Contradicting Perceptions Regarding the Iranian Deal

yes no

Two Sides of the Nuclear Deal

Let’s face it: the nuclear deal clinched between Iran and the P5+1 is obviously lopsided. While most Western leaders view the nuclear deal as a beginning of exciting developments for the future, Iranians officials view it as a means to preserve their nuclear program, simply without sanctions.

Following are some of Foreign Minister Zarif’s statements concerning the nuclear deal which highlight the difference in attitudes. Any deal is worth only as much as the will of both sides to keep it and judging from Zarif’s statements, it’s doubtful that the Iranians are serious about keeping the deal.

“More sanctions would only result in more centrifuges”.

Zarif’s threat here exemplifies Iran’s perception of the Western community – a weak and mellow entity – that due to its anxiety wishes the deal more than them.

Is Iran really ready for more sanctions that can crush its economy again and bring Rouhani and Zarif down? And why would a peaceful nuclear program require more centrifuges?

“Sanctions did not prevent the installation of 19 thousand centrifuges in Iran”.

Anachronism at its best.  Zarif purposely overlooks the fact that the centrifuges predated the sanctions, and neglects to state the fact that the sanctions were implemented as a result of the centrifuges.

Would breaking the deal and increasing sanctions stop the installation of further centrifuges? Probably not. Only a change in regime or a successful military strike could do that.

“If the entire agreement does not lead to a positive outcome, it will not be the end of the world.”

Although Zarif rides the deal to acclaim legitimacy, he belittles its importance.  Dissolving the deal would not be the end of the world, but it certainly might be the end of Rouhani’s version of perestroika and Zarif would be stuck in a desk job in Tehran.

Was Iran better off in pre-Rouhani days? And is the Iranian regime and nation ready to go back there? And finally, can Rouhani and Zarif survive a disintegrated deal? The answer is a probable “no” on all counts.

“Besides enraging the Iranian nation, the impact of the sanctions has more than anything been the fact that our enrichment facilities have carried on.”

The old saying “you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time”, seems to have underestimated  Zarif. Although the global community knows that the sanctions dragged Iran to the negotiating table, and were a result of Tehran’s persistence with enrichment, yet, somehow, Zarif thinks it is the other way around.

According to Zarif’s logic, Iran should beg for increased sanctions, which can lead to a militarized program. After all, isn’t that what Rouhani and Zarif were after from day one: A militarized nuclear program legitimized by the West’s actions?

Earlier Posts:


3 thoughts on “Contradicting Perceptions Regarding the Iranian Deal

  1. Previous sanctions have strengthened moderates politically and pushed the government to bargain. This current sanctions bill is intended to scuttle the bargaining process and bring back prospects of war with Iran, which have been diminished as moderates gained political strength

  2. Pingback: Mind the Gaps in the Nuclear Deal | IRAN 24/07

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s