Iran Nuclear Deal: Gains and Losses for the US

Iran’s nuclear deal with Turkey is regarded as a victory of diplomacy and brought a habitual non-negotiator onto the high table of dialogue.  Under the deal, Iran agreed to  send 1200kg of low enriched uranium to Turkey in exchange for 120kg of enriched uranium. The processed high enriched uranium will be used by Iran as a fuel for nuclear reactors and for medical purpose.  This deal was done just before the UN was to pass a resolution for imposition of sanctions on Iran. It is said that the uranium which Iran has agreed to give up could be used for development of one or two nuclear weapons. The removal of this uranium will be a setback to Iran’s nuclear programme and will reduce their nuclear potential. It will also strengthen the position of the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) in monitoring Iran’s fuel supply. However the US and other western countries have raised serious doubts on the terms of deal. David Albright, working in the Institute of Science and International Security mentioned that it would only take six months to enrich the uranium from 20 per cent of the bomb grade level to 90 per cent using 500-1000 centrifuge. It is important to note that even after successful implementation of the deal,  Iran will be left with approximately 1900 pounds of uranium. Iran will also continue its enrichment programme, which at the current rate of production will allow generation of 3300 pounds of additional low enriched uranium over the course of the year-long process. Iran has already mentioned that it will continue fuel enrichment process on its soil and could take back its uranium shipment if it feels that commitments of the deal are not properly addressed. Therefore, it is not the perfect deal to stop Iran’s nuclear programme. The only benefit for the US is that Russia is is displeased with this deal and is ready to cooperate with the US for the imposition of sanctions on Iran.

A similar kind of deal was also proposed in October 2009 when Tehran agreed to send 2,640 pounds of low enriched uranium to Russia and receive a smaller amount of enriched uranium for the operation of Tehran Research Reactor which is used for medical purposes. Later, they chose Turkey over Russia for sending their low enriched uranium. This has raised doubts on the long-term alliance of Russia and Iran.  Russia suspected that the Iranians and Turks are concluding some secret deal to build a pipeline that would provide natural gas from Turkmenistan and Iran through Turkey to Europe, breaking an effective Russian monopoly. Russia has helped Iran in its nuclear and missile programme and has always opposed imposition of stronger sanctions on Iran. Russia has helped Iran in development of Bushehr’s reactor breaking rank with the  US and other western powers.  There were negotiations between both the countries over the sale of heavy water research reactor and it is believed that blueprints of these facilities were provided to Iran. In 1997, it was reported that Russia has transferred missile technology of SS-24 missiles to Iran. However, this claim was later rejected by Russian officials. Russia is also supposed to provide missile training and test equipment to Iran. Russia’s official Atomic Energy Ministry – the Minatom – has mentioned that doing nuclear business with Iran is the official policy of Russia.

Yet, Iran concluded this  nuclear deal with Turkey by ignoring Russia which might affect their relationship. This might shift the position of the US under terms laid down in the strategic triangle theory. Earlier, it was Iran and Russia cooperating against the US. However, now it can be Russia and the US cooperating against the nuclear programme of Iran. Under the strategic triangle theory of Huie Mango, two partners are seen to be collaborating against a third party. The best role for either of them is to develop positive relationship with the third party so as to attain the position of pivot.  Henry Kissinger has mentioned that position of pivot is the most important one. The pivot keeps amity with the two players while pitting them against each other. The aim of the US should be to move from position of partners to position of pivot. However, it won’t be easy for the US to achieve positive relationship with Iran.

 In order to maximise its interests and to achieve position of pivot, the US should completely reject its policy of favouring allies. It should start looking into Israel’s nuclear weapons programme. The relationship between Israel and Iran are not good and putting pressure on Israel’s nuclear weapon programme will satisfy some of the concerns of Iran. It will also demonstrate that the US does not differentiate between allies and other states’ nuclear weapon programmes. Iran is also sceptical of military presence of the US in the region. The US should play these threats down and should make clear that these forces have nothing to do with Iran. Such measures would help the US to acquire the position of pivot. With regard to Russia, it has been betrayed by an ally whom it has aided with its nuclear programme. It has no choice but to support the US viewpoint and methods to deal with Iran’s nuclear programme. It is very important for the US to develop a positive relationship with both countries and to have Russia in its favour. Without this, it will difficult for the US to stop Iran’s nuclear programme. It is time for the US to apply diplomatic measures rather than to carry a stick in the hand.

Neha Kumar Tiwari is a Visiting Fellow at  the United Service Institution of India and a Research Scholar at CIPOD Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU)

(Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent the views either of the Editorial Committee or the Centre for Land Warfare Studies).