Economy Online, Amir Mohammad Hosseini: The negotiations between Iran and the United States are tied again and seem to have turned into a confused mess. The latest news indicates that the Islamic Republic of Iran has made negotiations on the nuclear program subject to the end of the war. US President Donald Trump also claims that Iran has given concessions, but in his opinion, they are still not enough.
In the past years, the authorities of the Islamic Republic emphasized that they are discussing the nuclear program, but the missile program is not negotiable; It seems that now the nuclear program is also placed next to the missile program.
Korosh Ahmadi, a former diplomat and international relations analyst, in an interview with Online economyToday, if Iran does not negotiate with the levers it has and does not reach an agreement, these levers will be practically useless. He emphasizes that factors such as the nearness of the World Cup and the mid-term elections are not an obstacle to the continuation of the war, and the resumption of a military attack on Iran is likely if the current situation continues.
In the following, you will read the details of this conversation.
The argument put forward by some government media these days is that the negotiation and agreement has practically led to disarmament and provides the basis for a bigger attack against Iran. What is your response to these arguments and why do you think that negotiation and agreement on these issues are still defensible?
The fact is that this argument has been proven false. At this stage, I don’t think there is any need to raise this discussion. Before the 12-day war, people who argued in this way said that if America did not attack us, it would be 60% because of these few kilos of uranium. In an interview with Shargh newspaper, a few days before the 12-day war, someone even said that the reason America and Israel did not attack us was because of these few kilos of uranium. The premise of these people was that enriched uranium would create deterrence.
But in practice it was proven that this is not the case. Iran had this shipment of enriched uranium, but Iran was attacked twice and this enriched uranium had no deterrent properties.
But even before this war, the arguments of these people could not be defended from the theoretical point of view. Deterrence means when we have the same or better weapons against the enemy’s weapons and the enemy knows that in case of an attack, he will receive an effective and regrettable response. Enriched uranium does not have such properties and even in terms of impact on the environment, it cannot be compared with nuclear power plant fuel.
Enriched uranium of the type in question does not technically produce radioactive fallout if it is attacked. We have about 9 tons of enriched uranium at different levels and no radiation was created after the recent attacks. It is clear that these materials have not been turned into weapons and have no military effect.
In order to become a weapon, it must first reach 90% enrichment, then be transformed into a weapon through a process, be placed in a missile warhead and be used by a military. Otherwise, it’s just an inert substance kept in storage. Of course, even in order to become a “dirty bomb”, it must go through some steps and have a launching device.
Another use of enriched uranium is in making nuclear weapons. In this case, considering the repeated emphasis of the martyred leader and his fatwa, it was clear that Iran had no intention of using 60% uranium to make weapons, and no action was taken in this direction. The only function that this uranium can have is to use it as a leverage to gain points in negotiations. My impression is that most of the officials had the same opinion and it was assumed that this uranium inventory can be used as a negotiation tactic to cancel the sanctions.
But now, if it is not going to be used as a negotiating leverage, then what is the practical use of it? The problem is usually that our negotiating tactics gradually become dignified, and because of this, the possibility of using them for giving and receiving in negotiations is also lost, and it seems that this has happened in the case of 60% uranium.
Opponents of the negotiation and agreement say that if Iran hands over these reserves, America and Israel will attack Iran nuclearly, and if they do not carry out this attack today, it is because Iran will find an excuse to build an atomic bomb with its uranium reserves.
Regarding the possibility of using nuclear weapons against Iran, it should be said that such a weapon is very hated and it has not been used except in one case. After one instance of using atomic weapons against Japan at the end of World War II, no country has used nuclear weapons since then. Even in wars like Ukraine and Russia, which is in its fourth year, despite Russia having the largest number of strategic and tactical nuclear warheads, this country has not allowed itself to use these weapons. Or, this weapon has never been used in numerous military conflicts that America has had in recent decades. Even the heads of Israel, despite all the malice and aggression they have had, have not used nuclear weapons in their many wars.
The point here is that the use of nuclear weapons may only be considered in possible situations where the existence of a country is at risk, not just the existence of the political system. In addition, countries like America and Israel have so many military capabilities that there is no need to resort to nuclear weapons.
Apart from uranium reserves, the principle of enrichment has also become a matter of honor and it is even said that the nuclear program should not be negotiated at all. In the world of politics and international relations, is there something called “inalienable” and “sacred”?
This is a relative matter. The world of politics is the world of possibilities and nothing is sacred in this world. Countries should make decisions based on real and objective possibilities and conditions.
In the framework of the NPT treaty, the development, production and use of nuclear energy is recognized for everyone in Article 4, and although the word enrichment is not used in this article, most jurists consider this to include enrichment. I also accept this interpretation. But this right is subject to the implementation of Article 3 of the NPT; That is, the nuclear program must be under the supervision of the agency and its peaceful nature is certain.
In the 1990s and early 2000s, Western parties and agency reports claimed that some of Iran’s actions caused mistrust, and for this reason, requests for the suspension of enrichment were raised in Security Council resolutions; And before that, Iran itself did this voluntarily and temporarily in 2002 to build trust.
Therefore, there is a right to enrichment, but subject to conditions; And in a tense situation, it should be seen whether its benefits are greater than its costs or not.
Based on a study conducted at Allameh Tabatabai University, estimates show that between 2010 and 2022, Iran suffered about 1.2 trillion dollars in direct and indirect costs and damages caused by sanctions. Some, who base it on the entire period of the past 25 years, even talk about the figures of 2 to 3 trillion dollars. This is a very large figure.
Apparently the problem now is that enrichment has become a prestige issue. Western pressure to force Iran to give up enrichment has caused it to be tied to the issue of national honor.
But the result of this process has been economic damage, increased tension and even war; Therefore, it should be realistically checked what the cost of continuing this path is.
Considering the US military deployment in the region and the current stalemate in the negotiations, which horizon do you consider more likely, the possibility of an agreement or war?
The discussion of negotiation levers is also discussed here. The issue of Strait of Hormuz is an example of these levers. In my interviews and writings, I have mentioned many times that if these tools are not used in time, they will be destroyed.
At first, Iran could use the lever to control the Strait of Hormuz in negotiations, but today, despite the maritime blockade, the control of the Strait of Hormuz has been reduced to a tool to remove the maritime blockade.
In general, during the past years, Iran has lost many opportunities, and some even refer to these wasted opportunities as “Fau syndrome”. Now there are conditions that can lead to a trade, but if not used, it may be lost.
Today, the pressure of some groups against negotiation has increased inside the country. Some even consider the negotiation of the nuclear issue as treason and say that only issues such as the Strait of Hormuz or war compensation should be negotiated. It seems that even a publicity atmosphere has been formed around these opinions, which may make it difficult for the authorities to make a decision.
Such an atmosphere can be an obstacle to solving the problem, because over time it causes the formation of positions in the social base of the system that makes decision making difficult. Of course, it is assumed that the opinion of the leader can be the final speech, but the formation of such thoughts in the social base will not be unaffected in decision-making.
In such an atmosphere, finally, the risk of military conflict still exists. None of the mentioned factors, including the nearness of the World Cup and the US mid-term elections, cannot prevent the war from starting again. Because if Trump can’t get the concessions he wants, especially in the matter of Iran’s 440 kg uranium enrichment and stockpile, it will become a public and private joke inside the United States and internationally. This actually leads to a very negative effect on mid-term elections; So for Trump, this matter is very important, and if he can’t score points, he may move towards escalation or war, because it will be costly for him to back down.
