The nuclear framework agreement between Iran and the five permanent UN Security Council members (the US, the UK, France, China and Russia) plus Germany is an important achievement in global diplomacy.
The deal announced earlier this month represents the triumph of rational hope over irrational fear, and it deserves to be implemented. However, now the race is on against hardliners in the US, Iran, Israel and elsewhere who want to kill the deal before the deadline for a final agreement in June.
The framework agreement benefits all parties. Iran scales back its nuclear activities, especially the enrichment of uranium fuel, in exchange for an end to economic sanctions. Its government is kept further away from developing a nuclear bomb — which it denies pursuing — and gains room for economic recovery and normalization of relations with the major powers.
It is a smart, pragmatic and balanced approach, subject to monitoring and verification. It does not require that the US and Iranian governments suddenly trust each other; it does offer an opportunity to build confidence, even as it allows for specific steps that are in each side’s interests. Crucially, it is part of international law, within the framework of the UN Security Council.
TIME FOR PEACE
By propounding the idea that the other side can never be trusted, the hardliners are advancing a self-fulfilling theory of politics and human nature that makes war far more likely. These purveyors of fear deserve to be kept on the sidelines. It is time to make peace.
The great divide between the West and Iran today, it should be noted, is largely the result of malign Western behavior toward Iran (Persia until 1935) in the past. From the start of the 20th century, the then-British Empire manipulated Persia in order to control its vast oil reserves. After World War II, that job fell increasingly to the US.
Indeed, from coup to dictatorship to war to sanctions, the US has racked up more than 60 continuous years of trying to impose its will on Iran. The CIA and Britain’s MI6 jointly toppled then-Iranian prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh’s democratically elected government in 1953 to block Mossadegh’s attempts to nationalize Iran’s oil reserves. The US then installed the brutal dictatorship of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, which ruled the country until the Islamic Revolution of 1979.
Following the revolution, the US helped to arm Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s, in which an estimated 1 million Iranians died. Since 1987, the US has imposed economic sanctions against Iran on a variety of premises, including claims of Iranian terrorism and the alleged nuclear threat. The US has also worked hard to internationalize these sanctions, leading the push for UN measures, which have been in place since 2006.
GRIEVANCES
US hardliners have their own long list of grievances, starting with the 1979 seizure of the US embassy in Tehran, in which 66 US diplomats and citizens were held for 444 days. Then there is Iran’s involvement in Muslim militancy, and its support for anti-Israel political movements and groups deemed to be terrorist.
Still, the British and US abuses vis-a-vis Persia and Iran started earlier, lasted longer and imposed far higher costs than Iran’s actions vis-a-vis the US and UK. Moreover, much of what the US categorizes as Iranian “terror” is a product of the region’s sectarian struggles between Shiites backed by Iran and Sunnis backed by Saudi Arabia. “Terror” is a term that obscures rather than clarifies these long-standing clashes and rivalries. That is why Iran, called a “terrorist state” by US hardliners, is now US’ de facto ally in the fight against Sunni extremists in Iraq and Syria.
Iran’s confrontation with the UK and the US is part of the much broader saga of the West’s use of its military and economic dominance to project its power and political will over much of the world during the 19th and 20th centuries. Today’s low and middle-income countries are only now entering a period of true sovereignty.
The proposed agreement with Iran will not overcome a century of distrust and manipulation, but it can begin to create a new path toward peace and mutual respect. Mutual benefit would be achieved by honest appraisals of mutual interests, and step-by-step progress backed by verification — not by hardliners on both sides claiming that the other side is pure evil and insisting on complete triumph.
LESSON FROM HISTORY
The success of then-US president John F. Kennedy and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev in reaching the 1963 Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty at the height of the Cold War provides an instructive lesson. At the time, hardliners on both sides denounced the treaty as a weakening of national defense in the face of an implacable enemy. In fact, both sides fully honored the treaty, and it led to the landmark 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Kennedy’s words then apply to the Iran agreement today: The treaty “is not a victory for one side — it is a victory for mankind,” Kennedy said in 1963.
The treaty “will not resolve all conflicts, or cause the communists to forgo their ambitions, or eliminate the dangers of war. It will not reduce our need for arms or allies or programs of assistance to others. But it is an important first step — a step toward peace — a step toward reason — a step away from war,” he said.
Jeffrey Sachs is a professor of sustainable development, professor of health policy and management and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. He is also special adviser to the UN secretary-general on the Millennium Development Goals.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry