While Zarif attempts to strike an optimistic tone of the possibility of a nuclear deal between the West and Iran, he offers no convincing evidence that Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful. The op-ed is a skillful mixture of evasions and blame-shifting but ultimately leaves too much unexplained. The most glaring omission of the op-ed is that there is no mention of the six Security Council resolutions adopted between 2006 and 2010 (Resolutions 1696, 1737, 1747, 1803, 1835 and 1929), written in reaction to Iran’s violations of its Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) commitments.
At least twelve members of the Security Council voted for each of the resolutions, and three of the resolutions were adopted unanimously. The first resolution was passed under the authority of Article 40 of the UN Charter. Subsequent resolutions were passed when Iran was found to be in violation of 1696 under Article 41 which calls for sanctions and other means of enforcement to bring the nation in violation into compliance. When Zarif writes of the nuclear negotiations between Iran and Europe a decade ago, “Prodded by the Bush administration, however, our counterparts demanded that we abstain from enrichment until at least 2015, effectively killing the chances of a deal,” he evades the truth that fears of Iran’s nuclear program were nearly universal, as expressed in the numerous Security Council votes.
The terms dictated to Iran were not arbitrary demands intended to deprive Iran of its ”rights, dignity and respect.” Rather, they were prompted by discoveries that Iran was cheating on the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that it signed. These discoveries in turn suggested that Iran may have other secret nuclear programs that have not yet been detected. While Zarif claims that “[i]llusions have in the past led to missed opportunities and should not be allowed to ruin the real prospect of the historic deal before us,” his tone is more confrontational than conciliatory. Towards the end of the op-ed, Zarif writes:
Today, we have a unique opportunity in our negotiations with the P5+1 to put in place long-term confidence-building measures, as well as extensive monitoring and verification arrangements, to provide the greatest assurance that Iran’s nuclear program will forever remain exclusively peaceful.
The hopeful tone of this sentence is outweighed by the confrontational tone of much of the rest of the op-ed. Zarif dismissed concern over Iran’s nuclear program as “maximilism,” “illusions,” “myth” and “phobia.” This is not the language of compromise. In his description of the aftermath of the nuclear negotiations a decade ago, Zarif writes:
As we approach 2015, the outcome of past maximalism and obsession with sanctions is clearly evident. In the past 10 years, Iran has gone from 200 to 20,000 centrifuges, our enrichment capacity has risen from 3.5 to 20 percent and the Arak heavy-water research reactor is less than a year from being commissioned.
Here Zarif is saying that Iran ratcheted up its nuclear program to get back at the West for not coming to an agreement. This isn’t compromise but defiance. Zarif echoes a sentiment he expressed in 2007 when he told The Washington Post, ” [I]f you follow this path, you will have a few more resolutions and we will have a few more centrifuges spinning in Natanz.” Zarif’s contention that Iran advanced its nuclear program as a response to adversarial positions taken by the West is also questionable. During his presidential campaign last year, Hassan Rouhani boasted that Iran used the pretext of negotiations as an opportunity to “complete” the nuclear program and increase the number of centrifuges to 3,000.
The problem with the op-ed isn’t just the message but the messenger. While many in the West portray Zarif as a moderate, his words and actions show otherwise.
