The Iran nuclear negotiations entail an international negotiation that involved a number of parties in the deal. These parties acted in their specific contexts and had divergent opinions. Their objectives, priorities, cultures, and personalities were all different and it varied in nature. The Iran nuclear deal negations were a matter of international concern and involved the five UN Security Council meeting permanent members and other parties (Adebahr, 2017). The interim agreement was formed between P5+ 1 countries in Geneva. Geneva is found in Switzerland. According to the deal, Iran would reduce, convert, and redesign its nuclear facilities. Iran was also asked to operate under the Additional Protocol having a provisional application. The Protocol required Iran to phase out all nuclear-based economic sanctions and free up billions of dollars in frozen assets and oil revenue. The Iran nuclear deal negotiations involved the Islamic Republic of Iran and a coalition of world powers: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States; Germany as well as the European Union. At this time, the president of the state was President Hassan Rouhani (Samore 2015). Several sanctions were imposed on Iran during the negotiation period by the US, the UN, and the other countries involved in the agreement.
As a mediator on the Iran nuclear negotiation, Turkey has a significant role to act persuasively to Iran and advise it to be more flexible in the policy they have on nuclear and, in particular, Uranium. Countries like Turkey can play an essential role in persuading Iran to be easier on the plans they will have on the activities they plan with the nuclear contents. The strategy of Iran in the negotiation plan was making its nuclear fuel for civilian purposes enriched. The state's objective was to reduce Uranium's stockpile by 98% FOR 15 years (Bonab 2009). Iran's facilities will be enriched within the time they plan for the enrichment.
The Iran nuclear deal negotiations were complex negotiations and generated a lot of ambiguity due to the stances by the parties who had strong convictions of interacting variables that revolved along with the parties, their roles, their goals, their interests, their relationships, the need to develop an internationally coherent theory, constraints and alternatives (Khan, 2018).
The strategy for the negotiators was to pursue dialogues through diplomacy so as to strike a consensus with Iran to go slow on the development of its nuclear energy (Enwerem, 2016). The negotiations also sought for Iran to be transparent in the development of nuclear energy so that it does not develop nuclear weapons that are capable of doing damage of greater scale to the rest of the world.
The position of the negotiators was that Iran halts its ambitious nuclear program, develop it in a transparent manner, and involve the UN Security Council. The main objective of the negotiators was to limit Iran's nuclear program at least for the next decade and in return sanctions on Iran will be withdrawn gradually depending on how the country is committed to meeting the objectives of the UN security meeting. In June in the year 2006, Russia, China, and the United States collaborated with the three EU-3 countries which had been in close connection and was engaging with Iran since the year 2003 to make another strategy, position, and objectives to counter deadlocks in the negotiations (Cronberg, 2017). The main position of the plan was to achieve nuclear non-proliferation. They aimed at curbing Iran nuclear ambitions by offering the country chance to stop the nuclear programs or at least minimize them in exchange for elimination of international sanctions. The agreement, made after so many years of negotiation, developed strict norms and rules for controlling and monitoring Iran's nuclear program, such as the elimination of fissile material, nuclear material stocks, and an agreement to enable routine audits of nuclear sites, among other aspects (Schwartz, 2011).
Mediator deadlocks in the negotiations include the hard stance by Iran, the United States, and the taking of sides by the remaining parties with the majority of them; France, German, the United States one side, and Russia and China on the other. The main challenge facing the negotiation was the poor relationship between the US and Iran that set in after the 1970s revolution in Iran. Iran was also skeptical about the commitment by the negotiators and accused some parties of not being honest and willing to see the country achieve its nuclear potential and solve urgent problems in its economy. Some parties such as the United States also leveled grave allegations on Iran that its intention for the nuclear program was not achieving sufficiency in energy production rather as a weapon for mass destruction (Jett, 2017). The negotiations were antagonistic most of the time. Iran sought for the sanctions to be removed first before it would cooperate. However, to overcome the deadlock in the negotiations, the parties sought compromises, relaxation of hard stances, and consensus-building. The negotiations were also done under a carefully designed framework for international negotiations.
This deal also had faced several other challenges such as its effect on Israel. The deal was described as a challenge to Israel's national security on the grounds that it would contribute to the empowerment of anti-Israel actors in the region, and that the deal would potentially promote Iran's nuclear program rather than impede it (Patton, 2018). Another challenge was The USA's stance not to allow the lifting of financial and military sanctions against Iran. These challenges were overcome by imposing an Inspection regime (Khodadadi, 2016). Under the agreement, foreign monitors are allowed to track declared Iranian nuclear sites through various electronic means, include but are not limited to fiber-optic seals, cameras, sensors for detecting radioactive particles, and commercial and satellite imagery.
Adebahr, Cornelius. Europe and Iran: The Nuclear Deal and Beyond. United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis, 2017.
Bonab, R. G. “Turkey's emerging role as a mediator on Iran's nuclear activities”. Insight Turkey, (2009):161-175.
Cronberg, Tarja. Nuclear Multilateralism and Iran: Inside EU Negotiations. United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis, 2017.
Enwerem, Michael C. The Iran Nuclear Deal: What You Do Not Know About the Deal. N.p.: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2016.
Jett, Dennis C. The Iran Nuclear Deal: Bombs, Bureaucrats, and Billionaires. Germany: Springer International Publishing, 2017.
Khan, Sajid Mahmood. Us-iran Nuclear Deal: Power Dynamics for Iran and Saudi Arabia. United Kingdom: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2018.
Khodadadi, M. “A new dawn? The Iran nuclear deal and the future of the Iranian tourism industry”. Tourism Management Perspectives, 18(2016): 6-9.
Patton, Tamara. “An international monitoring system for verification to support both the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons and the nonproliferation treaty”. Global Change, Peace & Security, 30 (2018):187-207.
Samore, S., Bunn, G., Allison, T., Arnold, A., Burns, N., Feldman, S., & Mohseni, P. The Iran nuclear deal: A definitive guide. USA: Harvard Kennedy School, 2015.
Schwartz, Stephen I. Atomic Audit: The Costs and Consequences of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Since 1940. United States: Brookings Institution Press, 2011.
Remember, at the center of any academic work, lies clarity and evidence. Should you need further assistance, do look up to our Arts Assignment Help
Proofreading and Editing$9.00Per Page
Consultation with Expert$35.00Per Hour
Live Session 1-on-1$40.00Per 30 min.
Doing your Assignment with our resources is simple, take Expert assistance to ensure HD Grades. Here you Go....
My Assignment Services acknowledges the academic integrity guidelines prescribed as per Australian Universities to ensure that the services, sample material, and study resources available on our website, in no way are utilised to commit academic misconduct of any type. All users of our services must adhere to and affirm acceptance of all conditions elucidated in our policy document on academic integrity.