Last week, the National Iranian American Council [2] (NIAC) hosted an event on Capitol Hill entitled, “The U.S. and Iran: Between Human Rights, Diplomacy and Sanctions [3].” The Ploughshares-sponsored event brought together Congressional staffers, experts and members of the NGO community to discuss challenges – and potential opportunities – for the future of U.S.-Iranian relations.
During the second session of the day, panelists Ambassador John Limbert [4] (one of the U.S. officials held during the Iranian hostage crisis), Ambassador Thomas Pickering [5] and Greg Thielmann [6] of the Arms Control Association, discussed the on-going negotiations surrounding Iran’s nuclear program.
The conversation, moderated by NIAC President Trita Parsi [7], evaluated the current state of negotiations and offered suggestions for creating successful long-term outcomes. Limbert kicked off the session by putting the current P5 + 1 negotiations into context against the backdrop of the 30-year break in U.S.-Iranian relations. Although the Obama Administration seems determined to end the cycle of failed relations, Limbert said, we cannot expect a transformation to happen overnight.
Despite the slow pace of change – and the emerging Iranian roadblocks to a deal – the current nuclear negotiations provide an important opportunity to begin rebuilding trust between the international community and Iran. In order to do so, the negotiations must overcome technical hurdles – such as questions of how much uranium should be shipped out of Iran and possible timetables for enrichment – as well as the uncertainty created by the tumultuous domestic political situation in Iran. Thielmann noted that the technical challenges of the deal can be overcome, but only “if one accepts this as a confidence building measure on both sides.”
So how can the U.S. and the international community facilitate a successful outcome to the nuclear negotiations? Limbert and Pickering stressed two overarching factors to keep in mind throughout the negotiating process: asymmetry between the U.S. and Iran on both goals and timelines. They noted that the U.S. is largely negotiating the nuclear clock and the logistics of pushing back Iran’s breakout capacity, while Iran is negotiating for international legitimacy and increased traction in what it views as an unequal relationship with other members of the international community. Different end goals lead to different negotiating timelines: the U.S. wants a deal as soon as possible, but Iran is inclined to draw out negotiations for as long as possible.
As Limbert explained, “The process is difficult and will be time-consuming.” He stressed that successful negotiations will require a lot of patience from the U.S. and the rest of the international community, noting the “difficulty of transitioning from agreements in principle to action.” And although sanctions are often a tempting option, Limbert and Pickering were quick to question their utility. As Limbert quipped, “It’s easy to talk about smart sanctions, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen them.”
Moving forward, all of the panelists – and Parsi – agreed that it will be important for the negotiations between the U.S. and Iran to tackle more than just the nuclear issue. As Pickering said, the broader the range of negotiating possibilities, the more we have to work with as we move forward.
Links
[1] https://ploughshares.org/file/1265
[2] http://www.niacouncil.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=315&Itemid=89
[3] http://www.niacouncil.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1535&Itemid=2
[4] http://www.niacouncil.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1210&Itemid=28
[5] http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/about/board/thomas-pickering.aspx
[6] http://www.armscontrol.org/about/thielmann
[7] http://www.niacouncil.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=826&Itemid=28