A nuclear deal with the Islamic
Republic, or a stab in the back of Iran’s
freedom movement?

Behrouz Bayat: As an expert … , I used to support the JCPOA
nuclear deal. But now I consider an agreement with the Islamic
Republic of Iran to be harmful for the citizens of Iran and the
world.

By  – Behrooz Bayat(Nuclear expert & former external consultant for theIAEA)

Jan 19th 2023

The current nationwide protests in Iran have caught many short sighted western politicians off guard, warning them  that a new actor has emerged on the Iranian political scene.

The death of Mahsa Amini (Jina) in the custody of the IRI’s Religious Police (Irshad patrol) stirred Iran and the world and became the basis for a revolution led by Iranian women with the slogan “Women, Life, Freedom”, a movement that could potentially put an end to the alledjedly “stable” regime of  the Islamic Republic in Iran.

Despite the fascination of the public opinion in the western democratic world, the governments of these countries were satisfied with a verbal response to the developments in Iran for some time, and although the three stages of the European Union sanctions are steps in the right direction, they are still not effective.

In the meantime, deep changes have occurred in the relationship between the European Union, the “Revolutionary Movement of Iran” and the regime of the Islamic Republic, which may lead to a review of the reality oriented  policy (Realpolitik) of the West towards the Mullahs’ government.  But more fundamental steps have not been taken yet, and Europe and the West have not given up their hope in the revival of the JCPOA nuclear agreement.

At this point in time, it is important to explain to Western politicians that a democratic Iran beyond the Islamic Republic is a real possibility. and that they should avoid any act of granting legitimacy to the Islamic Republic.

As an expert, I have been dealing with Iran’s nuclear program for a long time. During the last decade, I have supported the talks between the Islamic Republic and the West in connection with the JCPOA nuclear deal by numerous media contributions. But now the conditions in the Islamic Republic have fundamentally changed and I consider any agreement with this government, especially the nuclear agreement, to be harmful for the citizens of Iran and the world.

Let us consider a few basic points:

First, it is an imperative that the Islamic Republic regime should never acquire nuclear weapons.

The backward oriented and anachronistic regime of the Islamic Republic is based on three foundations and derives its identity from them: misogyny, hostility to the USA, and hostility to  Israel. From the first pillar, we have apartheid against women and from the last two pillars, the nuclear program and involvement in creating chaos in neighbouring countries with the help of it s proxy forces.

In this paradigm, a lasting agreement with the West is as unlikely as the non-discriminatory treatment of women as a symbol of a discriminatory regime against many groups of Iranian citizens.  It is safe to say that a lasting solution to these conflicts can only be achieved if the freedom and democracy movement  of Iran overcome the Islamic Republic. The West should include this possibility in its calculations.

Why the JCPOA nuclear agreement was justified?

The JCPOA was justified for several reasons:

• Avoiding a war that could destroy Iran and bring chaos to the region.
• Neutralizing the Islamic Republic’s attempt to acquire an atomic bomb and guaranteeing this issue in the medium term by resorting to the JCPOA and the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
• Freeing citizens of Iran from the unbearable costs of the atomic program.
• Denying the Supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, the opportunity to blame the enemy to justify his inefficiencies, thus revealing the inherent instability of the regime and providing the basis for the transition from the Islamic Republic.
• The expectation of the West to change the behaviour of the Islamic Republic regime, persuading it to reconsider its role as a regional disturber and agitator, and stopping its enmity with the USA and Israel.

But Ali Khamenei only wanted to take advantage of the JCPOA’s economic benefits and not a step further. Therefore, the JCPOA did not lead to its anticipated outcomes and the unfortunate situation of Iranian citizens continued. The practical result of this situation was nationwide protests by Iranian citizens in 2016 and 2018, in a state where the JCPOA was still in working.

Knowing that the Islamic Republic will never completely abandon its ambition to acquire the atomic bomb, one could hope that the Velayat Faqih government would not last long and leave the real solution to a democratic Iran.

Why is any agreement with the Islamic Republic harmful now?

Now, the situation in Iran has fundamentally changed. At the time of JCPOA, we were facing an apparently strong and stable government, but now we are facing an unstable and shaky government. The government of the Islamic Republic has ruled for four decades by injecting fear and intimidation, lies and propaganda, and by inciting despair and anger among its citizens, causing their poverty and humiliation. But now, with the murder of Mahsa, the balance between anger and fear has changed in favour of anger, and courage has grown from the anger of the citizens.

Now we are facing a situation in which a “revolutionary uprising” led by women has found a good chance to defeat  the government of the regressive clergy.

The new situation requires the West to reconsider its strategy towards the Islamic Republic. Solidarity with Iranian men and women who have sacrificed their lives to overcome the theocracy is a matter of both morality and political realism.

We know that in some cases, value-based politics and realistic interest-based politics can be in conflict. My motivation is to show that in the case of Iran today, convergence between these two approaches is possible, rational and wise.

Clearly, liberating Iran from the yoke of the Velayat al-Faqih regime is the duty of Iranian citizens. But, the solidarity of public opinion and the media coverage of the democratic world can prevent the Iranian regime from launching a bloodbath. Democratic governments can also help the “revolutionary movement” of Iranian men and women to win the fight against the terrifying religious dictatorship.  This support especially includes measures that delegitimize the Iranian government in the international arena.

