Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Rajab Safarov, director general of the Center for the Study of Modern Iran
What happened in Geneva? What is this agreement?
In fact Iran has made a huge commitment.
In fact it is a new course of the new Iranian government.
In fact, Iran has demonstrated its usual policy, but with some special peacefulness.
If you compare two things - the commitment that Iran took on and the obligations that the group of "six" takes, representing the world community ñ and put them on different scales, it is perfectly obvious that Iran has undertaken a huge amount of liabilities.
It was only due to the desire to rectify the situation, the desire to create an atmosphere of trust, to remove the suspicion and concern of the Western countries.
Vladimir Yevseyev, director of the Center for Public Policy Research
I believe that the event that took place in Geneva is really a very big diplomatic success.
An agreement was signed. But a deep study of this agreement allows me to doubt the possibility of its implementation in general.
I have no doubt that the Islamic Republic of Iran will honor its obligations under the first phase.
But let's see what the agreement that was signed in Geneva is.
There is the first stage there. The first stage is not based on any principle of gradualism and reciprocity.
Why? There's no reciprocity.
In fact it was an ultimatum that Iran has received, but not because it gave up, but because it received the most important thing ó the recognition of the right to enrich uranium.
In this respect, all the UN Security Council sanctions which were adopted against Iran are hung in the air, in fact.
Because they relied exactly on that. But look at what the final stage of this agreement dictates.
It is assumed that the duration of the agreement will be one year, and during this year they will be able to reach full agreement.
In it, for example, it is assumed that the parliament of Iran should ratify the Additional Protocol to the 1997 Agreement on the application of IAEA safeguards.
Personally, I express doubts that this can take place throughout the year.
In general, I think that, apparently, parliamentary elections should take place for this.
Anyway, the ratification of the additional protocol during the year, from my personal point of view, is highly questionable.
But even that's not the point. The West won tactically, and Iran ñ strategically.
But seeing the West's policy, I have a very strong feeling of deja vu.
I see that the West is making the same mistake as in 2003.
It believes that by suspending the Iranian program it is able to move on, and so it did not soften any basic sanctions.
What will we get as a result? We will find out that sanctions must be eased to some extent, but the crisis will not be resolved.
And in fact we are not going now to a situation where we can talk about resolving the crisis.
We're talking about the fact that, thanks to Iran, the first step was made. But there is no other potential.
I believe that the current actions of Iran cannot create any basis for moving forward.
This shows only an alleviation of some of the sanctions, but it does not give us any breakthrough, because for the Islamic Republic of Iran these 7 billion that Iran could hypothetically get are too little for such a powerful state like Iran.
It needs a completely different amount for development.
And from this point of view, I think that the West made a mistake.
It made a mistake when it insisted on such an approach which is completely deadlocked, on an approach that has already been implemented in 2003.
And I can remind you that for two years Iran did not enrich uranium.
And now? In the end, everything went back again to the situation that we have.