A (Hopeful) Lasting Lesson of the Iran Nuclear Deal
By Mahlet N. Mesfin
Yesterday, the United States government announced its intention to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal, or the Joint Comprehensive Plan for Action (JCPOA), citing its concerns that the agreement is one-sided and fatally flawed. While this move has been expected since the results of the 2016 U.S. election, there was an overwhelming amount of support from the diplomatic, scientific, and international community for the terms of the agreement made in 2015, in part due to the rigor and technical expertise that went into negotiating the specific terms of the agreement. Regardless of ongoing debate about the status of the agreement and the consequences of the U.S. action, the JCPOA remains a concrete, historical example of science diplomacy. It is worth taking a moment to remember the role scientists played in the negotiations, as the JCPOA dialogue highlighted the role of science diplomacy in our collective global efforts in nuclear nonproliferation.
As has been detailed in numerous other sources (e.g., Science magazine, The Atlantic, The New York Times, and The Telegraph), the negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 (United States, France, Germany, China, Russia, and the European Union) had stalled due to a lack of agreement by the principal negotiators on limits to Iran’s research and development on the centrifuges used for enriching uranium. Iran’s Ali Akbar Salehi, head physicist in charge of Iran’s nuclear program, and his then-counterpart U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz were brought to the negotiating table in order to develop technical parameters of the agreement in which both countries could agree. Many who have described the role of Salehi and Moniz note that these two could speak a language (physics) to each other that no one else in the discussions could understand. (A detailed description of some of the science behind the decisions that were made can be found here).
Regardless of ongoing debate about the status of the agreement and the consequences of the U.S. action, the JCPOA remains a concrete, historical example of science diplomacy.
Following their deliberations, the parties came to an agreement that outlined a strategy both sides agreed to: Iran’s nuclear energy portfolio and scientific community could continue to progress and economic sanctions would be lifted in exchange for Iran stopping its progress towards a nuclear weapon — including removing for ten years two-thirds of its centrifuges that can enrich uranium, reducing for fifteen years its stockpile of low enriched uranium with enrichment limited to 3.67%, and agreeing for twenty-five years to regular inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of their nuclear material stockpiles.
Whether or not the negotiators could have found a way to come to consensus without two eminent scientists leading the way is unclear. Like much of science diplomacy, we only know how this moment in time played out when looking at it through the rear-view mirror.
In this case, history showed that it was the scientists, and not the diplomats, who were able to sit down together to hammer out the details and minutiae needed to ultimately accomplish a diplomatic feat that had profound importance beyond the agreement itself.
The U.S. decision to withdraw from the JCPOA will have ramifications that cannot be fully understood at this time with respect to diplomacy, science, and international security.
Yet, while the future of the deal is more uncertain, the international community should not forget the process and should still take its lessons to heart. As other countries determine how to move forward and new deals are being negotiated in Iran and beyond, the international community should continue to make sure that individuals with technical expertise are at the table and able to collaborate with their counterparts in a way that only they have been trained to do.
Mahlet N. Mesfin is the Deputy Director of the AAAS Center for Science Diplomacy and Executive Editor of Science & Diplomacy.
