and enriching these orientations and in equipping them with weapons? These arrogant powers sit and plan for this. The world of Islam should attend to this issue because it is a grave danger.

Unfortunately, a number of Muslim governments unwittingly add fuel to the fire of this discord. They do not understand that fueling this discord will kindle a fire which will burn them as well. This is what arrogance wants: they want a group of Muslims to wage a war against another group of Muslims.

Those who give rise to this war are people who benefit from the money provided by puppet rulers. These puppet rulers give them money and weapons in order to pit people in such and such a country against one another. This move has been reinforced by arrogance in the past three, four years during which a wave of Islamic Awakening has emerged in a number of Islamic and Arabic countries. They want to do this in order to overshadow Islamic Awakening. By making this move, they are pitting Muslims against one another.

Moreover, the propaganda networks of the enemies are projecting an ugly image of Islam for public opinion throughout the world. They are doing this by magnifying events. What do people think of Islam when media networks show a person who is devouring the liver of another person in the name of Islam? The enemies of Islam have planned this.

These are not things that happen all of a sudden and out of the blue. These are things for which many plans have been devised over a long period of time. There are different policies and spy rings behind these moves. There is big money behind these moves. Muslims should confront any phenomenon which is against their unity. This is a great responsibility for all of us. Both Shia and Sunni Muslims, and different groups which exist among Shia and Sunni Muslims should shoulder this responsibility.

(Ayatollah Khamenei’s speech  in a meeting with Officials and Participants of Conference on Islamic Unity -19/01/2014)

Israel and the Logic of Violence in Palestine

 Salman Rafi Sheikh

Numerous incidents of violence and conflict and consequent news of constructing new habitations constitute the main outline, in the Western media, of the “Palestinian” conflict. Usually, the stories of violence are covered under the heading of targeting the so-called “terrorists.” However, the case is not so simple as it appears in the so-called “fact-based” media reports. There are a lot of facts which are either not reported or are not considered to be “significant” enough. The trajectory of violence in Palestine/Israel is mostly presented as emanating from the subjugated Palestinians; while, the Israelis are exonerated and justified for retaliating in the name of “self-defence.” Not only does such manipulated presentation of facts shift popular focus from the underlying realities, but also gives Israel an excuse to unleash hell on the innocent Palestinians. 

For example, the conditions in which the Palestinians have to survive are either rarely reported or not all. What has to be reported for building an objective opinion on violence and justification of violence is that the occupation and the absolute closure is an ongoing attack on the human dignity of the people in Gaza in particular and all Palestinians generally. It is a sort of systematic degradation, humiliation, isolation and fragmentation of the Palestinian people. The conclusion is confirmed by a number of sources. In one of the world’s leading medical journals, The Lancet, a visiting Stanford physician, appalled by what he witnessed, describes Gaza as “something of a laboratory for observing an absence of dignity,” a condition that has “devastating” effects on physical, mental, and social wellbeing. “The constant surveillance from the sky, collective punishment through blockade and isolation, the intrusion into homes and communications, and restrictions on those trying to travel, or marry, or work make it difficult to live a dignified life in Gaza. 

Apart from constant subjugation through these methods, periodic use of brutal force adds to the intensity of subjugation. For example, in November of 2012, the state of Israel started bombing Gaza once again, killing innocent civilians in the name of targeting terrorists. Soon enough, the Israeli Defence Forces also announced the commencement of yet another operation against the practically imprisoned population of Gaza. The Nobel Peace Prize winner and the re-elected US President Barack Obama reiterated his country’s support for Israel’s “right to defend” itself against rocket attacks from militants in the Gaza Strip. His NATO allies in the European Union agreed, making slight ‘noises’ about controlling the number of civilian deaths and advising Israel to “use violence proportionately” to the rocket attacks from Gaza. The hypocrisy of these powerful leaders of the richest countries in the world is nothing new. We have seen it in action in the tribal areas of Pakistan where CIA drones have been killing innocent civilians for eight years, again on the pretext of targeting terrorists. However, what is not paid adequate attention is that the very presence of “terrorists” in countries such as Afghanistan, and Israel is the ‘natural’ result of occupation; and, consequent oppression acts as the trigger for conflict, and until Israelis and their supporters accept this simple truth, the ongoing cycle of violence will continue. But as more time passes, the more difficult it becomes to reach a negotiated peace. Israel`s unending construction activity on the occupied lands has made a two-state solution all but impossible. And, perhaps this is what the state of Israel actually wants to achieve. 

