|
 While major world powers and Iran made genuine progress in
reaching a broad agreement in Switzerland on Thursday, the real test
looms at the end of June when the deal must be finalized.
"This is an encouraging development, but of course the devil lies in
working out the details,” said Edwin Lyman of the Washington-based
Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit group that is typically
highly critical of nuclear power.
The marathon talks in Lausanne had been finely balanced between
success and collapse, and Obama himself cautioned on Thursday that
"success is not guaranteed" despite the agreement.
Obama’s Republican rivals showed no signs on Thursday of retreating
from plans to propose legislation that Obama says would undermine
the talks, including a bill requiring that any final deal be
approved by the Republican-controlled Congress.
U.S. Senator Marco Rubio, a prospective presidential candidate,
called the initial terms of the Iran deal "very troubling" and vowed
to work to impose additional sanctions.
But Obama's hand in Congress could be strengthened by the
surprisingly detailed content of the framework deal, although many
key points still have to be agreed.
Under the outline deal, Iran would shut down more than two-thirds of
its installed centrifuges capable of producing uranium that could be
used to build a bomb, dismantle a reactor that could produce
plutonium, and accept intrusive verification.
Iran also agreed to significantly reduce the number of installed
uranium enrichment centrifuges it has to 6,104 from 19,000 and will
only operate 5,060 under the future agreement with the six powers,
according to a U.S. fact sheet.
“The big question is whether it is specific enough to meet the
demands of congressional critics and vague enough that the Iranians
can argue to their own public that they have not given way the
store,” said Jon Alterman, director of the Middle East program at
the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
INTRACTABLE ISSUES
Among the most difficult technical issues remaining are how Tehran
would modernize the Arak heavy-water reactor and Fordow underground
sites. Under Thursday's deal, Iran agreed to render both incapable
of producing bomb-grade material.
With Arak's potential to yield plutonium - which like
highly-enriched uranium can fuel nuclear weapons - the West has
sought to have it scrapped or converted to a less
proliferation-prone, light-water plant. Iran has said the reactor
would only produce radio-isotopes for medicine and agriculture, and
has long ruled out closing it down.
How exactly Iran will rebuild and redesign Arak could prove
contentious.
Western officials would like Fordow, whose enrichment halls are
buried 300 ft (91 meters) underground, converted into something that
has nothing to do with enrichment. Under the deal, Iran agreed to
not enrich uranium at Fordow for at least 15 years and to use it
only for "peaceful purposes".
[to top of second column]
|
But defining "peaceful purposes" could prove challenging. Tehran had
insisted on the right to conduct advanced centrifuge research there.
Another issue that could trip up negotiations between now and June
is the timing for lifting U.N. sanctions on Iran, which include bans
on trade in nuclear and missile technology and an arms embargo.
Under Thursday's agreement, Iran will gradually receive relief from
U.S. and European Union nuclear sanctions as it demonstrates
compliance with the future comprehensive agreement.
Some U.N. Security Council sanctions would be gradually lifted,
though others would remain in place, specifically those relating to
proliferation. Iran had wanted all United Nations sanctions lifted
immediately.
But while failure to comply with terms of the deal will cause the
U.S. and EU sanctions to "snap back into place", the U.S. "fact
sheet" released after the agreement did not specify how U.N.
sanctions would be reimposed.
U.S. and European negotiators have wanted any easing of U.N.
sanctions to be automatically reversible - but the so-called
"snapback" has been opposed by Russia because it would undermine its
veto on the Security Council.
The nuclear diplomacy is central to Obama's foreign policy in the
chaotic Middle East, where Tehran stands at the center of sectarian
conflicts ranging from Syria to Iraq to Yemen and has also upset
Washington’s ties with Israel.
Obama faces the challenge of calming Israel, which sees Iran's
nuclear program as an existential threat and has previously hinted
it might attack Iran's nuclear sites if it believes Tehran is making
a dash to build an atomic bomb in defiance of any eventual final
deal.
“Iran’s behavior in Syria and Iraq and Yemen, all of those places,
is going to continue to muddy the waters for Obama in the Middle
East,” said Aaron David Miller, a former Middle East negotiator for
Republican and Democratic administrations. “But there may be enough
traction here to get to the next phase of negotiations.”
(Additional reporting by David Brunnstrom, Shadia Nasralla and Lou
Charbonneau. Editing by Jason Szep and Stuart Grudgings.)
[© 2015 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.]
Copyright 2015 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 |
