Skip to content

Iran agrees to curb nuclear activity at Geneva talK

by on December 1, 2013

The United States alongside 5 other world powers – Russia, Germany, UK, France & China sealed a land mark deal with Iran to curb its nuclear programme in hope that it would prevent them from building a nuclear bomb. This action was aimed at freezing key parts of the Iranian Nuclear program. The eased sanctions on the Iranians has left them with an astounding ‘sanctions relief’ worth about $7bn (£4.3bn) on sectors including precious metals.

The aim of the deal was to rectify the issue of trust that the West has with Iran; which has been suspected of possessing nuclear facilities for many years and has also been accused of hiding classified nuclear activities from UN weapons watchmen.

Following the aftermath of the negotiation, It may seem to be a win-win situation on both ends for the US and Iran as they both walked away from the Geneva negotiations smiling. Both have reached a consensus although their practical effects will be limited for a minimum period 6 months from the 24th November, until further talks to re-address the position and nuclear status Iran holds in the International community.

Iran has fully agreed to freezing any further progress in its nuclear activity by capping its uranium enrichment at 5% and neutralising its stockpile uranium enriched beyond the above mark, Iran has also agreed to give greater access to inspectors, including the stoppage of further development of plutonium in one of its biggest plants.

Although many of Iran’s centrifuge cascades have been inactive; it has in fact been restricting its enrichment process for quite some time now with unidentified reasons for doing so. So it is safe to say that it is not giving up an awful lot nor is it gaining much apart from the financial relief it has received in the name of ‘sanctions relief’ Other sources say that Iran has been “buying time” with the West while undergoing negotiations and at the same time increasing the operating centrifuges which are utilised to enrich uranium.

There have been fears for years among the International community that despised the idea of allowing Iran to have access to nuclear facilities capable of creating a deadly bomb. It is clear to see that the sanctions that took years to implement are suddenly eased. Iran has only taken the fundamental steps towards the withdrawal or halting of its uranium capabilities. The flaw in the whole negotiation is that Iran has not provided an incentive that outlines its steps towards the dismantling of its nuclear facilities. All Iran has done is conformed to the UN’s instructions to not produce any further as opposed to taking the steps to dismantling any nuclear capabilities. None of this information is in the agreement which leaves it intact. Iran’s conformities could very well be reversed due to the lack of precision in the agreement.

Mr Obama said that “the burden is on Iran to prove to the world that its nuclear programme will be exclusively for peaceful purposes.” One would say that this is too big of a risk to take by Mr Obama, the questions I would ask him are – what about your relations with Israel, your ally that is an arch enemy of Iran because surely this will put a strain on the foreign relations between the trio. ‘Is it safe to give billions of dollars of relief to a country that has once forcefully declared itself as a nuclear state and showed signs or aggressiveness in the year 2010 February the 9th ? One would beg to differ. It will be very interesting to see what will take place in the time leading to the next Geneva gathering to discuss the conditions and future Iran has with its nuclear acquisitions in 6 months’ time.







From → Uncategorized

One Comment
  1. This piece presents a coherent account of the change in Iran’s position and the formation of an international agreement. Unfortunately it isn’t clear how this relates to the themes of the module. You have discussed a multilateral agreement, not an instance of public diplomacy. It is difficult to see how you could make this entry relevant to the module. A lot of refocusing would be required.

    In terms of the construction of this post, please provide references in the text of the post in support of certain points (e.g., on whose authority do you know that “it has in fact been restricting its enrichment process for quite some time now with unidentified reasons for doing so”?). And the video and photograph would have been better placed within the blog post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: