The agreement with Iran 5 years late, and its effects on Syria

An agreement on Iran's nuclear program has been reached between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany. With this accord, which has created great excitement in the international community and which many observers regard as the most important diplomatic achievement of the post-Cold War era, the way also seems to be opening for Iran's inclusion in diplomatic processes.

We can summarize the agreement briefly as the Western world easing the sanctions it has imposed in return for concessions Iran will make on its nuclear program.

The history of the international process concerning Iran's nuclear program is not very old. In August 2002, a press conference organized by Alireza Jafarzadeh of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, one of the leading opposition figures of the Islamic regime, in which he shared with world public opinion findings revealing Iran's secret nuclear activities, suddenly focused the attention of the international community on Iran.

As speculation increased, in early 2003 Iranian President M. Khatami announced that his country was carrying out nuclear fuel cycle work, while Ali Baradei, then head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), claimed that Iran had violated the NPT (Non-proliferation Treaty) by concealing its work at Natanz and Arak. After the agency's inspectors found enriched uranium at some facilities, Iran agreed to sign the additional protocol of the NPT voluntarily, but the debates over Iran's nuclear program did not end.

Although numerous negotiations were held between the Western world and Iran from that date on, no agreement emerged. That the first accord acceptable to both Iran and the Western world was produced by an international initiative to which Turkey was also a partner is quite meaningful and noteworthy for understanding Turkey's foreign policy vision.

As will be remembered, on 17 May 2010 Iran, Brazil and Turkey agreed on a document known as the "Tehran Declaration" and announced it to international public opinion. According to this declaration, Iran had agreed to store 1,200 kg of low-enriched uranium in Turkey. During the time it was in Turkey, this fuel would remain the property of Iran. Iran and the IAEA could assign observers to monitor the storage of the fuel in Turkey. Iran had agreed to send the fuel it held (1,200 kg) to Turkey within one month.

Within the framework of the same agreement, the Vienna Group was to supply, no later than within a year, the 120 kg of fuel Iran needed to continue its peaceful nuclear program. In case the terms of this declaration were not complied with, Turkey would return to Iran, unconditionally and immediately, the fuel in its possession belonging to Iran. As part of this understanding, Turkey and Brazil would loudly defend Iran's right to peaceful nuclear enrichment. However, the declaration could not be implemented.

The point we must underline here is that the Tehran Declaration, produced through the efforts of Turkey and Brazil, enabled Iran to hold on to the international system in the intervening period. In other words, if Iran and the P5+1 have been able to reach an understanding today, then the effect of Turkey's approach, which opened the way for diplomatic processes and strengthened faith in them, is considerable.

Therefore, the question that must be asked at this point is this: while the international community can accept an agreement based not on trust but on verification, as Obama put it, why was Turkey accused of an axis shift for facilitating the signing of an agreement likewise based on verification?

It took the Western world five years to come to the same point as Turkey on Iran, and these five years prevented both the establishment of a stable security area in the region and the development of a stable regional cooperation mechanism. In the end, reaching an agreement is very important, but it is also evident that 5 years were lost in reaching a nuclear accord with Iran.

Even so, this agreement is very valuable for the future of the region. The understanding Iran has reached with the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany may open the door to new areas of cooperation at the regional and global level. A new political process may begin in which Iran will adopt a more constructive attitude on Syria.

This is also consistent with Turkey's policy toward the region. In this framework, it must be said that Turkey is more pleased with this accord than anyone. Indeed, the said understanding appears to have disturbed only Netanyahu in the region.

In essence, the complications arising in the region from the power vacuums created by the Syrian civil war can be treated through mutual cooperation among the countries of the region. For example, if Iran were to set aside its intransigent stance on Syria and take the initiative for a solution to the problem, this could create relief in the political, economic and security fields in the region in a short time.

After the understanding reached, the speech of French President François Hollande, who said he had received messages that Iran could develop cooperation with the Western world on Syria as it did in the nuclear negotiations, is quite important.

At this point, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier also made a proposal worthy of consideration. Steinmeier's statement that the countries that resolved the nuclear crisis could also resolve the Syrian crisis, and that if such an initiative were to take shape, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran should also be at the table, could create a brand-new opportunity in the Syrian crisis, which has lasted more than 4 years.

The nuclear understanding reached with Iran, even if 5 years late, could be the first step of the international initiative the German Foreign Minister underlined. Of course, for this Iran needs to make more effort to develop dialogue with the countries of the region.