EU Pettiness on Sequencing

Just a quick post to decry the pettiness of this move by the EU, insisting on an “Iran has to go first” sequencing of the actions agreed to in the Joint Action Plan.  This comes hard on the heals of this really unfortunate and stupid move by the US, adding over a dozen names of Iranian companies and individuals to the US sanctions blacklist last week. Iran responded to the US move by abruptly ending ongoing talks with the P5+1 in Vienna, and having their delegation return to Tehran. This would appear to be a message from Iran to the P5+1 about the fragility of the recent accord – one that I had hoped would be received in the West. I know that there are elements in each government involved that want to derail this diplomatic course of dispute resolution. I will hope that those elements in favor of diplomacy, will work to prevent this kind of reckless gamesmanship going forward.

NPT 2.0?

Friend of ACL Dr. Yousaf Butt, who is now Director of the Emerging Technologies program at the Cultural Intelligence Institute in DC, wrote an interesting and provocative article about what an “NPT 2.0” could look like. It came out around Christmas time last year and seems to have slipped under the radar so I just wanted to highlight it on the blog and get some reactions from the community. I think it’s an important piece, and that it really should start a debate. See the piece here:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/12/18/radioactive_decay?page=full

I think this kind of normative, forward looking thinking is very important, to lift our heads above the trenches of our, as Yousaf puts it, “endless eye-watering legal debates” about the meaning of the NPT, and remember that the NPT was never meant to be the last word on international legal regulation of nuclear energy and nuclear weapons.  As I argued in my 2009 book, the NPT was seen at the time of its establishment as something of a halfway house – an interim measure to at least stop horizontal nuclear weapons proliferation from getting worse. But as Article VI of the NPT makes clear, the haves-and-haves-not legal framework that the NPT recognizes was never meant to be permanent. Article VI explicitly looks toward future disarmament by the NWS, and further treatymaking that would facilitate this. At some point we are definitely going to need to take a bold next step and redesign the foundational nuclear energy/proliferation international legal framework.  I think that this should happen sooner rather than later, as the NPT has at this point been so thoroughly undermined, and its credibility battered to such an extent, that it seems now to limp along with little but inertia keeping it alive.   

The crux of Yousaf’s article is that the bargain at the heart of the NPT

has become increasingly skewed. Aside from the non-weaponization obligations — which apply only to states without nukes and which are ever more aggressively interpreted — the United States, and most other nuclear-weapon states, no longer appear enthusiastic about the other tenets of the NPT. To the extent that the nuclear haves are interested in disarmament, this is completely divorced from any pressure they perceive from the NPT. Such nuclear arms reductions are typically negotiated bilaterally between the United States and Russia and proceed at their own sweet pace…..Advanced states are also no longer particularly eager to help develop nuclear energy in developing nations — and this is actually a good thing. It is a dangerous and inherently dual-use technology and there ought to be no imperative to disseminate it world-wide, as there is in the NPT. It may have been seen as a panacea technology back when color television was still a novelty, but its dangerous underbelly — in terms of safety, security, and waste — has since been amply exposed.

Yousaf proposes a bold new “more-for-more” deal. The nuclear-weapon states — or at least Russia and the United States, with a hefty 95 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons between them – would offer swift and drastic reductions in their weapons stockpiles in exchange for the outright elimination of nuclear fuel processing activities (such as dual-use uranium enrichment and plutonium processing) in non-nuclear weapon states. 

Also, he states that a

notable difference between the NPT and NPT 2.0 would have to be that the updated version would not encourage the propagation of nuclear power. Aside from a few spectacular disasters, nuclear power has been reasonably successful in most advanced nations — but only because of overt and covert government subsidies. However, these subsidies and the attendant political favoritism have in fact harmed the nuclear industry by perpetuating subpar and, in some cases, outright dangerous reactor designs…..One thing that certainly does not make sense is to have a treaty to force-feed a flawed and dangerous Beatles-era technology to developing nations, as the NPT now does. Just as there is no treaty to send landline rotary phone technology to developing nations in the era of cell phones, there’s also no pressing reason to pass on outdated nuclear technology to non-nuclear-weapon states.

I think this piece is excellently written, and that on most points it’s a persuasive read with which I find myself in agreement.

