The Iranian Nuclear Programme Made Easy (and author's introduction)

Hi guys I'm Alejandro. Welcome to our blog :)

WHAT THIS IS :

This is going to be a collaborative effort with my friend Markus who shares the same general interest in world affairs, including but not limited to (inter)national security, international relations, arms proliferation, terrorism, war and armed violence, and peace processes. To learn more about us, click here.

For my part, I'm doing this for two simple reasons : 1) to improve my writing and 2) to relay news and commentary to my peers in such a way that it's approachable, easy to understand, uses plain language, and is relevant especially to the Philippines and Filipinos. Basically, it's an attempt to market world affairs to the non-politically inclined Filipino. Markus, who originally started the blog and already has several articles, has his own style and approach which you will notice swiftly.

I don't consider myself an expert in the field -- not yet. So please, do yourself a favour and refrain from citing/plagiarising my articles here. Also, while in theory I will generally write about news from all corners of the globe, don't be surprised if a majority of my articles narrows down on the Middle East region since that's where I'll be specialising in.

Comments are HIGHLY ENCOURAGED. If there's something you don't agree with or even don't understand, then please please pleaaaase let me know, you can even comment anonymously ! You can also request me to write on a particular topic if you're curious enough, although I can't guarantee on following through if work takes up time.

Credit must go to Max Fisher of the Washington Post for his article explaining the Syrian crisis in very layman's terms from which I draw inspiration for both the style and motivation of my writing. 

----

20 January 2014 -- Remember this date.

Last Monday an interim deal between the international community led by the P5+1 -- the United States, the UK, France, Russia, China and Germany -- and Iran on its nuclear programme went into effect, seeing the latter scaling back its nuclear power infrastructure in exchange for modest sanctions relief from the world.

Hang on, I didn't catch that. If the above statement didn't quite make any sense to you, then you've come to the right place. In my first article, I'll try to answer the most basic questions on the Iranian nuclear programme and also explain why such an agreement is important not just for the Middle East and the world in general, but also for the Philippines and Filipinos -- you. (Shout-out to people I know who love their cars or pay for their own gas : it may seem unconnected, but this article is VERY relevant for you)

(N.B. This article is admittedly quite long. I tried to shorten it but doing so would make the issue even harder to understand. Just give it a go, read on, and if by the time you reach the end and still don't understand anything then I owe you a 100 bucks*).

Let's get started. Does Iran have a nuclear programme ? 

The Islamic Republic of Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which means that it renounces the use of nuclear weapons, and that it agrees to regular inspections from the UN atomic watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to verify that, indeed, the country isn't pursuing a path to nuclear military technology. So it is clear that in writing as well as in words, Iran is not interested in nuclear armament.

However, it's important to note that Iran nevertheless currently has an existing civilian nuclear infrastructure in place. This is because the NPT does NOT ban civilian or peaceful uses of nuclear technology (which is how Marcos was able to pursue such technology back before things got a little out of control) as an alternative source of energy as well as providing a boon to medicinal research.


So what's the fuss all about ? They're not bent on acquiring weapons, end of story.

Not quite. This is where it gets complicated, so try to bear with me.

The fuss is because, despite Iran's pronouncements of peace and its NPT signatory status, there's evidence that Iran is building a nuclear weapons capability within its nuclear infrastructure. Now I'm not a nuclear physicist, but for the sake of giving a general statement, nuclear technology by its very nature has dual uses; it can be used for civilian or military technology. So even when Iran reaches nuclear weapons capability -- the threshold where countries can finally start weaponisation itself -- it doesn't necessarily follow that they will acquire the weapons themselves, instead channel the benefits of such a capability into civilian uses (Japan and Brazil possess such a weapons capability and yet nobody's splitting hairs that they might get the weapon itself). Still confused ? Think of those peaceful monks that regularly practise some sort of martial art not because they want to get into a fight -- a clear benefit of practising -- but for some health benefit and mental peace of mind, another sort of benefit. So while these monks potentially have the capability to whoop someone's ass, they choose not to. And so whether Iran really is scheming to acquire weapons is a moot point.

Don't let the shy smile fool you. He will kick your ass
(Source : Wikimedia Commons)

The Iranian nuclear programme has been thoroughly politicised as well because of two main things. First, while today Iran regularly gets accused of human rights abuses, repression of political activists and sponsoring terrorism, there already exists a history of bad blood between the United States and the Islamic Republic. In 1953 the Americans helped their British peers engineer a coup d'état against Iran's first democratically elected president (familiar story ?) and reinstalled the Shah (king) of Iran as ruler. Deeply unpopular and resented by his subjects as an American puppet, he was deposed himself in 1979 during the Iranian Revolution, establishing the current regime that exists today. During the revolution, protesting Iranian students stormed the US embassy and held the staff there hostage for 444 days, drastically downgrading relations between the two countries. The following year, the United States aided Saddam Hussein's Iraq's (yep, the same Iraq which the Americans invaded in 2003) invasion of Iran, lasting for eight years. The war reached a climax when the US shot down an Iranian civilian airliner, killing all 290 passengers and crew onboard, something which understandably angered the Iranians. Fast forward to 2002 where you have President Bush Jr including Iran in his "axis of evil" speech, ironically putting Iran alongside its former nemesis Iraq. This, even after Tehran covertly assisted Washington in hunting after Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan after 9/11. And finally, of course, the existing sanctions regime, which the Americans have over the years increasingly tightened, doesn't really endear the latter to the Iranians either.

