Khamenei’s Short Response, Conflict in the Majlis

While the leader of the Islamic republic welcomed the nuclear agreement reached between Iran and the West on Sunday in a few short sentences, and Kayhan declared that the agreement was violated just an hour after it was signed, the absence of express language in the text of the accord that would have affirmed Iran’s right to nuclear enrichment  resulted in conflict in the Majlis. Israeli immediately announced that it was not bound by the agreement and the head of Iran’s expediency council made statements about the differences expressed over the agreement. At the same time Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar did not respond to the agreement the day it was announced. On its return to Iran, the country’s negotiations team was welcomed by groups of people who chanted, “After the Geneva Agreement, We Will Deal With Mir-Hossein”, a reference to their calls to free the leaders of the Green Movement who have been under house arrest since early 2011.

Ayatollah Khamenei who had three months ago called on the Iranian diplomats to display “heroic flexibility” in the talks, responded to Rouhani’s letter of congratulations to the leader by writing, “Resistance to the over-demands must continue to be the criteria of the straight course of the relevant officials; and it will be so; God willing.”

Khamenei’s 65 word letter was a response to Rouhani’s 359 word letter that the latter sent to the supreme immediately after the nuclear agreement had been reached in Geneva in which he wrote, “the specific achievements of this agreement have been the recognition of the nuclear rights of the Iranian people and the protection of the nuclear accomplishments of the children of this land, and along with it, with the suspension of the oppressive sanctions, parts of the illegal and unilateral sanctions have been lifted and the dismantlement of the sanctions regime has begun.”

In contrast, ayatollah Khamenei’s introductory language in his response is noteworthy as he throws the ball into Rouhani’s court with these words: “Accomplishing ‘to what you have written’ is commendable with appreciation for the negotiations team and other officials.” This language makes a range of interpretations possible.

Ambiguity on the Right to Enrich Uranium

Immediately after the signing of the agreement, Iran’s foreign minister Mohammad-Javad Zarif and US secretary of state John Kerry expressed two different positions regarding Iran’s right to enrich uranium in the first press conferences after the signing, which became the headline of yesterday’s issue of Rajanews website which is closely tied to former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It read, “Zarif: Enrichment has been official recognized for Iran; Kerry: Enrichment has not been recognized for Iran. This enrichment is for a short period.”

Zarif, who also announced that Iran was ready for the final settlement of the issues expressly told a group of internal reporters, “Our right is clearly stated in the NPT which recognizes that this right must be recognized. There are at least two instances in the Geneva agreement where Iran’s right to enrichment is clearly stated  and that Iran’s enrichment program will continue.”

In contrast, John Kerry, also speaking to reporters, said, “Iran had agreed to stop enrichment activities to levels beyond five percent uranium purity and to destroy its stockpiles of uranium. Whereas Iran currently has about 200 kilograms of uranium that is of 20 percent enrichment grade, in six months the amount of this uranium will be reduced to zero and Iran shall not have new centrifuges and has the right only to replace existing ones.”

But Iran’s commitments as they appear in the text of the agreement are that “Iran will not enrich uranium over 5 percent for the duration of the six months,” that “it will not make any further advances of its activities at the Natanz Fuel Enrichment Plant1, Fardow2, or the Arak reactor3, designated by the IAEA as IR-40.” In addition, Iran undertakes to provide “daily IAEAS inspector access” to Fardow and Natanz sites and “IAEA inspector managed access” to centrifuge assembly workshops4, centrifuge rotor production workshops and storage facilities; and, uranium mines and mills. In return, Iran shall not face new sanctions during the six months period regarding the nuclear issue; some of the sanctions regarding gold and other precious metals, parts of the auto industry and also the export of the petrochemical industry shall be suspended, resulting in Iran’s earnings of about 1.5 billion US Dollars.

From the text therefore, it appears that immediate suspension of uranium enrichment to 20 percent purity is stressed and the dismantling of Fardow, which had been an earlier demand of the P5+1, has been dropped. At the same time, the talk of American officials of ending the  production of plutonium indicates that work at the Arak plant shall continue except the activities related to heavy water production.

Tension and Chaos in the Majlis

While the announcement of an agreement between Iran and the P5+1 resulted in expressions of joy to Iranian and Western diplomats and received support on the online social networks, it did not bring calm to the hardline principlists in Iran’s Majlis and resulted in conflict on the floor.

The strongest tension erupted between Hamid Rasai and Mohammad Hassan Abutorabifard. Immediately after the head of the Majlis announced his appreciation for the “valuable efforts” of the negotiating diplomats, “particularly” the foreign minister, Hamid Rasai, a representative close to the previous administration spoke against the Geneva agreement and said, “People’s representatives are not yet aware of the text of the agreement between Iran and the P5+1 powers and so I am surprised what is Mr. Torabi congratulating everybody about. We do not yet know what exactly has been agreed.”

He also referenced the Rajanews report about the differences of views between Iran and the US over the issue of enrichment rights and said, “The issue is that the foreign minister of Iran says one thing while the representative of the US says something different, the US president says something different and Iran’s television network reports the conflicting nature of these statements.”

Hashemi Rafsanjani’s View

Hashemi Rafsanjani who has been Hassan Rouhani’s long-time supporter responded to the agreement with these words: “While the text of the agreement does not specifically express Iran’s right to enrichment, but this issue is stressed in Iran’s agreement in the NPT and that every country naturally has the right to use peaceful nuclear industry and can also engage in enrichment.” The head of Iran’s expediency council continued that “they did not want to include such language, but it did not matter because they have said that you can continue. If they had said that you have the right, then other countries would have made similar demands.”

It appears that the words of the French foreign minister Laurent Fabius support the view of Iran’s former president. Fabius who two weeks ago had turned into a negative personality in Iran because of his opposition to the first draft of the agreement between the two sides, on Sunday announced, “The agreement between Iran and the P5+1 powers provides for Iran’s right to peaceful enrichment of uranium while shutting Iran’s access to nuclear weapons.”

In Israel on the other hand extremists and hardline media outlets, including prime minister Netanyahu have said that the agreement has made the world a more dangerous place. Netanyahu called the agreement a “historic mistake.” He added that he would never accept the terms of this agreement and qualified that by saying that Israel maintained its right to defend itself and relied solely on its own power.” John Kerry however said that Israel was in fact now safer than the past.