I’ll just get the ball rolling on the debate, though, by saying that I’m not sure I agree with some of Yousaf’s specific prescriptions for a NPT 2.0.  I like the disarmament stuff, certainly. But I’m not sure I agree about the general policy turn away from nuclear energy that Yousaf has in mind codifying in a replacement NPT. It’s not an issue that I have a strong opinion about, and honestly it gets into some very complex energy policy, economic and environmental considerations that are really not my areas of expertise. But just as one layman on this topic, I suppose I’m someone who continues to think that nuclear energy could have an important role to play in the portfolio of energy capacity, at least in some regions of the world, going forward.  France, China and India certainly seem to think so. So I don’t think I would agree with any actual disincentives to having indigenous nuclear energy programs built into the replacement legal regime. If a country decides, on the basis of its own analysis of the relevant economic and other questions, that it wants to have an indigenous nuclear energy program and nuclear fuel cycle, it seems to me that the legal regime ought to recognize that as a legitimate choice and contain no barriers to it.

In emailing with Yousaf about this further, he has described his vision for an NPT 2.0 as being essentially “agnostic” about peaceful nuclear energy programs – i.e. that it would recognize the right of any nation to have whatever peaceful programs they want, but not advocate for nuclear energy, as the current NPT does, at least as written. I think that with that clarification, I can get on board with this new vision. I agree with Yousaf that our understanding of nuclear technology has changed since 1968, and it is a more complex question now as to whether having a nuclear energy program is right for any given country. So while I don’t think there should be barriers to states choosing to have a peaceful nuclear power program, I can also see how a multilateral program advancing nuclear power around the world is a bit anachronistic now.

With regard to fuel banks, which Yousaf mentions as part of his vision, I have to say I think there is more than one country in the world that would never be able to place their trust in a multilateral fuel bank, no matter where it’s located, and no matter what assurances of supply are given. Some states will simply be unwilling to have their fuel supply dependent upon these promises, and will want to have their own indigenous fuel cycle capacity. And I think it would be difficult and unnecessary to build into the legal regime a mechanism that would deny them that option.

Again, I’m just getting the ball rolling here on the debate. I encourage wide participation, and I’m sure Yousaf will be happy to engage with those who comment.

Is the Iran Agreement a Precedent for Nuclear Export Controls Generally?

That’s what this piece by Victor Gilinsky and Henry Sokolski asks over at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.  They argue:

The plan states that after the agreement is finalized “the Iranian nuclear program will be treated in the same manner as that of any non-nuclear weapon state party to the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty).” Turn the language around, and it says that the rules that apply to Iran’s nuclear program will be the ones that apply to all other NPT parties.

We, the authors, cannot emphasize too strongly that in view of the joint plan’s promise of equivalency between the rules for Iran’s nuclear program and “that of any non-nuclear weapon state party to the NPT,” the negotiation is not just about Iran. It is about the rules for nuclear power programs throughout the world.

I think this entire thesis by the authors is just frankly erroneous, and seems rather transparently bent on scaremongering in order to undermine further agreement between the P5+1 and Iran.   There’s no interpretive reason, in my view, to turn the text they refer to on its head as they have done, in order to give it more expansive meaning.  I think it’s clear that this provision simply means that in the commonly envisioned end state, and pursuant to a future comprehensive agreement, Iran’s nuclear program will be treated for purposes of nuclear exports, and generally by the P5+1, just as the nuclear programs of other NNWS have been treated.

I do not think, as the authors seem to, that this is some grand new declaration by the P5+1 about general standards for nuclear exports.  The fight over general nuclear export standards by supplier states wouldn’t happen in this forum. It would happen, as it always has, in the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which back in 2011 did decide on new guidelines relevant to export of enrichment and reprocessing technologies.  I wrote about this here at the time.

So in my opinion, this piece by Gilinsky and Sokolski should be filed away in your “Disregard” folder.

The European Court of Justice Weighs in on EU Sanctions on Iranian Businesses

I recently came across a high quality blog that covers European sanctions law and policy.  I recommend it highly to readers. There’s a lot of good material on the blog about the EU’s sanctions on Iranian businesses, and the line of EU court cases that have considered them, and in several instances now struck them down as violative of principles of due process, as I explained here.

The most recent post on the blog is an excellent commentary by Maya Lester on two recent European Court of Justice cases, that were appeals of two of these EU General Court cases.  Lester is right to say that these ECJ cases are extremely important in providing guidance to the General Court, and to national courts within the EU, on European law regarding such sanctions. Lester gives a very good analysis, concluding that the ECJ appears to generally agree with the reasoning of the General Court, with a few significant exceptions.  A must read on EU law regarding sanctions on Iran.

