An initial agreement by the United States and Iran to halt their war grants Iran major economic benefits while delaying, for now, the thorniest areas of disagreement between the two countries and the toughest concessions Iran would have to eventually make on its nuclear program.
The agreement lifts the U.S.-imposed naval blockade of Iranian ports and, most crucially, grants Iran waivers to begin exporting its oil even before the negotiation of a final agreement on its nuclear program. That will give Iran a critical economic lifeline. In recent years, its economy has been in a tailspin, with a collapsing currency and sky-high inflation.
The one major step to be taken by Iran is reopening the Strait of Hormuz to free passage for the next 60 days, though the agreement seems to leave open the possibility of charging fees after that period.
“On balance, the memorandum appears to favor Iran,” said Nicole Grajewski, who teaches at the Center for International Studies at Sciences Po in France and studies Iran’s foreign policy. “Tehran secures movement toward sanctions relief, a pathway for the restoration of oil exports, access to economic benefits and a reduction in military pressure while making relatively limited new nuclear commitments.”
The United States, on the other hand, Ms. Grajewski said, “obtains a commitment to continue negotiations and broad declarations regarding nonweaponization, but many of the most difficult concessions it previously sought have been postponed rather than secured.”
It is possible that a future agreement could rebalance each side’s concessions and gains, she said.
“But judged solely on the memorandum itself, the immediate and concrete benefits accrue disproportionately to Iran,” Ms. Grajewski said.
Iran hawks are alarmed by the oil sales clause in particular, in part because it also commits the United States to temporarily lifting banking restrictions to help facilitate Iran’s oil trade.
“Broadening authorization to financial transactions would crack the core architecture of U.S. oil and financial sanctions against Iran, arguably the most powerful economic leverage the U.S. holds over this regime, absent the naval blockade,” Miad Maleki, a former U.S. Treasury official and a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, wrote on social media.
Those who favor diplomacy with Iran over open conflict or sanctions praised the memorandum, saying it offered the chance for a new page in U.S.-Iran relations.
“The measures in this agreement should not be read as concessions, but rather corrections to a decades-old policy of coercion that was an abject failure and made war inevitable,” Jamal Abdi, the president of the National Iranian American Council, an advocacy group, said in a statement.
Some analysts were puzzled over why a similar agreement could not have been made before a monthslong war that has killed Iranian civilians, destroyed parts of the country’s infrastructure and enabled Iran to exert leverage over the global economy.
“It’s difficult to escape the conclusion that these negotiations could have taken place without a three-month war,” said Holly Dagres, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute. “Much of what is outlined in the agreement — including the Strait of Hormuz, which has historically remained open — could have been addressed through diplomacy.”
And she pointed out that the agreement left the most difficult issues, including the precise limits to be imposed on Iran’s nuclear program, for later talks.
“I’m skeptical that the next 60 days of talks will produce concrete results,” she said. “This is merely kicking the can down the road.”
The post Iran Gets Major Economic Lifeline for Minimal Concessions in Initial Deal appeared first on New York Times.
