Nuclear

President Obama has accused critics of the recently announced deal with Iran of having no credible alternative. According to Obama, it was this deal or no deal. And then, alleges the president, the options are either acquiescence or war. But this is a false choice, set up by the Obama administration to make its bad deal look like the best we ever could have hoped for. Yet, the truth is that the alternative to this deal was not no deal, it was a better deal, one that actually met the international community’s objectives in undertaking negotiations in the first place. The Iran deal presented at Vienna is both weak and

Iran is, beyond doubt, a sponsor of terrorism and this week it has been made much stronger. It has (again) agreed not to make a nuclear bomb and in return trade sanctions are being dropped — so money will start to flow in once more. We can be sure that the cash will soon find its way to Hezbollah in Syria, and to what remains of Bashar al-Assad’s regime. A stronger Iran means a longer and bloodier Syrian civil war, a more vulnerable Israel and a further injection of money and arms into the world’s deadliest war zones. None of this is in doubt. The question is whether, after this

When the Shah of Iran gave the order to create the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran (AEOI) in 1974 it is unlikely that he had any idea of just how controversial his move would ultimately prove. The AEOI brought order to what had hitherto been a disorganised programme and set the country on the path to an eventual clash with the world’s leading western powers. That clash began in 2002, when at a public press conference in Washington DC, an Iranian opposition group, the Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MKO) exposed details of undeclared Iranian nuclear activities, which had progressed much further than anyone had suspected. At least, almost anyone. While it was the

It is probably safe to say that the negotiations with Iran aren’t going very well. As the 30 June deadline for a final agreement looms America’s top negotiator Wendy Sherman has just announced that she will resign shortly after, telling the New York Times that it has been ‘two long years’ in that position. Meanwhile the Iranians are now saying that they want the deadline for reaching an agreement extended, with the Obama administration insisting that’s not an option. To make matters worse unconfirmed reports have recently emerged claiming that a delegation of North Korean nuclear weapons experts have been paying regular visits to Iranian military facilities. These being the same

President Obama’s flagship foreign policy of ‘leading from behind’ has had some surprising consequences. Not least among them is that France now appears to be leading the free world. During the current set of negotiations in Geneva between Iran and the P5+1 countries, America, Russia, Britain, China and Germany seem eager to declare a breakthrough. Iran is seeking an alleviation of the tough international sanctions against it and the right to continue what it calls its ‘peaceful’ nuclear programme. The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has warned of Iran benefiting from ‘the deal of the century’. Last weekend it took the government of François Hollande to call time on this.

The installation of Hassan Rouhani as President of Iran next month heralds a new chapter for the country. It is clear that he was elected not only because it was felt — both at the highest levels and by the people — that he was best placed to negotiate with the West on Iran’s nuclear programme but also because he was the candidate most likely to appeal to reform-hungry Iranians. Rouhani is a protégé of the former president Muhammed Khatami, with whom I have had the chance to work. When he was President, I spent a whole day with him meeting political, civil society and religious leaders. Visiting him in