Buried in the fine print of Thursday’s “historic” framework for an Iran nuclear deal is a reminder that it’s neither signed nor sealed, and far from being delivered: “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.”
Indeed, the framework ironed out in eight days of talks between Iran and the P5+1 countries — the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China — is an agreement only in the sense that it sets parameters for the parties to keep negotiating a permanent deal that would replace an interim one signed in November 2013 and that expires July 1.
Tough negotiations remain before any real agreement is nailed down, a point that was highlighted by Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif disputing what the framework meant right after President Obama hailed it as an “historic understanding.”
Quoting from a P5+1 statement, Zarif tweeted Thursday: “‘US will cease the application of ALL nuclear-related secondary economic and financial sanctions.’ Is this gradual?”
In a speech Friday, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani echoed Zarif’s contention that sanctions would be lifted “immediately,” not after Iran addresses international concerns about its nuclear program, as U.S. officials have said.
Rouhani also declared victory, saying “we have both maintenance of nuclear rights and removal of sanctions alongside constructive interaction with the world.
“On the basis of this framework, all sanctions in financial, economic and banking sectors as well as all [UN Security Council] sanctions resolutions against Iran will be canceled on the very first day of the implementation of the deal, and new cooperation in both nuclear and other sectors will start with the world on the same day,” Rouhani said, according to the official Islamic Republic News Agency.
These differences cut to the heart of whether lawmakers and voters in the United States will consider any agreement a good one or a bad one. They also raise concerns about how the unanswered questions will be answered in a final deal.
“While the announced framework is a good first step, many questions still remain,” said Blaise Misztal, foreign policy director for the Bipartisan Policy Center, noting that the document does not address what will happen with Iran’s excess stockpiles of enriched uranium or how Iran “will implement an agreed set of measures to address the [International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA)] concerns regarding the possible military dimensions of its program” — a key element in verifying compliance, according to experts.
What the framework does reveal are the concessions the Obama administration has made to Iran, including recognizing that Iran will be allowed to continue enriching uranium — which U.S. officials insisted was not a part of the interim deal though the Iranians said it was — with 5,060 of some 19,000 installed centrifuges, with the remaining centrifuges stored under the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) supervision for 10 years.
The framework also allows Iran limited research and development of advanced centrifuges and allows it to continue operating centrifuges at Fordow, a heavily fortified underground site near the Shiite holy city of Qom that Iran kept secret from international inspectors until it disclosed the facility in 2009. It would be used, though, as a center for nuclear physics and technology, not to enrich uranium. The administration had previously wanted that facility closed.
The 10-year restriction on enrichment and research also is a U.S. concession. The administration had wanted it to be permanent.
There’s also the question of what happens if Iran is caught cheating. Charles Duelfer, who led both U.N. and U.S. efforts to account for Iraq’s nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs under Saddam Hussein’s regime, wrote in Politico Magazine that the framework places a lot of trust in Russia and China’s cooperation on enforcement — which he said was lacking in Iraq.
“If I were [Secretary of State] John Kerry, I would not want to be defending a deal that depends upon [Russian President] Vladimir Putin,” Duelfer wrote.
Obama spent much of Friday calling key lawmakers to build support for the framework and ward off congressional action the administration believes may impede the negotiations, White House spokesman Eric Schultz said.
“Both Republicans and Democrats alike have shown a thoughtful response, they want to take a look at the details. That’s something we appreciate,” he said.
The first test of whether the framework has swayed skeptical lawmakers will come April 14, the day after Congress returns from the Easter-Passover recess, when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is set to take up a bill requiring congressional approval of any deal — and tying Obama’s ability to unilaterally give Iran relief from U.S. sanctions to that process. Obama has threatened to veto the bill, and its supporters are working to secure enough votes to override him.
The State Department’s summary of the framework indicates that negotiators had agreed to allow U.S. sanctions written into law to remain in effect as long as they are waived by the administration — something that in practice would cut Congress out of the need to vote to repeal them. The next president also could reverse those waivers, as Republican senators warned Iran he or she might do.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said he is committed to move the legislation forward and expects it to be approved in a bipartisan vote. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has promised a quick floor vote.
“If diplomats can negotiate for two years on this issue, then certainly Congress is entitled to a review period of an agreement that will fundamentally alter our relationship with Iran and the sanctions imposed by Congress,” said the bill’s co-author, Bob Menendez of New Jersey, who stepped aside this week as ranking Democrat on the panel after being indicted on federal corruption charges.