Why is the US OK with Israel Having Nuclear Weapons and Not Iran?

A very good piece in the Washington Post on Monday asks this question, and includes this insightful quote from Joe Cirincione:

The dilemma for Israel is that, should Iran ever develop a nuclear warhead, Israel will surely feel less unsafe if it has its own nuclear deterrent. But, ironically, Israel’s nuclear arsenal may itself be one of the factors driving Iran’s program in the first place.

“History tells us that Israel’s position as the sole nuclear-armed state in the region is an anomaly — regions either have several nuclear states or none,” said Cirincione, of the nonproliferation Ploughshares Fund. “At some point, for its own security, Israel will have to take the bombs out of the basement and put them on the negotiating table.”

Response to Mark Hibbs on Iran Negotiations and the IAEA

Mark Hibbs has written a new piece over at Arms Control Wonk entitled “The IAEA After the Iran Deal.”  Since I am persona non grata at Arms Control Wonk these days, I’ll have to respond to Mark’s post here.

As an aside, I still think it’s a shame that the mainstream nonproliferation epistemic community essentially refuses to engage with me and with my critiques. Their strategy seems to be to welcome inside their tent of engagement and regard any and all who essentially agree with them, reciprocally congratulating each other on being “the expert community” on nonproliferation, and shutting out from meaningful engagement and debate any that offer a serious critique of their commonly agreed narrative and assessment of correctness and incorrectness.   In international legal academia, if someone makes a serious, well founded argument that challenges the orthodox understanding on an issue, even if we don’t agree with that critique, we respect the new contribution to literature, and seek to engage collegially with that person.  We promote true, rigorous exchanges with colleagues, like the one I recently enjoyed with Marko Milanovic and others in the comments to my cross-posted piece over at EJIL:Talk.  In my view, the nonproliferation epistemic community, particularly in the US, continues by contrast to be cliquish, incestuous, willfully insulated, and self-referential, to its detriment.

I don’t mean this to be a particular jab at Mark.  As I’ve said before, I think that Mark’s work overall is extremely valuable. He’s one of the most knowledgeable and plugged-in people in nonproliferation studies. I have disagreed with him on some discrete points in the past, but I find myself in almost complete agreement with him in his assessment in this new piece.  In it, he considers what the role of the IAEA will be in the implementation of the new Iran/P5+1 deal, and whether the IAEA has the legal authority and resources to perform this role.

I agree with Mark that I don’t see any serious legal problems posed by the role that the deal text assumes/implies will be played by the IAEA in implementing its terms. Mark goes through the issues in detail, and I concur in his analysis.  Mark insightfully quotes Article III(A)(5) of the IAEA Statute, which provides that:

The Agency is authorized… to establish and administer safeguards designed to ensure that special fissionable and other materials, services, equipment, facilities, and information made available by the Agency or at its request or under its supervision or control are not used in such a way as to further any military purpose; and to apply safeguards, at the request of the parties, to any bilateral or multilateral arrangement, or at the request of a State, to any of that State’s activities in the field of atomic energy. (emphasis added)

I would only add to Mark’s analysis that I see both the November 11 Joint Statement between the IAEA and Iran, and the November 24 Joint Plan of Action – both of which are informal and legally nonbinding – as essentially amending Iran’s subsidiary arrangements with the IAEA; or in the case of the November 24 JPA, at least signalling Iran’s willingness to amend them (as Mark correctly points out, the IAEA was not a party to the November 24 JPA). As I’ve stated previously, subsidiary arrangements between the IAEA and safeguarded NNWS are best understood to be legally nonbinding, and simply to stipulate agreed procedures for implementation of the safeguards agreement between the two parties. So, on points on which the new agreements diverge from or add to Iran’s existing subsidiary arrangements with the IAEA, I think it’s best to understand that these are in effect amendments to those subsidiary arrangements – legally nonbinding but still important agreements on modes of implementation of Iran’s safeguards agreement with the IAEA.

