the future negotiations between Iran and the U.S. The narrative in the U.S. Congress is, the deal is done because of U.S. sanctions and pressures. But, the fact is, the deal was signed yesterday is the principles, the framework is exactly like the principles and frameworks we proposed European countries in 2003 and 2005, between 2003 to 2005. The same principles, Iran was not on the sanctions 2003-2005. After eight years of sanctions, pressures, the U.S. accepted the same principles. Why the deal was done, why the deal was possible? There was only and only one reason; in 2003 to 2005, the U.S. was not ready to accept the legitimate rights of Iran on their NPT for enrichment. U.S. would saying the red line is enrichment. Iran cannot have one centrifuges. Iran should have zero enrichment. That’s why we couldn’t make the deal.
In 2013, the preliminary deal was signed. The U.S. changed, moderated its position. The U.S. said, now Iran can have enrichment on their nonproliferation treaty, but limited and for its practical needs. But, Iran should give all assurances that would not seek nuclear bomb. Therefore, really, the reason for the deal was not pressures and sanctions, was the U.S. to realize and to respect the nonproliferation treaty. Sanctions had two different impacts. One, on the nuclear issue, sanctions only caused increase of Iranian nuclear program. Before sanctions, Iran had a few hundred of centrifuges. After sanctions, Iran reached to 22,000 centrifuges. Before sanctions, Iran had a few hundred kilogram of stockpile of enriched uranium. After sanctions, about 9000 kilogram. Before sanctions, Iran was enriching below 5 percent. After sanctions, Iran increased the enrichment to 20 percent. Therefore, Congress and Israeli policy for sanctions only led to the increased Iranian nuclear and capacity. Until the point which the U.S. recognized Iran has only three months to breakout, then the U.S. accepted enrichment in Iran and decided to have verification, transparency, and change the red line from zero enrichment to zero nuclear bomb.
But the second that I mention of the sanction is on Iranian economy, Iranian people. Definitely, sanctions harmed the Iranian economy. Definitely, sanctions harmed Iranian nation. There is no doubt about it. But, if the objective of sanctions was limiting the Iranian nuclear program, this was 100% counterproductive. This is a good lesson for the U.S. Congress and for Israelis. More pressure, more threat, Iran would become more aggressive. But, if you go for mutual respect, negotiating with Iran based on mutual respect and based on international rules and regulations, you would find a very, very cooperative, a flexible Iran.
- Seyed Hossein Mousavian, associate research scholar at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. He is a former diplomat who, from 1990 to 1997, served as Iran’s ambassador to Germany. From 1997 to 2005, he was the head of the Foreign Relations Committee of Iran’s National Security Council.