FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Iran Deal

by BINOY KAMPMARK

This was the limited deal, one designed to halt Iran’s quest for a nuclear weapons option and stave off the proliferating actions of other states. It is a deal replete with unresolved issues – but then again, it was not expected to. For one thing, what is on the table contains the classic contradiction of sovereignty – that other states may acquire nuclear options or have them, but not Iran.

So far, the details of the deal, brokered between Iran, and the Permanent five plus one (US, Great Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany) involve a six month corridor of taking various measures. The entire stockpile of 20 percent of enriched material to be diluted, or at the very least rendered unsuited for further enrichment. The stockpile of 3.5 percent enriched uranium is not to alter between now and six months. Excess material will have to be converted to oxide. There will be no more centrifuges to be installed. Numbers of current centrifuges are not to be operated.

Of vital importance is the emphasis placed on preventing Iran was undertaking the second option of creating a bomb, namely via the plutonium route. For that reason, the parties were in general agreement that the Arak reactor will not be further pursued along those lines. Construction will be halted.

Now what of the Iranians? They will have to, or at least have promised that they will, allow for some regime of inspection. Teheran has been promised that they will not receive any further sanctions in the next six months. Some will even be suspended, notably on various precious metals and gold. Money will be released for Iranians studying overseas. A certain portion of oil-revenue, some $4.2 billion, will be transferred. What is astonishing about these concessions is the extent of how belligerent the sanctions regime has been against the Iranian regime.

The observation being made here is that, while Iran is not gaining much, it is not giving much either. Iran will be allowed to continue some elementary form of uranium enrichment, though Washington has never taken a direct stance approving it. Israel, seeing demons everywhere, has asserted, at least rhetorically, that Iran has no such right to any form of enrichment.

The hawks aren’t happy by this latest development because their beaks have been blunted and their wings clipped – for now. Iran is a mortal enemy, to be shunned, to be boxed in the category of international untouchables. For the conservatives and hawks in the U.S. and Israel, all forms of discussion short of the gun and imposition is impossible. Former US Senator Joe Lieberman stated it in the most simple terms: there was “American blood on Iranian hands” going back to the bombing of the Beirut embassy by Hezbollah in 1983.

Lieberman shows again how he refuses to be blessed among the peace makers. Like a child retreating from the playground with wounded pride, he finds the Iranians incapable of being trusted. They had “a terrible record of not keeping agreements and frankly of lying.” Naturally, Washington’s assertions that it doesn’t spy on its friends and leaders of the misnamed free world shows purity of thought and action.

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, showing the sophistication of an intoxicated pugilist, lamented the miniscule adjustments to the sanctions regime against Iran, claiming that “we had the chance to deliver a body blow.”

Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu has proclaimed this negotiated pathway a “historic mistake”, one which “reduces the pressure on Iran without receiving anything tangible in return, and the Iranians who laughed all the way to the bank are themselves saying that this deal has saved them.” The Gulf states are distinctly underwhelmed, fearing that this will hardly be enough.

None want to see Iran’s power in the region legitimised, even if the power is highly circumscribed. But what such states fail to realise is that they, themselves, can be triggers for the very non-proliferation they want to avert. Attempts to disable and cripple all forms of nuclear pursuit will simply be a recipe for that pursuit to become more aggressive.

The doves can hardly be said to be cooing either. This may turn out to be historic, but the true history of this occasion lies at one apex: the fact that diplomatic conversation has long last taken place. What we got, at least, was conversation, and a concession that such conversation is vital. Jaw-jaw, as mentioned by Winston Churchill, among others, tends to be better than war-war, as fascinatingly irresistible as the latter option may be.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  He ran for the Australian Senate with Julian Assange for the WikiLeaks Party.  Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

August 30, 2016
Russell Mokhiber
Matt Funiciello and the Giant Sucking Sound Coming Off Lake Champlain
Mike Whitney
Three Cheers for Kaepernick: Is Sitting During the National Anthem an Acceptable Form of Protest?
Alice Bach
Sorrow and Grace in Palestine
Sam Husseini
Why We Should All Remain Seated: the Anti-Muslim Origins of “The Star-Spangled Banner”
Richard Moser
Transformative Movement Culture and the Inside/Outside Strategy: Do We Want to Win the Argument or Build the Movement?
Nozomi Hayase
Pathology, Incorporated: the Facade of American Democracy
David Swanson
Fredric Jameson’s War Machine
Jan Oberg
How Did the West Survive a Much Stronger Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact?
Linda Gunter
The Racism of the Nagasaki and Hiroshima Bombings
Dmitry Kovalevich
In Ukraine: Independence From the People
Omar Kassem
Turkey Breaks Out in Jarablus as Fear and Loathing Grip Europe
George Wuerthner
A Birthday Gift to the National Parks: the Maine Woods National Monument
Logan Glitterbomb
Indigenous Property Rights and the Dakota Access Pipeline
National Lawyers Guild
Solidarity with Standing Rock Sioux Tribe against Dakota Access Pipeline
Paul Messersmith-Glavin
100 in Anarchist Years
August 29, 2016
Eric Draitser
Hillary and the Clinton Foundation: Exemplars of America’s Political Rot
Patrick Timmons
Dildos on Campus, Gun in the Library: the New York Times and the Texas Gun War
Jack Rasmus
Bernie Sanders ‘OR’ Revolution: a Statement or a Question?
Richard Moser
Strategic Choreography and Inside/Outside Organizers
Nigel Clarke
President Obama’s “Now Watch This Drive” Moment
Robert Fisk
Iraq’s Willing Executioners
Wahid Azal
The Banality of Evil and the Ivory Tower Masterminds of the 1953 Coup d’Etat in Iran
Farzana Versey
Romancing the Activist
Frances Madeson
Meet the Geronimos: Apache Leader’s Descendants Talk About Living With the Legacy
Nauman Sadiq
The War on Terror and the Carter Doctrine
Lawrence Wittner
Does the Democratic Party Have a Progressive Platform–and Does It Matter?
Marjorie Cohn
Death to the Death Penalty in California
Winslow Myers
Asking the Right Questions
Rivera Sun
The Sane Candidate: Which Representatives Will End the Endless Wars?
Linn Washington Jr.
Philadelphia District Attorney Hammered for Hypocrisy
Binoy Kampmark
Banning Burkinis: the Politics of Beachwear
Weekend Edition
August 26, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Louisa Willcox
The Unbearable Killing of Yellowstone’s Grizzlies: 2015 Shatters Records for Bear Deaths
Paul Buhle
In the Shadow of the CIA: Liberalism’s Big Embarrassing Moment
Rob Urie
Crisis and Opportunity
Charles Pierson
Wedding Crashers Who Kill
Richard Moser
What is the Inside/Outside Strategy?
Dirk Bezemer – Michael Hudson
Finance is Not the Economy
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Bernie’s Used Cars
Margaret Kimberley
Hillary and Colin: the War Criminal Charade
Patrick Cockburn
Turkey’s Foray into Syria: a Gamble in a Very Dangerous Game
Ishmael Reed
Birther Tries to Flim Flam Blacks  
Brian Terrell
What Makes a Hate Group?
Andrew Levine
How Donald Trump Can Still be a Hero: Force the Guardians of the Duopoly to Open Up the Debates
Howard Lisnoff
Trouble in Political Paradise
Terry Tempest Williams
Will Our National Parks Survive the Next 100 Years?
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail