The talks at Lausanne's Beau-Rivage Palace Hotel between Iran and the P5+1 - the US, UK, France, China and Russia plus Germany - continued beyond the original, self-imposed deadline of March 31 and eventually concluded on April 02 with a Framework Agreement. The agreement set out major points to be fleshed out in a final deal, the details of which have to be worked out by the end of June this year. Negotiators twice extended the talks past the deadline because of deep differences between the parties. It has been hailed by President Obama as a "historic understanding" which, if it can be properly implemented, will make the world safer. The agreement, struck after intensive talks, aims to prevent Tehran making a nuclear weapon in exchange for phased sanction relief.
According to Barbara Plett of the BBC, three of the major outstanding issues that needed special attention were:
* Length of restrictions - Strictly limiting Iran's nuclear activities for at least 10 years. After that, Iran wanted all limits to be lifted. The P5+1 insisted that they should be removed progressively over the following ten years. The important point of contention was Iran's desire to be able to develop advanced centrifuges, which could enrich uranium faster and in greater quantities. This evoked anxiety among the P5+1 because while enriched uranium is used as fuel for nuclear reactors, it can also be used to make nuclear bombs;
* Sanctions relief - Iran wanted the UN sanctions suspended soon after an agreement. The P5+1 said that they could be eased in a phased manner, with restrictions on imports of nuclear-related technology remaining for years; and
* Non-compliance - The US and its European allies wanted a mechanism that would allow suspended UN sanctions to be put back into effect rapidly if Iran reneged on the deal. Russia reportedly accepted this, but wanted to ensure that its Security Council veto rights would remain protected. The German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, on the other hand, insisted that verifiable and transparent precautions must be in place to ensure that after expiry of ten years an explosive situation does not emerge.
Eventually, the following seven key points were agreed upon by all the Parties:
1. Centrifuges - Iran would have to reduce its total of about 19,000 centrifuges -- 10,000 of which are still spinning today -- down to 6,104 under the deal, with only 5,060 allowed to enrich uranium over the next 10 years. Centrifuges are tube-shaped machines used to enrich uranium, the material necessary for nuclear power -- and nuclear bombs;
2. Uranium enrichment - Iran's centrifuges will only enrich uranium to 3.67 per cent -- enough for civil use to power parts of the country, but not enough to build a nuclear bomb. That agreement would last 15 years. And Tehran has agreed not to build any new uranium enrichment facilities over that period as well. The 3.67 per cent is a major decline, and it follows Iran's move to water down its stockpile of 20 per cent enriched uranium last year. In addition, Iran will reduce its current stockpile of 10,000 kilograms of low-enriched uranium to 300 kilograms for the next 15 years;
3. Breakout time - The period of time that it would take for Iran to acquire the material it needs to make one nuclear weapon, currently assessed at two to three months, would be extended to about one year under this deal. That year-long breakout period would be in place for at least 10 years;
4. Fordow facility - Iran's Fordow nuclear reactor would stop enriching uranium for at least 15 years. It will not have fissile material at the facility, but will be able to keep 1,000 centrifuges there. Fordow, one of the country's biggest reactors, is buried more than 200 feet under the side of a mountain and was hidden from the international community until the U.S. revealed it in 2009;
5. Research and development - Iran can continue its research and development on enrichment, but that work will have to be limited to keep the country to its breakout timeframe of one year. Though Iran will be required to make changes at a number of its facilities -- including reducing centrifuges and rebuilding a heavy water reactor in Arak -- the country will get to maintain its current facilities;
6. Inspections - Iran will be required to provide inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N. nuclear watchdog, access to all of its declared facilities so that the Agency can ensure there is no potential for military-related developments. That includes access to Parchin, an Iranian military facility related to its nuclear programme. It may be noted that Western countries have been seeking unfettered access throughout Iran, not just declared facilities, as Iran has previously conducted nuclear work in secret; and
7. Sanctions lifting - The United States and the European Union would lift their nuclear-related sanctions on the Iranian economy -- a priority for Iran -- after a U.N. watchdog verifies it has taken key steps. If there are violations, the sanctions will snap back into place. U.N. sanctions will also be lifted when Iran completes its nuclear-related steps, though some peripheral restrictions will be contained in a new Security Council resolution.
It may be noted that drop in purchases of Iranian oil in the international market and increased isolation of the Middle Eastern country have squeezed Iran's economy in recent years, and the lifting of those sanctions could bring the country major financial rewards. A
The landmark deal is expected to offer Iran more than $110 billion a year in sanctions relief and a return to the global economy in exchange for halting its drive for a nuclear weapon.
The Iranian Foreign Minister Javid Zarif has called the Agreement a "win-win outcome", but has also warned that "We have taken a major step, but are still some way away from where we want to be." It may be pointed out here that the Parties have set a deadline of June 30 to reach a comprehensive pact, but these negotiations are expected to be tougher than those that led to the framework agreement.
As expected, Israel interpreted the framework agreement as one which could "increase the risks of nuclear proliferation and the risks of a horrific war".
In the US, the deal has been criticised by members of Congress who want US lawmakers to have the right to review any final agreement. US House Speaker John Boehner has also underlined that the deal represented an "alarming departure" from Mr Obama's original goals and that Congress should review the deal before sanctions on Iran were lifted.
Nevertheless, for President Barack Obama, the agreement is seen as a diplomatic victory and marks a sharp departure from the standoff between the US and Iran that has prevailed for decades. It may be recalled that US and Iran have been locked in a hostile relationship since the 1979 Islamic Revolution and hostage-taking at the US Embassy in Tehran.
There has been mixed reaction in the Gulf towards the Iranian nuclear deal. Those who support a deal - any deal - have argued that it would prevent the region from sliding into a destructive nuclear arms race that would affect everybody. Others have pointed out that the deal might have a number of negative consequences for the region.
The secretive nature of the talks has made many uncomfortable about the outcome. Analysts have also noted that the absence of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members during the negotiations in Geneva could eventually impact on the facets related to implementation of the agreement within the GCC backyard. Despite such qualms, it is clear however that while the US does not want to see a more powerful Iranian hegemony in the region, yet, at the same time, it does not appear to mind some kind of Iranian influence in the region adjoining that country.
Meanwhile, it was revealed on April 06 that Saudi Arabia's cabinet has not only welcomed the interim deal between Iran and the world powers over Iran's disputed nuclear programme but has also expressed the hope that a subsequent final deal would rid the region of weapons of mass destruction.
This denotes that US reassurance has worked. There was also the tangential reference that world powers needed to ensure the elimination of weapons of mass destruction (including nuclear weapons) that might be present in other States in the region, including Israel.
What the change will eventually yield remains to be seen. There are still several unanswered questions. Will Iran now be more cooperative with the US and its neighbours? How will Israel and Arab nations in the region respond to the connotations of the framework agreement? Can the US balance newly competing interests in a region already torn by Sunni-Shia conflicts as evident in Syria, Iraq and Yemen? All three struggles have active Iranian proxies.
Muhammad Zamir, a former Ambassador, is an analyst specialised in foreign affairs, right to information and good governance.
muhammadzamir0@gmail.com
© 2026 - All Rights with The Financial Express