After correctly observing that neither of the new agreements specifically reference the IAEA’s allegations of possible military dimensions (PMD) of Iran’s nuclear program, Mark concludes with this statement:

Iran has not provided the IAEA answers to any key PMD-related questions since 2009. It is unlikely that all of these questions will be answered during the next six months. How much information the Iran gives to the IAEA will no doubt be subject to negotiation during this period along the lines of what the IAEA and Iran agreed upon on November 11 in Tehran. At the end of a year, assuming that six months will not suffice to reach a comprehensive settlement of the Iran conundrum, perhaps the biggest challenge will then appear: If we assume that Iran implements all other conditions of the Joint Plan of Action, save divulging what may be compromising details about its previous nuclear activities, how much about Iran’s most sensitive nuclear past must the IAEA know for the six powers to make a deal with Iran looking into the future?

I am glad to see commentators like Mark implicitly recognizing that the IAEA’s misapplied obsession with Iran’s past alleged research activities, is very likely to pose an unnecessary stumbling block to achieving a comprehensive accord between Iran and the West on Iran’s nuclear program.  I have criticized this element of the IAEA’s approach toward Iran’s case previously here and here.  I was glad to see that the PMD issue was not specifically referenced in either of the new agreements, and I hope that it will be essentially marginalized as an issue in further negotiations towards a comprehensive accord. I think that this will be critical for the success of such negotiations, and that a decision by the West and the IAEA to force the issue could potentially derail the course of what is the best opportunity for a realistic resolution to the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program in a decade.

Arms Control Law Chosen as one of the ABA Journal’s 2013 Blawg 100!!!!!!!

Remember back in July when I posted that the American Bar Association Journal was seeking nominations for its annual list of the 100 best legal blogs? Yeah, me neither. I had basically forgotten about it, thinking that there was pretty much no chance ACL would make the list.  But I just got the official word today that Arms Control Law has been chosen for the ABA Journal’s 2013 Blawg 100 list, as one of the top 100 best blogs for a legal audience!!! 

See the official announcement here.

Here’s what they say about ACL:

We are highly impressed by this freshman blog—even if its matter-of-fact posts on bioterrorism and nuclear proliferation keep us up at night. The bloggers have their fingers on the pulse of the sometimes-clandestine international arms race and the treaties that aim to stop it. Columns have examined fallout from the NSA surveillance scandal and legal implications for chemical weapon attacks in Syria. It’s a must-read for foreign policymakers, but also easily accessible to the layperson.

I’m really thrilled about this. Its extremely gratifying. I don’t want to turn this into an academy award speech, but I do want to thank our readers who took the time to nominate ACL for this distinction.

Blogging is something that I only started doing a little over a year ago, and I do sometimes question whether the benefits outweigh the costs of time and effort, and the fights that I seem to get pulled into.  But I have found blogging to be overall a valuable complement to my normal academic work, and this new recognition helps to convince me that our efforts here are seen to be valuable by others.  This will help to keep me going.

So congratulations to all of my fellow bloggers, and thanks to our readers!!!!

The New Deal Between the P5+1 and Iran

Like many, I stayed up late Saturday night following the Twitter updates of what was developing in the Geneva negotiations between Iran and the P5+1.  And like most, I was thrilled to hear that an initial accord had been reached. A historic agreement that potentially signals a thawing in relations between Iran and the West – the best such indication since 1979. It was a night of high drama.

I’ve now had a chance to read over the product of this agreement – a four page document entitled Simply “Joint Plan of Action.”

I would observe first of all that I agree with Duncan Hollis in his assessment over at Opinio Juris that this agreement is intended by the parties to be non-legally-binding. Duncan provides a review of the reasons for this conclusion. As I noted in a comment to his post, I think the diplomats in Geneva had enough trouble reaching agreement on a text in this politically binding form, and would have shuddered at the thought of having to get it approved by their respective legislatures.

However, legally non-binding international agreements can still have significant legal, as well as political, implications.

The document lays out in detail Iran’s commitments under the accord. They comprise a very significant list of concessions, cumulatively limiting Iran’s nuclear program and preventing any further development of the program for the six month duration of the agreement. I think it is worth noting that all of these steps together comprise a more significant list of concessions than was expected by most observers. Nevertheless, it is also important to note that none of them, and not even their sum, is beyond what Iran had already offered in past negotiations, going back at least to 2005. See this summary of official negotiation proposals going back to 2003.  This observation provides support for Hossein Mousavian’s observation in his recent FT piece that:

[T]he idea that it is sanctions that have brought Tehran to the table is wrong. The real cause is the desire of new President Hassan Rouhani to reach a rapprochement with the US, the EU, its neighbours and other world powers, alongside the fact that the US red line has changed from “no enrichment of uranium” to “no nuclear bomb”.

