Around the World: Experts weigh in on Iran deal

Editor’s Note: Around the World is a semi-regular series in which The Pitt News breaks down world news with the help of local experts to give you the low down on what’s going on internationally.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani told the United Nations general assembly Sunday that the latest nuclear deal marks a new chapter in United States and Iranian relations. Yet, some opponents of the deal question whether this chapter will give Iran too much leeway in nuclear development.

In July, The P5+1, a group that consists of the United States, Germany, Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom, settled negotiations with Iran to keep the country from building a nuclear weapon, while loosening the already existing sanctions on the country’s nuclear program.  The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action promises to cut off all of Iran’s pathways to obtain a nuclear weapon, including filling the core of Iran’s heavy water reactor — a nuclear power reactor that uses uranium as fuel — with concrete.

The deal has staunch right-wing opponents, like Speaker of the House John Boehner, who will leave his position at the end of October, and members of the Zionist movement who couldn’t block the bill before the end of a 60-day time limit that ended on Sept. 18. Now, the Obama Administration and the other members of the P5+1 want to implement the terms of the deal, which will include easing previous sanctions on Iran.
Read the full deal. 

The Obama Administration has said that if Iran does not uphold the deal, the sanctions will “snap back into place.”

Assistant News Editor Lauren Rosenblatt sat down with Patrick Clawson, the director of research for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and Professor Daniela Donno of Pitt’s political science department to talk about the pros and cons of the deal.

The impact of the deal on the United States:

Donno: It’s going to change the U.S. policy and stance in the Middle East as a whole. Some traditional allies, like Saudi Arabia and Israel, are very unhappy about this deal. It won’t change overall the fact that we are still strong allies with Israel, I don’t think in the end that those friendships are going to be completely destroyed. But it allows for new possibilities for the U.S. to start finding ways to have a better relationship with Iran, and that could help us achieve our goals in Iraq.

Clawson: The Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra visited Iran 50 years ago. They tried to reorganize another visit this past year, but it didn’t work out, that’s a good example. The organization that wanted to sponsor the orchestra also sponsored a contest for cartoons denying the Holocaust, so the orchestra said, “Oh forget that.” The visit seemed like a great idea, but then problems arise.

The great challenge will be that the next president is going to want to show that [he or she is] different than the previous president. The extent that which Obama has defined this as the crown issue of his second term makes the national temptation [for future candidates] to show that they can handle this issue better. The grave risk is that the next president will feel under pressure to show that they can do better — and that’s true for whoever gets elected.

The future of the United States’ relationship with Iran:

Donno: On the part of the U.S. administration, it’s a bet that by improving relations with Iran, they will feel that they are a part of a community of nations again. By increasing economic and cultural connections, the [Iranian] government will see that it no longer wants nuclear weapons. The feeling among analysts is that the policy for many years was to enforce sanctions to force Iran to stop [working toward nuclear weapons]. Despite sanctions, the regime is still taking these steps, so the feeling was the current approach wasn’t working so we need to do something different.

Clawson: What [my colleagues and I] basically said is this deal has to be put in the broader context. What’s your overall strategy involving Iran? We were gently warning that diplomats often reach agreement by making things ambiguous, but [in this case], we would need to have a pretty clear understanding of what certain provisions would mean, and while Iranians may not be ready to agree with us, [the United States] need[s] as broad an international consensus as we can. The deal is incomplete, and how you complete it makes a huge difference as to whether or not it’s good or not so good.

The P5+1 — six world powers collaborating with Iran on the issue of nuclear weapons — say [the deal] is only about nuclear weapons, but there are a lot of other issues we should look at. If you make a deal about nuclear weapons and don’t look at the instability Iran is causing in the Saudi region, then Iran will take that as a green light to keep going. We have to find ways to reassure the nations that this deal is not a blind eye.

How to move forward:

Clawson: We need a consensus about what is going to happen after the deal expires. I think that there should be some way to tell Iran that if they [violate the deal,] we will take some dramatic action against them. We do not accept that after [the deal] is over, [Iran] will have something that is 99 percent complete. We have to make it clear that that isn’t going to work. I think it would be a good idea for Congress to authorize the president to take military force to prevent it. Some people want to wait to cross that bridge until we get there, but I think we should prepare for contingencies.

President Obama has said the U.S. will step up its efforts to prevent Iran from destabilizing other [countries]. I think it is important that we find ways to more actively check for vicious influence of Iranian-inspired groups.

The president himself and those around him think [the deal] is so obviously in America’s interest that they have difficulty understanding why people don’t like it.

If we are successful in following the deal, the government is very hopeful that this will lead to a transformation in Iran-U.S. relations, and this will be very helpful in the Middle East and that will lead to a big change. There could be a real upside to this, but don’t count on it.

The effect on college-aged students:

Donno: It will definitely affect [youth] in Iran. Research indicates that many young people are really hungry for having greater linkages with the West. They want to travel and have greater exchange of ideas, want to have American products. Their country is now going to be more open.

I’m not sure if there’s going to be a direct impact on young people in the U.S. But this is definitely a really important issue that college students as voters need to pay attention to, it’s something that needs to be talked about in presidential debates.