War and violence, as such, is a useful strategy which has turned out to be a “blessing in disguise” for Israel because it prevents people from asking two basic questions that must be addressed if the core of silencing and violence that we have been witnessing for many years now is to be grasped and, in turn, if progress is ever to be made towards justice and enduring peace. First, what kind of state is Israel? Second, who are the Palestinians that this state is in conflict with? 

Israel was established to be a Jewish state. Its institutions have always been shaped and constrained so as to ensure the continued existence of a Jewish majority and character. Passing a test of Jewishness entitles someone to Israeli citizenship regardless of where in the world he or she lives. Furthermore, citizenship comes with a bundle of political, social and economic rights which are preferential to those citizens who do not qualify as Jewish. This inbuilt discriminatory premise highlights the apartheid nature of the state. But apartheid is not an accidental feature of Israel. Its very creation involved immense injustice and suffering. Shielding and rationalizing this inbuilt premise prevents addressing past injustices and ensures their continuity into the future. It is a premise that, in matters of constitutional interpretation, takes precedence over, and thus involves the imposition of ‘reasonable’ limitations on, equality of citizenship. 

The Palestinians, we are told, are a people who live in the West Bank and Gaza. The impression forced on us is that the conflict concerns a compromise to be made on the issue of demarking correct border between Israel and a Palestinian state. We are led to believe that a partition into two-states would satisfy both genuine and realistic aspirations for justice and peace. In this view, the violence in Gaza is just an unreasonable aberration from an otherwise noble peace process.

But Palestinians actually comprise three groups. First are those whose families originated in the territories that were occupied by Israel in 1967, which include Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Second are the descendants of the approximately 750,000 non-Jews who were ethnically cleansed in 1947-9 in order to ensure a Jewish majority in the new Jewish state. This group is dispersed around the world, mostly in refugee camps in the territories occupied in 1967 and the neighboring states. Israel has persistently denied them their internationally recognized legal right to return. The majority in Gaza consists of refugees from villages which are now buried under Israeli towns and cities that were created explicitly for Jewish citizens, places which include Ashkelon and Tel Aviv that were hit by rockets in the last year conflict.  The third group of Palestinians, which Israel insists on calling by euphemism ‘Israeli Arabs’, are the non-Jews who managed to evade ethnic cleansing in 1947-49 and who now live as second-class citizens of Israel, the state which likes to claim that it is ‘Jewish and democratic’.

Until 1948, the territory of Palestine stretched from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean. The violence that has afflicted the area ever since is the direct result of an event whose true nature our ‘global society’ seems determined to deny. Violence keeps erupting because of the silencing and marginalization of a simple truth surrounding any partition policy: that the injustice that afflicts Palestine cannot be partitioned. It is because of the desire to preserve a Jewish state that first, the legal dualism that exists in the 1967 Occupied Territories as well as the horror at the ‘Separation Wall’ have become the dominant political discourses of apartheid, and second, that the refugees are deliberately kept dispossessed and suspended in a state of perpetual subjugation, thirdly, that both actual and potential non-Jew Arab citizens do, and would, suffer discrimination.

Legal dualism, dispossession, discrimination are that injustice which cannot be partitioned, and unless it is corrected, no solid ground for peace can be created. And, the two-state vision means that the inbuilt apartheid within Israel, and in turn the injustice to two groups of Palestinians, does never become the central political problem.

The range of reactions to the last year carnage showed just how successful violence has been in sustaining the legitimacy of Israel by entrenching the political focus merely on its actions rather than on its nature. These reactions keep the discourse that calls for criticizing Israel rather than for replacing it with an egalitarian polity over the whole of historical Palestine.

Israel desires to be hated by Palestinians. By provoking violence Israel has not merely managed to divert the limelight from its apartheid nature. It has also managed to convince that, as Joseph Massad of Columbia University once captured, it has the right to occupy, to dispossess and to discriminate, namely the claim that the apartheid premise which founds it should be put up with and rationalized as reasonable.

Would anybody allow such a right-claim to hold sway in apartheid South Africa? How come that the anti-apartheid and egalitarian calls for the non-recognition of Israel’s right to exist are being marginalized as extreme and unrealizable? What kind of existential fetters cause the world to exhibit such blindness and a drop of compassion? Is there no unfolding tragedy that anticipates violence against Jews precisely because past violence against them in Europe is being allowed to serve as a rationalizing device of an apartheid state?

Israel has already created a de facto single state between the river and the sea, albeit one which suffers from several apartheid systems, one within Israel and another in the occupied territories. We must not let Israeli aggression prevent us from treating as moderate and realistic proposals to turn this single state into one where all would have equal rights.

Salman Rafi Sheikh, research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs. Exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.