With all of these concessions, one might wonder what’s in this new deal for Iran? Roughly $7 billion in sanctions relief? Yes. That’s certainly useful, particularly for newly elected Iranian President Rouhani’s domestic audience, which is looking to hold him to his campaign promises of sanctions relief.

But much more important than the immediate sanctions relief for Iran, is the fact that this agreement not only sets forth commitments undertaken by both sides during the agreed six month term, but it also sets forth a common vision of an end state, pursuant to a future comprehensive agreement, towards which this initial agreement is just the first step.  This has long been what Iranian nuclear negotiators have wanted – a negotiating framework with the West that includes an agreed understanding that once the negotiated commitments have all been satisfactorily fulfilled, all sanctions on Iran (both multilateral and unilateral) will be lifted; Iran’s noncompliance case with the IAEA will be closed; and Iran will be able to retain its indigenous full front-end nuclear fuel cycle, including uranium enrichment. This agreement provides for exactly such a commonly agreed vision of an end state.  Because of this, Iran was willing to make the significant concessions that it did.  Note these provisions from the agreement:

This comprehensive solution would involve a reciprocal, step-by-step process, and would produce the comprehensive lifting of all UN Security Council sanctions, as well as multilateral and national sanctions related to Iran’s nuclear programme.

and

Following successful implementation of the final step of the comprehensive solution for its full duration, the Iranian nuclear programme will be treated in the same manner as that of any non–nuclear weapon state party to the NPT.

Treating Iran’s nuclear program “in the same manner as that of any non-nuclear weapon state party to the NPT” means at least implicitly recognizing that, like many other NPT NNWS, Iran will have enduring full front end nuclear fuel cycle capabilities, including uranium enrichment.

Also when considering what Iran gets out of this agreement, it’s important to note what is not mentioned in the new agreement. There is no mention in the agreement whatsoever of the IAEA’s allegations of possible military dimensions (PMD) of Iran’s nuclear program. There was similarly no mention of this issue in Iran’s most recent agreement with the IAEA a couple of weeks ago. This is very significant, as it leaves out of the initial agreement any requirement for Iran to acknowledge these allegations, or to do any more to address them than it already has done. I have argued before on a number of occasions that the PMD allegations against Iran by the IAEA are both insubstantial, and irrelevant to Iran’s international legal obligations.

Iran also in this agreement undertakes no commitment either to suspend its uranium enrichment program, even temporarily, or to dismantle it. All serious observers agree at this point that Iran will have a uranium enrichment program on the other side of any comprehensive solution worked out with the West. This longstanding demand of the West and of Israel – that Iran give up its uranium enrichment capacity entirely – is not included in this agreement or in the negotiating framework it envisions.

What about all the fuss regarding Iran’s right to enrichment under NPT Article IV? As many will know, the inclusion in the new agreement of an explicit recognition of Iran’s right to enrich uranium was one of Iran’s key demands leading up to the Geneva negotiations. The week before the negotiations, however, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif seemed to back away from this demand, focusing on the independent existence of the right to peaceful nuclear energy, including enrichment, in international law. As he stated in a November 20 video posted on Youtube : 

Rights are not granted, and since they are not granted, they cannot be ceased.

During the Geneva negotiations, Iran was apparently unable to get into the agreed text the explicit recognition of its right that it long sought. However, after the agreement was signed, Zarif has maintained the position that such recognition was not necessary, because the right to peaceful use and enrichment is independently established in international law. As he stated in a Tweet on November 24:

The right to enrichment emanates from the inalienable right in NPT, defined by 2010 NPT Review Conference to include fuel cycle activities.

I have written about the right to peaceful nuclear energy recognized in Article IV(1) of the NPT quite extensively, including in a few online pieces over the past couple of weeks – see here and here. In these pieces, I’ve argued that Zarif is essentially correct that the NPT does provide for a right of peaceful nuclear energy research, production and use, that includes the right to enrich uranium.  I’ve further argued that this right has juridical implications for other states and international organizations, including the UN Security Council.

