What is Kerry's Plan B for Iran?

(Baonghean.vn) - US Secretary of State John Kerry arrived in Vienna last weekend, hoping to conclude negotiations on Iran's nuclear program and declare it a success. He needs to understand that this agreement must limit Iran's ability to build a nuclear arsenal in the foreseeable future. No agreement is better than an agreement that fails to achieve this.

The negotiations will decide the fate of Iran's nuclear reactors. Photo: Getty Images.

Currently, this kind of success seems difficult to achieve. After two days of negotiations, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif returned to Tehran for consultations, and diplomats have admitted that they are likely to miss their self-imposed deadline today (June 30).

Furthermore, in a televised address more than a week ago, Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei appeared to cancel inspections of military facilities. Iran had previously blocked access to the facilities, but any agreement prohibiting inspectors from accessing military sites suspected of being nuclear sites would also be unacceptable. Khamenei also demanded that the economic sanctions that forced Iran back to negotiations two years ago be lifted immediately upon the signing of the agreement, rather than in stages to ensure compliance. And he said that any restrictions placed on Iran should last less than the proposed 10 to 12 years.

Each of these factors carries the potential to break the agreement. To understand why, a little history is needed. Negotiations began 12 years ago, after Iran's nuclear fuel program was discovered. The talks continued for a decade on the basis that Iran should completely abandon the program. That effort failed. Iran went from possessing a few rudimentary centrifuges and no substantial fuel reserves to a comprehensive program with enough fuel to produce numerous weapons.

U.S. President Barack Obama used tougher sanctions to bring Iran back to the negotiating table to discuss a settlement under which Iran would maintain a small, closely monitored fuel program. A provisional agreement reached in November 2013 temporarily halted the expansion of Iran's nuclear infrastructure and dismantled its most dangerous fuel stockpiles in exchange for the lifting of sanctions restrictions. That agreement remains in effect and is more advantageous to the U.S. and its negotiating partners than to Iran.

Therefore, there is no loss if no new agreement is reached, negotiations continue, and the status quo is maintained. The question is what will happen if the entire process collapses. Kerry needs to prepare for this outcome.

Plan B should focus on securing support for escalating sanctions when necessary. The harshest of these sanctions have already been imposed by Europe, so keeping European countries aligned is crucial. Similarly, the U.S. must persuade Russia, India, and others not to actively undermine the sanctions regime. This, in turn, will require patience from the U.S. Congress.

Many lawmakers believe Iran is prolonging negotiations to expand its program, as it did under the George W. Bush administration. They are likely to seek new sanctions if no agreement is reached in the coming days. However, this would violate the terms of the interim agreement that prevents Iran from expanding its program. It would give Khamenei the pretext he appears to be seeking to claim the U.S. is deceiving them and end the talks. If he succeeds, maintaining international unity after efforts to contain Iran's program would become far more difficult.

Kerry shouldn't sign a bad deal. But to have an effective Plan B, he also needs to ensure that if the whole process collapses, the responsibility doesn't fall solely on the U.S., but also on Iran.

Thu Giang

(According to Bloomberg)