My December 5th column: “A Murky Middle East Future” was critical about the then just announced November 24th “Interim Deal” that Iran had supposedly agreed to with the P5+1 in Geneva.
Remember though – I am an analyst – not a reporter. I glean information from various sources and try to deduct, based on my personal knowledge and years of experience, what this information says and what we may expect down the road. I also reserve, and frequently exercise, the right to alter my analysis based of new information, changing circumstances or other developments.
With that in mind I would like to respond to an email from someone whose opinion I greatly respect.
The writer expressed disappointment that every article about the Middle East: “appears biased and seldom evenhanded”.
The writer also questioned why I did not mention the following “items” of the Agreement in my column:
- Iran will stop enriching uranium beyond 5%, and "neutralize" its stockpile of uranium enriched beyond this point
- Iran will give greater access to inspectors including daily access at the Natanz and Fordo nuclear sites
- There will be no further development of the Arak plant which it is believed could produce plutonium
- In return, there will be no new nuclear-related sanctions for six months if Iran sticks by the accord
- Iran will also receive sanctions relief worth about $7bn on sectors related mostly to precious metals.
Out of respect for the writer, I reviewed the facts on which I had based the column, plus others that have surfaced since. Had I known then what l know now – the column would have been even more critical.
Shocking as it may be, it turns out that:
- No document was actually signed in Geneva on November 24th…or since.
- There are at least three (American, European and Iranian) somewhat different versions of a so called unsigned “Agreement of Intent”.
- The “six month” period has not yet started. In the meantime Iran has declared that enrichment continues at full blast.
- Iran has already received over $20bn in unfrozen cash and assets.
In all three versions of the “agreement”, during the six months of “negotiations”, Iran – already a nuclear “threshold” state according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA):
- Keeps all its already enriched Uranium (7 tons at 3.5%, 180 kg. at 20%)
- Does not dismantle any of its 13,000 centrifuges in Natanz and Fordow.
- Continues to enrich up to 3.5% (Iranian version: 5%)
- Does not convert any of its enriched Uranium to “civilian-use” status.
- Continues manufacturing major parts for the heavy water reactor in Arak (Iranian version: continues construction)
- Allows IAEA inspectors to visit Natanz and Fordow, but bars them from its nuclear weapons development and production facilities, as well as its secret nuclear bomb warhead testing facility in the military base at Parchin.
In the meantime:
- No monitoring of Iran’s missile research, production launch bases and storage facilities.
- No US military strike.
- Iran and the P5+1 thrive economically since the sanctions are weakened.
So even during the six month “negotiations” period, Iran will continue towards its goal of having nuclear weapons while enjoying significant economic relief and an undeserved “legitimacy” from world leaders.
Yes, dear email writer – I was, and am still highly critical of the “Geneva agreement”. The only positive side to it, if any, is that the Israeli government may have to take matters in to its own hands.
This is not bias…it’s a careful analysis and concern that the P5+1 leaders are looking for a quick politically and economically profitable fix, rather than a real and permanent resolution. They seem to be following the philosophy of French king Louis XV, who infamously said: “Après moi le deluge”. After me – the flood.
Agree or disagree, that’s my opinion.
No comments:
Post a Comment