‘As an Iranian, I Would Be Pleased With the Emerging Deal’

Iran expert Mark Dubowitz believes there will be a nuclear agreement between Tehran and the West because the U.S. views no deal as worse than a bad deal • The Iranians are brilliant negotiators, but we must not lose hope, he says.

Through the eyes of Mark Dubowitz, an expert on Iran, the negotiations between Tehran and the West look like a complete role reversal. The U.S., the world's strongest superpower, is displaying weakness, while Iran is behaving as if it has much more power than it actually does.

Dubowitz, the executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, heads a number of projects having to do with policy toward Iran, and specializes in sanctions. He believes that ultimately a deal will be signed between Tehran and the West. But we must not lose hope, he urges in an interview with Israel Hayom.

Q: Let's start from the end: Will there be a nuclear agreement?

“I think we are going to have a deal. The question is when we're going to have a deal. It is not certain that there will be a deal by the end of June, and perhaps not even in the first weeks of July, but we're going to get a deal. The Obama administration has committed itself to an Iranian nuclear deal,” he replies.

“Whatever it says about no deal being better than a bad deal, the reality of the administration today is that a bad deal is better than no deal.

“President [Barack] Obama badly needs this deal because he has no other foreign policy successes. Every American president wants to have something that defines their legacy and President Obama's Middle East legacy to date will be defined by the meltdown of the Middle East. There is no good news in the Middle East today, so he will be defined by it whether he is responsible for it or not.”

Q: Tehran refuses to compromise on inspections and wants the sanctions lifted immediately. Why is Iran behaving as if it is the superpower in this dynamic rather than the U.S.?

“That's a great question. Why is the third-rate power acting like a superpower and why is the superpower acting like a third-rate power? The best conclusion I can come up with is to say that the Iranians are incredibly good at playing a weak hand. They are brilliant negotiators. They negotiate as if they come from a position of strength.

“They use blackmail. They say, 'If you pass sanctions, I will walk away from the table; if I walk away from the table, I will expand my nuclear program; if I expand my nuclear program, you will have no option but to accept it or use military force to stop it. I know you, Obama, you won't use military force to stop it. So since you took the military option off the table, indeed you've taken the sanctions options off the table, I know that you're going to stay at the table. And if you leave the table for a little while, you will come back, because you are fundamentally, ideologically, profoundly, emotionally committed to engagement, transformation and persuasion.'”

Q: You are an expert on sanctions. The French have said that there is no reason to lift sanctions right away. What is your opinion? Would lifting sanctions be a mistake?

“I think the P5+1 are in agreement. Not all the sanctions will be lifted immediately despite [Iranian Supreme Leader] Ali Khamenei's demands. They are committed to a different kind of model — the 'snapback' sanctions: We will suspend and terminate sanctions over time, which will be tied to Iranian nuclear compliance and the Iranians addressing issues relating to possible military dimensions of their program. As they do that, we will give them sanctions relief. But if they cheat or stonewall the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], the sanctions will 'snap back like a ton of bricks,' as President Obama has said.”

Q: But is he serious?

“The big question is, can sanctions snap back? Legally they can, but practically? When we talk about sanctions we talk about U.N. Security Council sanctions, EU sanctions and U.S. sanctions — three levels. At the U.N. level, the big question is Russia and China — will they be reasonable in a scenario where Iran has committed a violation and the U.S. and Europe want to snap back the sanctions in order to force the Iranians back into compliance?

“At the European level, there has been great coordination between the EU and the U.S. over the past 10 years on the Iran issue. It is likely that very strong coordination will continue over the next five years. But in 10 or 15 years, the big question is what the state of U.S.-EU relations will be. By then, the Europeans will have sunk tens of millions of dollars back into Iran. What happens when the U.S. decides that there has been a violation and the EU disagrees?

“And what happens 10 years after the deal is signed? Year 10 is a magical year, because specific restrictions on Iran's nuclear program disappear. For example, after 10 years it can increase the number of centrifuges operating at its Natanz facility; it can begin to reduce their breakout time from a year to, according to President Obama, near zero at year 13.

“That's bad, but not as bad as it gets at year 15. Then, Iran can build and operate an unlimited number of enrichment facilities.”

Q: The Iranians arrived at the negotiating table from a position of power.

“From their perception, Obama has taken the military option off the table, and he's not serious about real, crippling sanctions. Another thing that became very important is that the U.S. administration took the most valuable concession that the Iranians wanted — domestic enrichment — and they gave it up. They didn't give it up at the end of the negotiations; they gave it up at the front end of the negotiations.

“We have spent almost the last two years negotiating over the extent of the enrichment rather than the enrichment itself. That is one of the biggest mistakes.

“If I were Iranian I would be pleased. I would think, 'Wow, I haven't even started negotiations and they've already given me enrichment, long-range ballistic missiles, a deal of limited duration, no military option, and they're blocking Congress on new sanctions.' Every time the Americans show up, the Iranians just stall and stall until they get to the last day. Then [U.S. Secretary of State John] Kerry goes into a room with [Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad] Zarif, and out emerges some understanding which invariably involves Kerry giving Iran more concessions.”

Q: So Israel has every reason to be concerned, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not raining on anyone's parade, he is just fulfilling his rightful duty.

“I don't know how Netanyahu sleeps at night. I don't know how he is able to contain himself as he sees the U.S. and the Europeans making so many fundamental mistakes, the net result of which will provide Iran with massive nuclear capabilities, a powerful economy, strong regional influence and an ICBM [intercontinental ballistic missile] program. The consequences are so profound and so dramatic for Israel and the Jewish people that for you and your people, this is fundamentally existential, while the U.S. and Europe treat this as a serious but ultimately resolvable, containable arms control agreement.

“But there are a few reasons for optimism. Despite the difficulties between Netanyahu and Obama, the U.S.-Israel relationship is very strong. Second, in a year and a half there will be a new president, and I believe that regardless of who it will be, Democratic or Republican, the U.S.-Israel relations will only get stronger. Third, the American public is strongly supportive of Israel; the American Congress is strongly supportive of Israel. On the Iranian issue, all the major Sunni powers see the situation in the same way.”

Q: The feeling is that here, in the Middle East, Iran is viewed as a threat, but in America, Iran is viewed as an opportunity. Is that true?

“The administration seems to have taken the view that Iran is an enemy that can be converted into an adversary that can ultimately become a partner, and that the real threat is ISIS [the Islamic State group]. ISIS cannot be engaged or negotiated with — ISIS has to be destroyed. The U.S. has no interest in committing U.S. troops to do that.

“The Iranians created the conditions for the rise of ISIS. As the result, they created a vicious sectarian war that has only empowered and supercharged ISIS. Then, having set the fire, the Iranians come in and say, 'Hello, we are the firefighters. We will help put out the fire, but we have some conditions.”

Q: There are currently efforts underway to boycott Israel. People in Europe and elsewhere want to isolate Israel but in less than a week we may see Iran freed of sanctions. What does that say about our world?

“What this teaches us about our world is that it is possible to imagine a time when Israel will be under sanctions, under boycotts; U.N. Security Council resolutions will be passed threatening Israel that if they don't take certain steps it would trigger economic warfare against Israel. At the same time Iran, having retained its essential nuclear infrastructure, will be under sanctions relief, its economy will be growing, it will be welcomed back into the international community. Israel will be the pariah and Iran will be the partner.

“There is much to be done. This is an incredibly strong and resilient country. Despite the bad news, it has many friends and allies. I am optimistic about Israel.”