So we've established that the Iranians don't see eye-to-eye with the United States, the world's sole superpower. The other reason why the nuclear issue is blown way out of proportion is because Iran isn't loved by some of its immediate neighbours either. Cases in point are Israel and Saudi Arabia, who both happen to be important allies for the United States. Each has their own reason for hostility towards Iran; Israel fears that Iran's hellbent on destroying it. Saudi Arabia, a Sunni Muslim kingdom, sees a rising Shia Iran as a threat to the region's status quo (Sunnism and Shi'ism are two rival strands of Islam. Think Christian Catholics going up against Protestants). Some observers fear that if Iran gets its hands on nuclear weapons, that could trigger an arms race within the broader region, giving the United States another headache. Others think that a nuclear-armed Iran is actually better for the region's stability.

The Sunni Saudis don't like to see a return of Shi'ite Iran as a regional power
(Source : Wikipedia)

Okay okay so the United States and most Middle Eastern countries don't like Iran. Enough with the history lesson. What's this sanctions regime that gets on Iran's nerves ? 

Economic sanctions are trade and/or financial restrictions imposed by a country/group of countries (e.g. the P5+1) on another country (e.g. Iran) that overtime cripple its economy in the hope that the sanctioned country succumbs to pressure from the sanctioning countries. Okay that sounded like a mouthful, but in short it's a political weapon used by powerful countries in order to achieve desired goals (such as regime change, which the Iranian government is accusing the United States of) in another country without having to go to war. American sanctions on Iran have been in place since after the Iranian Revolution, and these have only gotten tighter since 2006 with the UN joining in. The effectiveness of sanctions is questionable since it usually means more hardship for the poorer sections of the targeted society. For example, US and EU sanctions have caused medicine shortages, leading to the death of a teenage boy from hemophilia.

Pretty harsh. But is Iran really "guilty" ? 

This is a very difficult question to answer as it is basically an argument over its intentions. Some commentators think Iran is being deceitful, some think they genuinely only want the civilian uses of nuclear technology, and still some others are undecided. It's also worth noting that Iran has in the past repeatedly breached additional safeguards agreements as reported by the IAEA and have failed to properly account for some of its nuclear activity as well. What makes this fact even more complicated STILL is that the report, which was approved by the IAEA Board of Governors, saw TWELVE abstentions, making it a highly non-consensual decision. And plus... Okay instead of further boring you with the minute intrigue, let's just agree that it was a dizzying and complex process.

This is why, despite assertions that Iran's programme is peaceful, I'm regretfully part of the group which is undecided on Iran's true agenda. Still, I am inclined to believe that Iran does not harbour any nuclear ambition.

Okay it's a complicated matter then. So how were the US and Iran able to come to agree on a deal ?

How Iran and America came to an at least preliminary agreement is a long tale, but the main thing you need to know is that the 2013 election of current Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, a pragmatic moderate who replaced the hardline and often abrasive Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, did much to lessen the vitriol and thaw frosty relations. In fact, Presidents Obama and Rouhani held a phone conversation last September 27, 2013. It's supposedly a big deal because the last time these nations' leaders had direct contact was way back in 1979 before the Iranian Revolution.

Twitter-certified
 (Source : Robert Mackey, The New York Times)

A caveat here, better listen up. It's worth noting that this is an "interim" deal lasting only six months, meant as a confidence-building measure as each side gives and takes. The hope is that this could lead to a more comprehensive final arrangement that sees the total lifting of sanctions, the normalisation of US-Iran ties, and Iran pursuing civilian nuclear technology while complying with regular inspections from the IAEA.

Of course this is the ideal state of things, and most experts, even supporters of the temporary deal, are skeptical that this will lead to the holy grail of US-Iran friendship. A lot of things could go wrong along the way: Iran obstructing full inspections, Israel deciding to act on its own and attack Iran anyway (which would actually have the opposite effect. Think about it, if Israel attacks Iran then that only confirms the latter's worst fears about its neighbours' intentions, and thus it will have no other choice but to acquire nuclear weapons for self-defence), or a renewed push by US hardliners and the Israeli lobby, mainly President Obama's Republican opponents but also Democratic senators fearful of losing their seats in the upcoming US midterm elections, to enforce yet another round of fresh sanctions even though the agreement explicitly called for the suspension of such new sanctions (to see the exact details of the agreement, see the Joint Plan of Action). It's not difficult then to imagine the Iranians walking out on the deal if the Americans don't stick to their end of the bargain. Worse, the United States' credibility would take a hit in the eyes of the P5+1 and the rest of its allies. Finally, this would vindicate Iran's own hardliners who have argued against negotiating with America, thus shoring up their own power and rendering Iran even more intransigent.

