The Iranian government’s brutal repression of demonstrations against the death of Mahsa Amini puts the parties involved in negotiations on Iran’s nuclear power in an awkward position. France, but also US President Joe Biden, are caught in a pincer. And this while several points of contention remain. France 24 takes stock.
Live ammunition, attacks on students, arrests of journalists… The Iranian authorities are relentless in cracking down on protesters to silence the revolts that have rocked Iran since Mahsa Amini’s death on September 16.
A stance that could further complicate diplomatic negotiations between Iran and the major powers (Russia, China, France, Britain, Germany and the United States informally) to salvage the Iran nuclear deal, although negotiations have stalled after a year-and-a-half exchange .
The tone has been rising for a few days. Several European countries have called on Tehran to respect human rights. France in particular called on Tuesday October 4 for European sanctions against those responsible for these repressions, which have left more than a hundred dead, according to a report by the Norway-based NGO Iran Human Rights (IHR).
“In light of what is happening in Iran, stakeholders in the nuclear negotiations are less enthusiastic about trying to complete the deal at all costs,” notes David Rigoulet-Roze, associate researcher at Iris, a nuclear energy specialist. “For its part, the regime is reacting more harshly to the protests and is even less willing to make compromises that would make it feel weak. Therefore, it seems unlikely that Iran will change its position towards the West in nuclear negotiations.”
“We dance on a volcano”
Furthermore, as David Rigoulet-Roze decodes, “Human rights are not a technical variable of the agreement. This does not prevent interest groups – especially Westerners – from stating their positions outside of the negotiations. Such is the case with the aforementioned new sanctions by Europeans and Americans in relation to the ongoing repression of these demonstrations.”
“The issue of human rights is extremely important, but if the negotiators include them in the discussions, there will be no agreement. And the Islamic Republic will judge that it is an interference and use it as proof that these demonstrations are a conspiracy from abroad,” analyzes Thierry Coville, researcher at Iris and specialist on Iran.
It has already happened, with Iran’s Supreme Leader saying on Monday that the “riots” were being fomented by the United States and Israel and not organized by “ordinary Iranians.”
France’s chargé d’affaires was summoned to Tehran last week after the Quai d’Orsay condemned the “brutal repression” of the demonstrations. “Iran considered it an interference to recall the basic principles of human rights and thought it appropriate to inform our embassy,” Secretary of State Catherine Colonna said on Tuesday, after her own announcement of the subpoena Iranian chargé d’affaires in Paris.
In this context, France’s position, reluctant to call for sanctions against those responsible for Iran’s repression, “was perceived as a form of silence, albeit undoubtedly the result of more prudent logic… We continue to dance a volcano and there are lives lost in Iran at stake, Paris doesn’t want to aggravate an already tragic situation, France doesn’t want to add anything and give Tehran the pretext to justify conspiracy accusations with alleged international interference,” decodes David Rigoulet-Roze.
Joe Biden was caught in the crossfire
The Islamic Republic’s brutal response to the revolts in the Iranian streets has embarrassed American President Joe Biden in particular. As the midterm elections in the United States on November 8 approach, it is “difficult for him to commit to a nuclear deal with a country that doesn’t respect human rights,” said Thierry Coville.
An embarrassment that leads to double talk. Joe Biden said in a statement Monday that “this week the United States will impose new sanctions on those who violently target peaceful protesters” in Iran. White House spokeswoman Karine Jean-Pierre was quick to add that Washington could, on the one hand, condemn this repression and, on the other hand, continue negotiations to try to revive the 2015 international deal on Iranian nuclear weapons. “At the height of the Cold War, when President Reagan called the Soviet Union the ‘evil empire,’ he was also conducting arms control negotiations with the Russians,” she reasoned.
In August, Iran agreed to withdraw from demands that the United States remove the Revolutionary Guard Corps from the blacklist of terrorist organizations, marking one less point of contention.
Earlier this week, recent statements by Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman pointed to a rapprochement with the United States. Nasser Kanani said on Monday October 3 that “messages were exchanged between Iran and America” in New York, on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in mid-September, by European coordinator Enrique Mora and other senior officials. It was “still possible” to revive the nuclear deal, he added, saying that “through the European coordinator and some mediators, including the foreign ministers of neighboring countries, efforts are underway to exchange messages to reach an agreement.” “If the other side, especially the US government, shows political will, it is possible to reach an agreement in a short time,” he concluded.
Meanwhile, Tehran has released an Iranian-American Baquer Namazi, who has been jailed in Iran since 2016, and his son Siamak Namazi, who was arrested in 2015, releasing about $7 billion in funds stranded abroad, according to the Islamic Republic of Iran News Agency (IRNA).
With this gesture, “the Islamic Republic is taking a cautious step backwards,” said Thierry Coville, for whom “current events are pushing Tehran to show flexibility at the diplomatic level in order to reach an agreement.” “There may be adjustments in hostage diplomacy on the fringes to release some of the funds deposited. But that will not allow an agreement to be signed. An agreement is first and foremost a compromise that integrates a series of restrictions, and we’re not there yet,” says David Rigoulet-Roze angrily. And the researcher recalls that even before the demonstrations, “the Iranian side was engaged in a logic of obstruction stuck”.
Management after “No Deal”
Can these worrying concessions mitigate the mid-September postponement? Paris, Berlin and London, which were still hoping for an agreement after the summer, have lost patience with the acceleration of Iran’s nuclear program.
According to the latest quarterly report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Islamic Republic has continued to increase its stockpiles of enriched uranium up to 60%, which is close to weapons grade, and now has more than enough to start manufacturing a nuclear bomb if it enriches them a little. Another concern, since “Iran does not want to provide the IAEA with an answer on the presence of anthropogenic uranium found in three undeclared sensitive sites and related to the possible military dimension of Iran’s nuclear program: Marivan, Varamin and Turquzabad,” explains David Rigoulet -Roze, considering an impossible agreement under the current conditions. In a report released in May, the UN nuclear police officer pointed to Iran’s lack of “satisfactory answers” when asked about these three undeclared sites.
Another point of tension remains: Iranian negotiators are demanding that Joe Biden guarantee compliance with a future deal, even in the event of a presidential change in the United States in 2025. But for the American leader, this is simply impossible. “because the functioning of the American institutions does not allow it,” observes David Rigoulet-Roze. “Legally, Joe Biden cannot commit in the event of a majority change for one simple reason, which is the JCPOA [accord sur le nucléaire iranien] is not an international treaty, but an agreement. International treaties signed by the United States must be ratified by the United States Congress. However, there will never be a sufficient majority to confirm a possible Iranian treaty.
After a year and a half of intensive diplomatic exchange, the rescue of the Iranian nuclear agreement of 2015 is no longer relevant for this Iran specialist either. “It is the management of the post-‘non-agreement’ that is now considered hollow by Westerners in general and Americans in particular,” he believes. And this in the face of an Iran “which has become a country on the threshold [nucléaire] … knowing that they now have enough highly enriched uranium, coupled with inexhaustible know-how, to build a nuclear bomb if a political decision were made to do so. Which doesn’t seem to be the case yet.”