As I wrote a couple of weeks ago:

In my view, the recognition by over 190 states parties to the NPT that all states have such an inalienable right, which I interpret to include all elements of the full nuclear fuel cycle including uranium enrichment, strongly suggests that the right to peaceful nuclear energy research, production and use is one of the fundamental rights of states in international law. In my view, both fundamental and acquired rights of states should be understood to create in third parties, both states and international organizations, a legal obligation to respect those rights. This means that other states and international organizations are under an international legal obligation not to act in serious prejudice of states’ rights. In the case of fundamental rights, this reciprocal obligation is of a jus cogens order, meaning that all states and international organizations are under a jus cogens order legal obligation not to act to seriously prejudice the fundamental rights of other states. When states or international organization do act in serious prejudice of a state’s fundamental rights, that action is an internationally wrongful act, and implicates the international responsibility of the acting state or international organization.

According to this analysis, UN Security Council Resolution 1696, which commands Iran to cease uranium enrichment, constitutes a violation of international law, at least as to this particular command, and is void of legal effect (See Article 25 of the UN Charter).

Note that the often heard rebuttal to this argument, which references Article 103 of the UN Charter, is in fact erroneous and inapplicable. Article 103 of the UN Charter provides that “In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.”  My analysis, which is based on the recognition of a fundamental right of states in international law, and the juridical implication of an obligation in other states and international organizations to respect that right, is unaffected and unanswered by this provision, which merely recognizes that in the case of a conflict between UN member states’ international legal obligations under the Charter, and their obligations deriving from other sources, the Charter obligations trump.  It does not speak to the legal obligations of the Security Council as an organ of an international organization. Nor does it speak at all to conflicts between the obligations of the UN Charter, and the rights of states in international law. So again, Article 103 of the UN Charter is inapposite and inapplicable to this question.

I would recommend this analysis particularly to Kevin Jon Heller over at Opinio Juris, and to Ryan Goodman over at Just Security.  In my opinion, both are incorrect in their analysis of the juridical dynamic between the NPT Article IV(1) right on the one hand, and the decisions of the Security Council on the other.  Both give insufficient consideration to the juridical meaning of a right in international law, and rely on erroneous readings of Article 103 of the UN Charter, in drawing their conclusions.

I do think that, in light of the new agreement between Iran and the P5+1, there is now dissonance of an exponentially higher degree than before between what the P5 in particular have now agreed to with Iran directly (which implicitly recognizes that Iran will continue to enrich uranium), and the commands of the P5 in Security Council resolutions including 1696 and 1737 (which inter alia require Iran to cease uranium enrichment).  The fairly obvious implication of this dissonance is that, in order for the agreed framework of negotiations between the P5+1 and Iran to proceed, the Security Council will need to withdraw these commands and, as Marko Milanovic wrote in a comment to Heller’s post, “bless” the new agreement.

In closing, after reading the text of the new agreement, I am still thrilled that it has been accomplished. This is a mutually beneficial deal for all parties, and an important step in securing international peace and security. It sets forth an agreed vision of an enduring peace between Iran and world powers regarding Iran’s nuclear program. This first diplomatic step raises hopes of a broader normalization of relations between Iran and the West, higher than at any time in the past thirty-four years.

New FT Piece by Hossein Mousavian on Iran Sanctions Effectiveness

See the article here.

In this piece, friend of ACL Hossein Mousavian persuasively demonstrates the fallacy of arguments claiming that Western sanctions have been a success because they forced Iran to the negotiating table. As Mousavian, who was intimately involved in Iran’s earlier nuclear negotiations with the West, correctly points out, the negotiating history between Iran and the West includes a number of occasions stretching back a decade, during which Iran was willing to offer significant concessions in order to conclude an agreement. These serious attempts at negotiation by Iran occurred long before Western sanctions reached their recent abusive levels, and were in several cases only unsuccessful because of a failure on the part of Western negotiators to present a unified front and negotiate seriously and reasonably. As Mousavian summarizes:

[T]he idea that it is sanctions that have brought Tehran to the table is wrong. The real cause is the desire of new President Hassan Rouhani to reach a rapprochement with the US, the EU, its neighbours and other world powers, alongside the fact that the US red line has changed from “no enrichment of uranium” to “no nuclear bomb”.

My New IRD Piece on Iran’s Legal Right to Enrichment

Just today Iranian Diplomacy published a new piece from me on Iran’s legal right to enrichment:

http://www.irdiplomacy.ir/en/page/1924877/Does+Iran+Have+a+Legal+Right+to+Enrich+Uranium+Yes..html

If you’re following the current of Geneva negotiations on Twitter (follow Laura Rozen and Julian Borger) you’ll know that this issue is front and center today:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/21/iran-geneva-nuclear-talks-enrich-uranium-guarantee