TEHRAN - Ryan Costello, a policy fellow at the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), says the Lausanne agreement was a “diplomatic milestone” that can set the stage for a “win-win” comprehensive nuclear deal between Iran and the 5+1 group of major world powers.

Costello made the remarks in an interview with the Tehran Times.

He said that “the key gains for Iran will be significant sanctions relief” and the “recognition that Iran will be able to continue many of its nuclear activities.”

The following is the full text of interview.

Q: What is your evaluation of the Lausanne statement?

A: The Lausanne agreement was a diplomatic milestone that signals much of the hard work has been accomplished. Assuming the parties are able to clear the remaining hurdles, the agreement will be a win-win for both the P5+1 and Iran. A final agreement would be a major diplomatic accomplishment, diminish the threat of a disastrous war, relieve sanctions, and provide assurances so that the international community can verify the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program. Such an agreement would transform the U.S.-Iran relationship and could serve as a gateway to productive discussions on issues outside the nuclear sphere, including on regional security issues.

However, it is important to note that the framework is an agreement in principle, not a finalized deal. Some tough work remains ahead to finalize the deal and ensure it is implemented.

Q: To what extent were the two sides able to achieve what they wanted?

A: Based on the framework, both sides have made some difficult trade-offs but gotten what they need to make a strong deal and sell it to skeptical domestic audiences. The key gains for Iran will be significant sanctions relief, allowing for reintegration into the global economy, as well as recognition that Iran will be able to continue many of its nuclear activities, albeit under extensive monitoring. The P5+1, in return, will attain sufficient assurances that Iran’s nuclear program cannot be used to produce a nuclear weapon without detection. For all of the parties, the compromises they are prepared to make will be outweighed by the benefits of a deal.

Q: Why do the fact sheets provided by the United States and France are different from the framework agreement issued in Lausanne?

A: Both the United States and Iran had conflicting domestic needs with regards to the framework agreement. Iran wanted a general statement indicating progress so as to avoid complications that might arise from a two-step agreement. This way, if unresolvable issues arise in the drafting, it would be difficult for the parties to blame Iran from backing out of a formal deal.

Due to the pending threat of Congressional action, the United States needed to show specifics on what steps Iran would be likely to take under a final agreement. In the U.S. fact sheet, there were far more details provided on those nuclear steps than the concessions that would be given to Iran in the form of sanctions relief. However, the narratives and framing have diverged more than the specifics. The parties should be able to find common ground to resolve any remaining misunderstandings in the weeks ahead.

Q: Iran believes that the Lausanne agreement is not binding from a legal point of view while the other side stresses that it is legally binding. To what extent is the Lausanne statement binding on both sides?

A: The framework is not legally binding and no party is bound by any concessions. It is expected that a UN Security Council resolution would codify the agreement in the initial stage of an agreement, which would be binding.

Q: Iran demands that the sanctions should be lifted simultaneously with the signing of the agreement, but the American side says that they will be phased out. Why are there different interpretations of this important issue?

A: There is likely still some work ahead on the exact timing of all the steps of sanctions relief, though the differences appear to be bridgeable. Given the many sanctions put in place by the United States Executive Branch, Congress, European Union, and UN Security Council, there is no way to erase the sanctions regime overnight. However, significant sanctions easing will occur – whether through lifting, redrafting or waiving – in the initial stages of an agreement. The European Union and UN Security Council will likely take the most significant steps at first, accompanied by corresponding U.S. actions.

It’s worth noting that the U.S. Congress could soon pass legislation that might temporarily restrain the President’s ability to relieve Congressional sanctions. While this could potentially pose problems at the negotiating table, it is unclear whether the legislation would succeed in binding the President’s hands during the review period. Even if it would, the President is likely to prevail over those lawmakers that would seek to block the implementation of an accord.

PY/P