That looks like a tough sell, and it does seem that Obama is putting his reputation on the line for a razor-thin deal. So what do you think ? 

I mentioned that any lasting agreement would be vulnerable to technical and/or political hiccups, and Obama himself admitted only a 50-50 chance for the current deal to succeed. But the benefits of such a comprehensive agreement between two former arch-nemeses far outweigh the costs. I won't delve too long on the finer details of such benefits, but off the top of my head normal-US Iran ties and a lifting of sanctions would mean, aside from a nuclear weapon-free Iran :

1) a chance for Iran to finally rebuild its crippled economy and therefore aid its struggling citizens

2) a chance for Iran to reopen its crude oil supply to the world market by at least one million barrels of crude a day and therefore bring down world prices

3) a chance for Iran, as a traditionally major regional power, to contribute to the region's stability by working together with the United States on key strategic issues (Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Israel and the Palestinians, regional terrorism, etc)

4) And of course a chance for peace and security in the region.

And so, in my humble capacity as a budding foreign affairs analyst, I believe that the deal should be given a chance.

Also, consider it from this perspective. Let's say Iran does get its hands on a nuclear weapon. Will it really use it on Israel or even the United States ? Let's see, there are nine states currently known to possess nuclear weapons, yet nobody has ever used nuclear weapons, excepting the two bombs the United States dropped on Japan in 1945, for the simple reason of mutually assured destruction (MAD), the simple concept that attacking another country with nuclear weapons would guarantee the same destruction in return. Eye for an eye. And considering the United States possesses upwards of 5000 of these babies which are enough to destroy the world multiple times over, a more appropriate comparison would be an eye for the whole family plus relatives up to the third generation. I don't think anyone in his right mind is willing to toe the line unless he's that eager to see his country flattened. As I mentioned earlier, the worst-case scenario of a nuclear-armed Iran is a localised arms race. So you'll have a bunch of other nuclear Arab countries, Israel, and Iran staring each other down but not crazy enough to start the third world war. Expect loads of empty bluster and saber-rattling but no real action. Puro hangin lang.

I can confirm, Iran's a threat
 (Source : Truthaholics)

Well I'm Filipino and I live halfway across the world so this doesn't mean jack to me or my country.

Aside from the fact that millions of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) work in the Middle East and that any political instability in the region could affect the lives of these OFWs (as was the case during the recent Arab Spring revolutions and subsequent evacuations of Filipinos by the Philippine government pursuant to the third pillar of Philippine foreign policy, giving assistance to nationals), there are reasons why the Iran issue matters to the Philippines.

As mentioned earlier, Iran is a major exporter of crude oil and ever since the United States led the international embargo against Iran, international oil prices have soared. For the Philippines, which is heavily dependent on imported oil, this can only mean bad news. For example, in 2011 we were importing somewhere in the ballpark of 6 million barrels of crude from Iran. By March 2012 the US had pressured a reluctant Aquino administration into ceasing all Iranian imports lest we face sanctions ourselves. Have you ever stopped to complain and wonder why local gas prices have kept rising the past few years ? I'm not saying that the Iranian nuclear crisis is the ONLY factor determining the global price of crude, but from an easy 6 million barrels of oil to zero -- that's definitely something. It's in this manner that the interim deal specifically and US-Iran relations generally influence how much bang for your buck you're getting the next time you load up at Caltex. Finally, sanctions have also hurt local banana producers who export 30% of their wares to Iran.

Aside from the economics, we also have strong politico-cultural relations with the Islamic republic despite the Philippines being a traditional US ally. Manila and Tehran both have embassies with each other and both have hosted cultural exchanges in the past and are keen to expand tourism. A large number of Iranian students come to study in the Philippines. I'm sure some of you, especially students in medicine and/or dentistry (I've no idea if dentistry should be lumped under "medicine" generally. I apologise for my ignorance), have Iranian friends or acquaintances since a lot of them come here to take advantage of studying low-cost English (and not to mention a less politically hostile environment compared to the United States), including those unfortunate souls who died in a Cebu bus accident in 2010.And it helps that Iran is one out of the many countries that extended aid to the Philippines in the wake of Yolanda's destruction last November 2013.

Although it did suck when the Iranians ripped team Philippines
(Source : AP, Saudi Gazette)

Finally, the Philippines, and any sovereign state for that matter, always has something to contribute to world peace and stability despite being a country with relatively little influence. Just check this guy out. I've just listed down the particular areas of interests the Philippines has in relation to Iran, but more broadly I believe we also have a moral imperative as members of the international community to not just look on from the sidelines, but to constantly lend our voice to any pressing issue if what's at stake here are people's lives and their freedoms, not just of Filipinos but of all human beings.


That's all I have for now. Comments, criticisms and stinging accusations of perfidy are all welcome !

DISCLAIMER : This article was prepared or accomplished by the author in his personal capacity. The opinions expressed in this article are the author's own and do not reflect the view of the Foreign Service Institute, the Department of Foreign Affairs, or the Philippine government. 

---

*joke lang