The Number of Centrifuges Has Become Symbolic

Over the past year, as Iran and the P5+1 group were negotiating for a comprehensive and final agreement, France has been one of the most vocal countries among the six. France is the country whose former foreign minister made significant efforts to reach an agreement with Iran in the early 2000s. An agreement that was initially reached but soon collapsed due to opposition in Washington and actions from Iran. Now, this country remains at the negotiating table with Iran, and occasionally, its officials' comments about the nuclear negotiations stir controversy. To examine France's role and the outlook of the nuclear negotiations, which have a deadline of November 24, Radio Farda has spoken with Francois Nicolo, the former French ambassador to Iran from 2001 to 2005. Mr. Nicolo has written numerous articles in recent years about Iran's foreign policy, particularly its nuclear program. Let's start with France, the country you represented in Tehran in the past years. In your opinion, has there been a change in France's position since last November when France had a very tough stance on the negotiations? Honestly, I don't think there has been a change in France's position over the past year. However, we witnessed a change in France's foreign policy much earlier, when Jacques Chirac's presidency ended in 2007 and Nicolas Sarkozy replaced him. Until Sarkozy came to power, I can say that France had a moderate position regarding this nuclear issue and wanted to bring the negotiating parties closer together. I can say that with Sarkozy's arrival, France adopted a relatively tougher stance, and if you recall, he was much closer to George Bush, the President of the United States. This tough position of Sarkozy continued even when Obama came to power. I can say that there was a time when Obama and the U.S. had a more open position towards Iran compared to France. With the arrival of Francois Hollande, this hardline stance has almost continued. This means they look very critically at Iran's actions and are careful that nothing slips through the cracks. If you recall, last November, Laurent Fabius, the foreign minister, came out before reaching an agreement and said that the draft agreement was so-called ridiculous. It is true that at that time the text of the agreement was not drafted in the best possible way and had gaps. This text was initially negotiated by Iran and the U.S., and the other members of the 5+1 had the opportunity to see it at the last minute. Of course, after a week, the problems with the text were resolved, and an agreement was reached, but this issue has remained in everyone's mind. Before the negotiations in Oman took place, John Kerry went to France and had a meeting with his French counterpart. Do you think this trip and meeting were a preventive measure to avoid repeating last year's events in Geneva? Exactly. I think the Americans learned from their so-called mistake last year. They must remember that they are not alone in these negotiations and need to communicate with their allies in this regard, especially since France is believed to be a tough ally in this area. For this reason, Kerry understood this and took the trouble to go to France and update Fabius on the latest developments in the negotiations so that Fabius wouldn't say that France didn't know what was happening. Kerry also met with Lavrov to discuss the transfer of low-enriched uranium and the production of fuel rods in Russia. I think the Americans learned from their so-called mistake last year. They must remember that they are not alone in these negotiations and need to communicate with their allies in this regard, especially since France is believed to be a tough ally in this area. This is very important for balancing the agreement that part of the low-enriched uranium shipment is to be so-called neutralized, and for this neutralization, they can send it to Russia. Kerry met with Lavrov to ensure that this part of the agreement is on the right track. And with this situation, he went to Oman to meet with Mohammad Javad Zarif with a freer mind. We have witnessed hours and days of negotiations over the past year. Do you think both sides are ready to accept and show flexibility to reach a comprehensive and final agreement? I think the negotiators, Obama and Kerry on one side and Rouhani and Zarif on the other, really want to reach an agreement. This may not be true for all political actors in Iran and the U.S., but the negotiators want to agree. For this reason, they must be cautious because they have critics in their domestic political space. There are still two main points of contention. One is the number of centrifuges, which, although important, I don't think is that significant. Today, the number of centrifuges has taken on symbolic value. Because if an agreement is reached, the whole world is waiting to see what number of centrifuges the parties have agreed upon for Iran, four thousand, five thousand, or nine thousand centrifuges. The second point of contention is the process of suspension and lifting sanctions. It is clear that the Iranians want this to happen as soon as possible. But they know it won't happen, especially with the political situation that Obama has with Congress today. Congress is not in favor of an agreement that would benefit Iran. Many analysts believe that more than such challenges, the issue is political will. To what extent do you see this political will as the key to reaching a comprehensive and final agreement? The problem is that each party has set red lines. And when you publicly set red lines, you have to defend them and become somewhat trapped by them. For example, John Kerry previously said that restrictions on Iran's nuclear program should be such that it would take a year to produce the materials necessary for a bomb. The same issue of breakout time, which means how much time is needed for a specific number of centrifuges to produce high-enriched uranium that can be used in a nuclear weapon. For a bomb, about 25 kilograms of high-enriched uranium is needed. And when you say this process should take a year and then agree, for example, with 9,000 centrifuges (the same amount that Iran currently has actively), calculations show that instead of a year, this process takes about ten months. And because you announced this publicly, you become trapped by your own words. The same situation exists on the other side. For example, Iran has said we won't remove even one centrifuge. This means the Iranians cannot accept even a number lower than the 9,000 centrifuges they have. But I think these numbers, a thousand more or less, are not very important, but they have become a symbolic issue, and everyone is afraid of what the outcome will be. If they agree and return to their countries and say now we have agreed on this number. And I think this is what has made reaching an agreement so difficult. Given this situation, do you think they will succeed in reaching an agreement by the third of Azar? It should be noted that the parties have found solutions for many important issues, perhaps much more important than the number of centrifuges; for example, the method of monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency or making changes to the Arak heavy water facility to produce less plutonium, which reduces the ability to produce weapons. This is a good question. I remain optimistic, meaning I may not be thinking completely logically, but we must consider the tireless efforts that both sides are making to reach this agreement. And it should be noted that the parties have found solutions for many important issues, perhaps much more important than the number of centrifuges; for example, the method of monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency or making changes to the Arak heavy water facility to produce less plutonium, which reduces the ability to produce weapons. It would be a pity if everything collapses over 5 percent, and no agreement is reached. For this reason, I think at the last minute, the parties will make a final effort to reach an agreement.