Limiting Iran's Nuclear Program is Better than Leaving it Unchecked

The city of Montreux is hosting four days of negotiations between Iran and the members of the 5+1 group starting from March 2. These negotiations have a month to reach a framework for a comprehensive and final agreement. The initial days of these negotiations will involve senior officials from Iran and the United States, and then on Thursday, the deputy foreign ministers of all 5+1 countries are expected to join. Meanwhile, the city of Vienna in Austria is also hosting a new meeting of the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Yukiya Amano, the director-general of the agency, warned about the slowdown in Iran's cooperation with the agency, stating, "Not cooperating with the agency is not a solution." Radio Farda discussed these developments with Mark Fitzpatrick, director of the Disarmament Program at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. In light of the fact that negotiators spoke of progress in the negotiations last week, what is your assessment of these talks? For almost a year, I have been pessimistic about whether Iran wants to reach an agreement. However, I must say that about a week ago, I was surprised to learn that Iran accepted limitations that extend the breakout time to 12 months. These limitations mean that Iran needs at least a year to obtain the necessary materials to produce weapons. Frankly, this is very encouraging, although there are still many issues to be resolved, such as how to lift sanctions. Why did you think Iran would never accept such limitations, and why do you think it has accepted them now? I didn't think Iran would accept this because Iran's strategic goal for many years has been to have the option to produce weapons in its nuclear program; not necessarily to build a weapon, but to have the capability to produce one. The red lines that the Iranian leader has raised over the past year were in this context. For example, when he (the Iranian leader) spoke last July about Iran's need for a hundred thousand first-generation centrifuges. But now, why has it accepted these limitations? I believe Iran sees a longer-term perspective. When the Iranian leader spoke of the breadth of the nuclear program, he said, "Of course not in these years, but in the future," and the head of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization also said, "Today we must start working to achieve the goal of fuel production by 2021." However, in its negotiations with the six world powers, Iran has postponed this timeline for 10 years. Iran has decided that it can be patient and have a nuclear program of that scope not in five or six years, but in the future. Mr. Fitzpatrick, you have worked in disarmament for years. One of the reasons critics of these negotiations raise is the impact on the Middle East region and that other countries will also demand such a program. What is your opinion on this? First of all, an agreement that legitimizes Iran's uranium enrichment program, a program that has no economic justification, would be a very bad example, and other countries in the region will also demand such a program. A senior Saudi official has stated that Riyadh is seeking a similar program, and now we must wait for Turkey and others, who may also have the same request. This is a negative aspect of the agreement. But we must see what other options are available. If an agreement is not reached, Iran will not only have its current capabilities but will also have more. Even if Iran's facilities are bombed, it can rebuild them in about two years. Therefore, it would be very bad if this agreement does not prevent Iran's program; it is better to limit Iran's program and place it under strict supervision than to leave it unchecked. My last question is about Iran's cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Some analysts believe that Iran is waiting for the results of its negotiations with the 5+1 group and has thus slowed down its cooperation with the agency. What is your opinion on this? It is clear that Iran has somehow taken its cooperation with the agency hostage in exchange for diplomatic discussions with the six world powers. Iran has not been able to respond to the agency's questions about some past actions that may have military aspects within the set deadline. It has answered some questions but not the important ones, linking these discussions to other discussions. This is understandable but unacceptable. It is Iran's obligation, as a member of the agency, to respond to the concerns of this body. Therefore, I believe the current process, where this cooperation seems to be held hostage, is not in Iran's interest. In my opinion, if Iran reaches an agreement with the six countries, it will quickly respond to the agency's questions. However, whether these responses will satisfy the agency is unpredictable because I believe Iran has previously engaged in activities related to a weapons production program. Iran does not want to admit this, so it may not be able to answer all of the agency's questions, and this will become a difficult issue in the implementation of an agreement with the 5+1.