The best chance for a peaceful victory over the Islamic regime is to create a split within this government under the pressure of mass protests and crippling strikes.

Two factors can play a special role in creating and expanding this gap:  the pressure of “revolutionary uprising” inside as a decisive factor, and the behaviour of democratic countries abroad towards the Islamic Republic as a delegitimizing action.

As usual in dictatorships, many opportunists have gathered around Wali Faqih, Ali Khamenei, and when it becomes evident that the regime has no future, many of these desperate supporters will wander in search of a safe haven. For many, the saving grace will inevitably be the search for a compromise with the opposition.

Therefore, the rising pressure, civil disobedience and strikes of the citizens must continue with breadth, depth and speed. This, together with the practical solidarity of the democratic countries of the world, warns the followers of the Islamic Republic that the theocracy can no longer provide them with a future, and resistance is futile. The silence of the regime’s senior officials in current circumstances can be a sign of such a split.

It is obvious that the Islamic government and its supporters attach vital value to the overt or covert support of the West (in fact, the neutrality of the West). If we follow the developments of the last few weeks since the beginning of the “Women, Life, Freedom” nationwide protests, we will see that the government has tried hard to enter into a deal with the United States of America. Even the Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic claims he received  messages from the US government that they do not intend to trigger a regime change in Iran.

However, regardless of the narratives, any agreement with the Islamic Republic is considered by the Iranian protesters as a refusal of solidarity. Perhaps, the more destructive effects of such messages are encouraging the hesitant agents of the Islamic Republic, by giving them the impression that the West  prefer the current clergy regime, eventually .

The most disastrous situation will be if the West revives the JCPOA in the current situation. In this case, Ali Khamenei, by reconstructing  his global legitimacy, will be encouraged to continue brutally suppressing the citizens with the help of released financial resources. Such agreements of the West with the Islamic regime in the current situation can be considered as a stab in the back of the revolutionary movement of “Women, Life, Freedom”; an approach that is morally reprehensible and, as a realist policy, short-sighted and doomed to failure.

The distance between the Islamic Republic and the atomic bomb

Is Iran’s Velayat-e-Faqih government really so close to the bomb to force the Western governments to abandon Iran’s liberation movement?

After Donald Trump withdrew from the JCPOA, the Islamic Republic turned to a strategy of deterrence combined with nuclear blackmail. The message of the Islamic Republic is: “We can build an atomic bomb.” A message with a double motive: to threaten in order to gain concessions from the West, and simultaneously  to buy time to advance the option of militarizing the nuclear program.

Against the demands of  public opinion in the West and Iranian protesters to delegitimize the Islamic rulers and refrain from doing business with it, Western politicians claim that they want to prevent the Islamic Republic from acquiring nuclear weapons by renewing the JCPOA. An action described by them as “to protect Israel”, while they know very well that Israel is against such an agreement for various reasons.

Is the urgency of Western governments justified?

Ali Khamenei, who was never really a supporter of the JCPOA, took advantage of Trump’s big mistake and activated it as a blackmail tool by accelerating uranium enrichment, which has terrified European governments.

It is a fact that the Islamic Republic is currently capable of producing the uranium needed for one to two bombs in the short term. But, producing uranium with 90% enrichment still does not mean having a bomb.

The Islamic Republic still has a long way to go to acquire the atomic bomb. First, the bomb itself should be made out of complex parts , miniaturized and tested  and then developing the capability to carry it with ballistic missiles. Not every ballistic missile is suitable for carrying an atomic bomb, and the moment and location of the explosion must be controlled with great precision, which requires advanced technology and experience.

In addition, the Islamic Republic does not  have a completely open hand, because the nuclear program of the Islamic Republic is still largely within the framework of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty under the supervision of the Agency.

I agree with the estimation of many experts, including Israeli intelligence agencies, that the Islamic Republic is two to three years away from developing an atomic bomb, and the world will have enough time to react.

Therefore, I believe that the nervousness of the Western governments and their insistence on renewing the JCPOA does not have an urgent technical justification and is most likely due to geopolitical motives or the need for energy.

Unfortunately, the West has so far undervalued the dynamism of Iranian society and its ability to move away from the Islamic rule. Here, we have been dealing with short-sighted politicians who, by over focusing on the existing power balance, are unable to understand the fact that the citizens’ passion and determination for freedom in a corrupt, inefficient  and opressive dictatorship can lead to era-building actions.

Now it is time for the West and the European Union to realize that the basis of their reality oriented policy towards the Islamic Republic is on the threshold to be torn apart. Smart politics should welcome the “revolutionary movement” as an developing alternative to the Islamic government. Now the ground is ready for the convergence of value-based and interest-oriented politics; a policy that can benefit the people of Iran, the region, the world and the West.

Iran’s freedom seeking protesters expect the West to work hard to delegitimizing the Islamic Republic: including refusing to sign any contracts with the Iranian government, reducing the level of diplomatic relations, putting the Revolutionary Guards on the terrorist list, closing the accounts of the Islamic Republic’s oligarchs in the West, and avoiding of sanctions aimed at ordinary citizens of Iran, and obviously avoiding any military intervention.