Are the Iranian Nuclear Negotiations About to Collapse?

Incredibly, despite huge concessions already made by the United States, Iranian leaders still want more in the ongoing nuclear toalks. Today, Iranian foreign minister Mohammed Javad Zarif rejected President Obama’s demand that any nuclear agreement last at least ten years.

As Prime Minister Netanyahu speaks to Congress today, he may view this as good news in so far as it could cause the nuclear talks with Iran to collapse.

The Obama administration has already conceded Iran’s “right” to uranium enrichment by allowing it to continue to enrich during the talks. As a result, Iran can now make more nuclear weapons — eight or more — than the seven it could when the talks began in early 2014. Western negotiators have offered to allow Iran to operate up to 6,500 uranium-enrichment centrifuges in an final agreement. Iran also would be allowed to conduct limited research into advanced-centrifuge designs. Existing advanced centrifuges could not be used for the duration of an agreement but may only be unplugged.

Even more troubling, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius reported last week, “As for the planned Iranian plutonium reactor at Arak, negotiators seem to have agreed on a compromise that will halt construction well before Arak becomes ‘hot’ with potential bomb fuel.” This means rather than disassembling the Arak reactor or halting construction, Iran will be permitted to continue construction up to the point of activating the reactor.

The U.S. demand that a final agreement last at least ten years is a mild requirement which reportedly would allow Iran to ramp-up uranium enrichment before the termination of the agreement based on “good behavior.”

These concessions add up to a pretty good deal for Iran: It would be permitted to continue to perfect its nuclear infrastructure, which can have no purpose other than producing nuclear weapons. And given Iran’s poor track record of complying with nuclear agreements and cooperating with IAEA inspectors, it is unlikely it would even abide by the agreement.

But Iranian officials want still more. Their strategy in the nuclear talks has been to pocket repeated U.S. concessions, occasionally make very minor concessions in response, and then press for more U.S. concessions.

Iran’s rejection of the ten-year time limit for a final agreement reflects this strategy. Tehran knows how desperately the Obama administration wants an agreement and that it is under increasing pressure from Congress over the U.S. concessions made in the talks. Iranian officials also know the White House needs to quickly close a deal before Congress approves new sanctions — possibly with a veto-proof majority — that could kill the nuclear talks.

While a ten-year nuclear deal with Iran would be hard to sell to Congress and the American people, a shorter deal would probably be impossible to sell. Despite President Obama’s desperation for a legacy agreement with Iran, the rejection by Iranian officials of a 10-year limit may push the president and America’s European allies too far. This could mean Tehran may save President Obama from himself by causing the collapse of nuclear negotiations that are on course to lock in Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and be deeply destabilizing to the Middle East.