Why the U.S. should keep talking with Iran
July 10th, 2014
08:01 AM ET

Why the U.S. should keep talking with Iran

By Zachary Keck, Special to CNN

Editor's note: Zachary Keck is managing editor of The Diplomat and a monthly columnist at The National Interest. You can follow him @ZacharyKeck. The views expressed are his own.

As the July 20 deadline for a deal over Iran's nuclear program approaches, it seems increasingly unlikely that Tehran and the P5+1 will reach a comprehensive agreement. Indeed, Iran has already signaled its willingness to extend the talks for another six months as outlined in the interim agreement, and President Barack Obama should therefore begin to prepare Congress for this reality as soon as possible. The U.S. has too much to lose by rejecting this offer. And fortunately for the administration, the case for extending the talks is an easy one to make.

To begin with, the U.S. has nothing to lose by agreeing to an extension. Despite the unconvincing arguments of its critics, the interim accord heavily favored the U.S. and its allies. Under the agreement, Iran agreed to freeze its nuclear program, as well as rollback its most dangerous elements. Equally important, Tehran agreed to intrusive inspections to demonstrate its compliance with the agreement.

In return, Iran received roughly $7 billion in sanctions relief spread across the six month period. At the same time, the P5+1 refused to lift the sanctions regime, which costs Iran an estimated $5 billion per month. Iran therefore continues to lose billions of dollars every month the negotiations drag on. All this means that even if extending the talks doesn't result in a comprehensive agreement, it will still freeze Iran's nuclear program and continue to squeeze it economically.

By contrast, refusing to extend the talks would allow Iran to restart its nuclear program immediately, likely at an accelerated pace, while also empowering Iran on the world stage by isolating the U.S. from most of the international community. This would be a major win for Iran. In fact, it may even be the goal of some within the Iranian leadership. When President Hassan Rouhani led Iran's nuclear negotiating team in 2003-2005, Tehran entered into talks with the EU+3 (France, Britain, and Germany). According to Rouhani's spokesperson at the time, Iran hoped these talks would divide the U.S. and Europe on the nuclear issue, thereby reducing the pressure Iran faced.

Similarly, Iran's rejection of the Obama administration's fuel-swap proposal in 2009 is what created an international environment that made imposing the current sanctions possible. Refusing Iran's offer to extend the talks would jeopardize these sanctions. China and Russia, meanwhile, have already signaled they will strengthen economic ties with Iran if the U.S. undermines the negotiations, an example that would likely quickly be followed by rising powers like India, South Africa and Turkey, and possibly even U.S. allies like Japan and South Korea, all of whom have significant interests in Iran.

Most importantly, though, America's refusal to extend the talks would no doubt prompt important European countries with strong interests in Iran, such as Italy and Germany, to push the EU to remove their own sanctions. Thus, ending the talks would allow Iran to resume its nuclear program even as it reduced the economic pressure it faces.

Rejecting an extension would also empower Iran's hardliners domestically. The current Rouhani administration has based much of its pitch for public support on the outcome of the nuclear talks. While Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has cautiously backed Rouhani's diplomacy, he has distanced himself from the outcome of talks. With this in mind, America's refusal to even extend the talks would validate the hardliners' argument that the U.S. wants to prolong the nuclear crisis in order to justify continued sanctions. The Supreme Leader would have no choice but to back these hardliners, giving them the political capital necessary to accelerate the nuclear program, as well as harden Iran's position on other crucial issues like Syria.

But perhaps most important, the U.S. should extend the talks because a comprehensive agreement is still possible, and remains the best option for preventing a nuclear-armed Iran. Trying to solve the decade-long nuclear crisis in six months was always an overly ambitious goal. As such, failure to meet this deadline in no way proves Iran's insincerity.

The Syrian chemical weapons deal is instructive. That agreement also set an overly ambitious timeline for removing all of Syria's chemical weapons. But although plenty of deadlines were missed, Syria ultimately relinquished all of its declared chemical weapon stockpiles. This is far more than U.S. airstrikes could've hoped to accomplish. Even Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised the Syrian agreement as "one ray of light in a very dark region."

