You are in a marriage. You have come across evidence that your husband (let’s blame the husband for argument’s sake) has been unfaithful more than a decade ago. Although the evidence comes from neighbours who have not been entirely reliable in the past and have no love for your husband, it does raise troubling questions about him. But he deflects those questions and bristles at them, saying they are built on rumours and fabrications.
However, he is prepared to take extraordinary measures to reassure you, not only that he would not cheat, but he cannot cheat in the future. He will work where he can be seen at times by someone you trust, who would report to you if something untoward happened. He will wear a GPS tracking device, and would contemplate wearing a GoPro camera if it sets your mind at rest. What do you do? Do you insist that your husband answers all your questions? He says he can never conclusively prove a negative. And even he had been unfaithful, he is probably too proud ever to admit having lied, so insistence of a full account risks the complete breakdown of the marriage and an uncertain future for the children. Or do you accept the offer from your husband and move on never quite knowing whether he truly deserves your trust?
This approximates to the dilemma facing the West at the nuclear talks with Iran. One of the issues in play is the unresolved question of whether Iran experimented with nuclear warhead design in the past. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is investigating evidence, largely concerning the period up 2003, provided by western intelligence agencies. Iran says the evidence is forged and has dragged its feet on cooperation with the IAEA investigation. France, Israel, the majority of the US Congress and some non-proliferation experts argue the IAEA investigation into the past ‘possible military dimensions’ (PMDs) of the Iranian programme have to be tied up early on in any deal, as a condition of lifting UN Security Council sanctions. If Iran is able to dodge such questions, they say, the integrity of the global non-proliferation regime is compromised.
The counter-argument - explicitly or implicitly pursued by the US, UK, Germany, Russia and China - is not to let the past stand in the way of the future. Even if they were weaponising 12 years ago, the Iranians will never admit it now as it would make their “Supreme Leader” appear to have misled the world. Instead, get some agreed restrictions and verification measures down on paper first to contain a problem that is always threatening to trigger a conflict. Kick the PMD question down the road, on the understanding it would have to be resolved by the expiry of any agreement, before Iran is treated like any other country with a nuclear industry.
The wedding analogy is far from exact. You can’t bomb your husband if your marriage breaks up. The downsides of getting it wrong over Iran are far more severe than quarrelling over custody. But the sanctity of marriage question, like the integrity of non-proliferation, divides the world into purists and relativists.
Meanwhile, a new problem has bubbled up with less than a week to go before a deadline for a framework agreement. The groom is balking at signing his renewal of marriage vows. As the New York Times reports Iran wants a verbal agreement, rather than anything formal until one single, comprehensive and detailed accord can be signed at the final end-June deadline. But the Obama administration needs something it can show to Congress before it slaps on new sanctions. One possible solution: reading out an agreement at the end of this week, without putting pen to paper. A vow of marital fidelity to come.
