• 3 minutes Nucelar Deal Is Dead? Iran Distances Itself Further From ND, Alarming Russia And France
  • 5 minutes Don Jr. Tweets name Ukraine Whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella. Worked for CIA during Obama Administration, Hold over to Trump National Security Counsel under Gen McCallister, more . . . .
  • 9 minutes Shale pioneer Chesepeak will file bankruptcy soon. FINALLY ! The consolidation begins
  • 12 minutes China's Blueprint For Global Power
  • 9 hours EU has already lost the Trump vs. EU Trade War
  • 53 mins Science: Only correct if it fits the popular narrative
  • 4 hours Pioneer's Sheffield in Doghouse. Oil upset his bragging about Shale hurt prices. Now on campaign to lower expectations, prop up price.
  • 6 hours ''Err ... but Trump ...?'' *sniff
  • 2 hours China's Renewables Boom Hits the Wall
  • 1 hour What are the odds of 4 U.S. politicians all having children working for Ukraine Gas Companies?
  • 26 mins Crazy Stories From Round The World
  • 17 hours Who writes this stuff? "Crude Prices Swing Between Gains, Losses"
  • 2 hours Tesla Launches Faster Third Generation Supercharger
  • 2 hours Forget out-of-date 'dirty oil' smear, Alberta moving to be world's cleanest oil industry
  • 10 hours Passerby doused with flammable liquid and set on fire by peaceful protesters
  • 1 day Haaretz article series _ Saudi Arabia: A Kingdom in Turmoil | Part 1 - Oil Empire

Breaking News:

Russia Plans To Boost Crude Oil Exports

Alt Text

Oil Markets At Stake As The Syria Debate Rages On

The potential withdrawal of the…

Alt Text

Report: Iranian Tanker Offloads Oil At Syrian Port

The now notorious Iranian oil…

Alt Text

Did Trump’s ‘Plan B’ For Iran Just Fail?

The Trump administration’s plan to…

Global Risk Insights

Global Risk Insights

GlobalRiskInsights.com provides the web’s best political risk analysis for businesses and investors. Our contributors are some of the brightest minds in economics, politics, finance, and…

More Info

Premium Content

3 Things A Deal With Iran Would Likely Include

In mid-July, negotiators from the so-called P5+1 (the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, China and the European Union) reached a mutual agreement with Iran to extend an interim six-month agreement for another four months. The agreement extends concrete constraints on Iran’s nuclear program -- in particular, a halt to Iran’s production of 20 percent enriched uranium --  in return for modest and temporary sanctions relief for the Islamic republic. It will provide more time for negotiators to conclude a permanent agreement defining the future size and scope of Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for comprehensive sanctions relief.

Although reports indicate the two sides have made significant progress in recent months on key elements, the extension should not be a major surprise.

First, given the magnitude of what the negotiations cover – a peaceful resolution of an issue that has bedeviled relations between Iran and the international community for over a decade and a starting point for a potentially broader rapprochement with Iran – it is to be expected that diplomats are taking a methodical approach to discussions.

Second, given the vehement opposition of some domestic constituencies, especially in the United States and Iran, neither side wanted to appear as if it compromised too soon or too easily. An extension allows both sides to demonstrate to internal audiences that they are engaged in tough bargaining and will not concede on any red lines until the last possible minute.

However, the back and forth over the past six months and the clues negotiators have dropped in public allow us to better understand what a final agreement would look like and its likely reception upon announcement. Here are three key conclusions we can draw:

1. It’s all about enrichment.

Negotiators appear to have significantly closed gaps on matters of the future disposition of the Arak heavy water reactor, the fate of the underground Fordow facility, and transparency and verification measures to ensure Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful in nature. Yet significant gaps remain over the big ticket item in the negotiations: the size of the domestic enrichment program Iran is allowed to retain.

As former U.S. negotiator Bob Einhorn laid out recently, Iran has steadily expanded its definition of what it needs – from an initial position demanding only recognition of the so-called “right to enrich” to an insistence that its domestic nuclear power program will require a large enrichment infrastructure along the lines of 190,000 centrifuges, or 10 times the size of its current program.

The P5+1 is willing to countenance a very small program of several thousand centrifuges, but is unwilling to go further due to concerns over potential Iranian “breakout.” One side will have to give in, and if it is Iran, it will likely be because of the next issue.

2. Iran will remain in the penalty box for only so long.

An underappreciated aspect of the current negotiations is that the P5+1 has already acknowledged, in the Joint Plan of Action agreed to in November 2013, that any permanent agreement will have a limited duration, to be agreed upon by all sides.

Whether that duration is five years, as Iran has reportedly sought, or closer to the 20 years Washington apparently wants, one conclusion is inescapable:  At some point in the future, Iran will be able to develop any and all aspects of a large civilian nuclear program, including unlimited enrichment capacity and a heavy water reactor infrastructure that could produce plutonium.

Although the P5+1 would have been hard pressed to insist on any agreement that applies unique restrictions to Iran on a permanent basis, this concession also speaks to the underlying hope among some that the Iranian regime will evolve in a more moderate direction over the course of an agreement.

3. Investment uncertainty for Iran will remain, deal or no deal.

Despite the predictions by some, the international sanctions regime against Iran has shown few cracks during the implementation of an interim agreement. The primary reason that multinational corporations and others have refrained from returning to Iran is the uncertainty factor; with no guarantee that the temporary relief offered in the interim deal would be renewed or made permanent, these firms had little incentive to risk capital for only a short-term opportunity.

But even a permanent agreement may not yield the stability that global investors will seek.

First, spoilers on both sides will be doing their best to frustrate implementation of a deal. Inside Iran, supporters of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and other factions skeptical of Western engagement may seek to slow roll Iranian implementation.

Equally concerning, skeptics in the U.S. Congress will oppose any large-scale lifting of sanctions against Iran. While the president retains the authority to suspend most sanctions on his own authority, only Congress can permanently lift key U.S. sanctions. We may not know how Congress will act until several years into an agreement, which only prolongs the uncertainty.

Secondly, the U.S. has made clear that it is only prepared to lift those sanctions explicitly related to Iran’s nuclear program. But its unilateral sanctions, and some secondary sanctions, linked to Iran’s conduct on terrorism and human rights, will remain, limiting the flexibility of even those entities outside the United States.

By Jofi Joseph




Download The Free Oilprice App Today

Back to homepage



Leave a comment

Leave a comment




Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News
Download on the App Store Get it on Google Play