The same possibilities exist for Iran's nuclear program if the talks are extended. But even if a comprehensive agreement isn't reached, continuing the negotiations would still benefit the U.S. and its allies. Ending them prematurely serve only Iran's interests.​

 

Post by:
Topics: Iran

soundoff (15 Responses)
  1. Joey Isotta-Fraschini©

    One should always talk. Talk is even cheaper than Christmas cards.
    Also, anyone who has tried to make money knows that someone who does not buy my product today may be my best customer tomorrow.

    July 10, 2014 at 8:15 am | Reply
  2. sandstorm

    soon iran is going to nuke the jews even the jewish children will boil and burn up in sea of flames turning there bones to calcium and phospate powder. as for the usa iran should nuke usa britain norway ireland australia and all of there poxys.

    July 10, 2014 at 8:25 am | Reply
    • banasy©

      Do get some help for your psychopathic tendencies. Your outlook on life is not mentally healthy.

      July 10, 2014 at 3:46 pm | Reply
  3. Allan Kinsman©

    A good idea to talk and also to listen. A problem with America's recent historical approach to relationships is by a example if you have something we want we will try and reshape your country so we can have it. Not a realistic approach to diplomacy.

    July 10, 2014 at 11:16 am | Reply
  4. zcyrus

    Give them Nuclear weapon and lifting sanctions is the best?!

    July 10, 2014 at 9:14 pm | Reply
  5. zcyrus

    The corrupted dictator Iran regime talk for talk.
    They do not permit any visiting of their hidden nuclear station under the ground.

    July 10, 2014 at 9:16 pm | Reply
  6. Retired Military

    Pure spin and excuses. Why doesn't this article address why the Iranians want to extend for six months?? It is quite naive to think that if the US doesn't "allow" the extension, the Iranians will restart their nuclear program. They never stopped. Teheran just continues to play the game. Regarding Syria...their deadline was "overly ambitious"? Really! The Syrians relinquished their "declared" stockpiles. What about the remaining "undeclared" stockpiles? Their are no legitimate inspections in Iran or Syria. The lack of a coherent US foreign policy continues to make the near and middle east a more dangerous region. Our disengagement creates a void that will only be filled by bad actors. This article is a transparent attempt to provide political cover and is gives Iran a complete pass.

    July 10, 2014 at 10:18 pm | Reply
    • Retired Military

      Should read "There are no legitimate..." vice "Their". And "giving" instead of "gives".

      July 10, 2014 at 10:23 pm | Reply
  7. dirtstorm

    May all of u burn from a big big forest fire. May blood spill all over the place. May your children be hung by their toes over boiling water.
    may u grow deed in one ear and blind in the other.
    America is full of infidels. U shall meet Satan on your afterlife.

    July 11, 2014 at 8:51 am | Reply
  8. George patton

    I agree. Not talking to Iran will only be an act of absolute stupidity. Our animosity towards Iran is nothing but pure idiocy since it has greater grievances toward us than we do toward them!!!

    July 11, 2014 at 11:43 am | Reply
  9. Norma Lee

    The IAEA ,along with many of our and even Israel's nuclear watchhdogs agree that Iran doe NOT have bomb. Let's assume Khameni,Rouhani & Zarif have not agreed to openly discuss their "ambitions",..NOT..so they decide they want a bomb. The moment whomever attempts to set up a test (can't have a bomb without some kind of test.Right?), Mr Whomever will be blown to pieces by Mr. Bibi's itching crayon blemished fingers.
    Iran is not about to commit suicide. Period. .

    July 11, 2014 at 4:56 pm | Reply
  10. zcyrus

    Iran regime is head of snake.
    They gave Terrorist rocket to make tension in the region.
    They think it help them to make peaceful!! Nuclear bomb faster and occupy the Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Bahrain.

    July 12, 2014 at 11:14 am | Reply
  11. j. von hettlingen

    For outsiders what Zachary Keck says makes sense. Then again, mistrust is deep on both sides. Israel, Saudi Arabia and the hawks in Washington doubt if Iran's nuclear programme were for peaceful purposes and want Iran to scrap it altogether. Iran insists on its right to going nuclear and the hardliners say the US has always wanted to weaken Iran or topple the theocracy.
    If both sides don't demonstrate enough goodwill and build trust, another six months would hardly lead to anything deal.

    July 14, 2014 at 8:57 am | Reply

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.