Iran: Interim Nuclear Agreement and Talks on
a Comprehensive Accord
Kenneth Katzman
Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs
Paul K. Kerr
Analyst in Nonproliferation
Mary Beth D. Nikitin
Specialist in Nonproliferation
November 26, 2014
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R43333
Interim Agreement on Iran’s Nuclear Program
Summary
On November 24, 2013, Iran and the six powers that have negotiated with Iran about its nuclear
program since 2006 (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, and
Germany—collectively known as the “P5+1”) finalized an interim agreement (“Joint Plan of
Action,” JPA) requiring Iran to freeze many aspects of its nuclear program in exchange for relief
from some international sanctions. The period of the interim deal was to be six months, during
which time Iran and the P5+1 would attempt to reach a comprehensive deal on the long-term
status of Iran’s nuclear program.
The main elements of the JPA are requirements that Iran freeze, in effect, its production of
enriched uranium containing up to 5% uranium-235 during this period by converting the material
to a uranium compound unsuitable for further enrichment; refrain from producing enriched
uranium hexafluoride containing 20% uranium-235—the form of enriched uranium in Iran’s
stockpile that has caused the most concern; halt key elements of its heavy-water reactor and
uranium enrichment facilities; and provide the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) with
additional information about its nuclear program, as well as access to some nuclear-related
facilities which are not covered by Iran’s IAEA safeguards agreement.
Under the JPA, the P5+1 countries agreed to refrain from imposing new sanctions and permit Iran
to repatriate to Iran about $700 million per month in oil sales proceeds. Iran’s oil exports are
capped at about 1 million barrels per day—a 60% drop from 2011 levels of about 2.5 million
barrels per day. The JPA also permits Iran to sell petrochemicals and trade in gold and other
precious metals, and to conduct transactions with foreign firms involved in Iran’s auto sector. The
estimated value of the revenue that accrues to Iran from these sources is about $250 million per
month. Iran also is permitted to access about $65 million per month of hard currency for tuition
for Iranian students, to buy spare parts for U.S.-made civilian aircraft, and to receive international
facilitation of humanitarian purchases of food and medicine.
The JPA has been seen as halting Iran’s ability to produce a nuclear weapon and improving the
international community’s ability to identify Iranian efforts to develop nuclear weapons.
Throughout 2014, the attention of the international community increasingly turned to the
potential outcome of negotiations on a comprehensive nuclear accord. The P5+1-Iran negotiations
began in February 2014 and reportedly made steady progress, although insufficient to reach
agreement by the July 20 expiration of the first six-month JPA period. In July, the two sides
announced that progress—and Iran’s compliance with the JPA provisions—justified extending the
JPA until November 24, 2014.
Intensive negotiations attempted to finalize a deal by that deadline, but the two sides again
announced that more time was needed to close still significant gaps in their positions. The main
outstanding issues reportedly center on the size and scope of Iran’s uranium enrichment program;
the duration of the comprehensive accord; and the extent and sequencing of the lifting of nuclear-
related sanctions. On November 24, Iran and the P5+1 announced that they were extending the
talks—and all provisions of the JPA—with the intent of finalizing a detailed agreement by June
30, 2015. The parties stated they would first attempt to reach an overarching framework for the
agreement by March 1, 2015.
Congressional Research Service
Interim Agreement on Iran’s Nuclear Program
Regional and international governments are closely watching the negotiations. Some U.S. allies,
as well as some in Congress, assert a concern that the P5+1 might accept an accord that does not
ensure that Iran could not utilize its nuclear infrastructure to develop a nuclear weapon. Some
countries in the region, including the Persian Gulf monarchies, express concern that a final accord
would prompt a broader U.S.-Iran rapprochement that could cause the United States to retreat
from the Middle East. Others assert a final accord would give Iran additional resources to support
its proxy movements throughout the region. On the other hand, an accord could produce greater
U.S.-Iran cooperation against the threat to the region posed by the Islamic State organization’s
seizure of territory in Iraq and Syria. U.S. officials acknowledge that Iran and the United States
have held bilateral talks on that issue at the margins of the negotiations on a comprehensive
nuclear accord.
Congressional Research Service
Interim Agreement on Iran’s Nuclear Program
Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Background on Nuclear Program .................................................................................................... 2
Iranian Nuclear Facilities .......................................................................................................... 3
Enrichment Facilities........................................................................................................... 3
Arak Reactor ....................................................................................................................... 4
JPA Provisions and Implementation ................................................................................................ 5
Nuclear Program Provisions ................................................................................................ 5
Sanctions Easing Under the JPA ................................................................................................ 9
Efforts to Forge a Comprehensive Solution ................................................................................... 10
Congressional Views and Involvement ................................................................................... 12
Regional Views ....................................................................................................................... 13
Implications for U.S.-Iran Relations ........................................................................................ 15
Appendixes
Appendix. Nuclear Weapons Development ................................................................................... 17
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 18
Congressional Research Service
Interim Agreement on Iran’s Nuclear Program
Introduction
Multilateral negotiations regarding Iran’s nuclear program date back to 2003. In October of that
year, Iran concluded an agreement with France, Germany, and the United Kingdom that contained
provisions designed to alleviate international concerns regarding Iran’s uranium enrichment and
heavy-water reactor programs. In June 2006, the P5+1 presented a proposal to Tehran that offered
a variety of incentives in return for several Iranian confidence-building steps concerning those
programs. Since then, the two sides have held multiple rounds of talks—some as recently as
spring of 2013—without reaching agreement. Following the June 2013 election of Iranian
President Hassan Rouhani, many observers expressed optimism that these negotiations would
produce an agreement. After Rouhani took office in August 2013, Iran and the P5+1 met twice
(once in October and once in November) prior to the talks that agreed on November 24, 2013, to
the “Joint Plan of Action” (JPA, sometimes referred to in international documents as JPoA). The
JPA set out an approach toward reaching a long-term comprehensive solution to international
concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear program.
As part of the diplomatic efforts cited above, the U.N. Security Council adopted several
resolutions, the most recent of which (Resolution 1929) was adopted in June 2010. These
resolutions require Iran to cooperate fully with an ongoing International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) investigation of its nuclear activities, suspend its uranium enrichment program, suspend
its construction of a heavy-water reactor and related projects, and ratify the Additional Protocol to
its IAEA safeguards agreement. Resolution 1929 also requires Tehran to refrain from “any
activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons” and to comply with a
modified provision (called code 3.1) of Iran’s subsidiary arrangement to its IAEA safeguards
agreement. Several of these resolutions imposed economic and other sanctions on Iran.
Iran is a party to the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and has concluded a comprehensive
safeguards agreement with the IAEA. Such agreements are designed to enable the IAEA to detect
the diversion of nuclear material from peaceful purposes to nuclear weapons uses, as well as to
detect undeclared nuclear activities and material.1 As a practical matter, the IAEA’s ability to
inspect and monitor nuclear facilities, as well as to obtain information, in a particular country
pursuant to that government’s comprehensive safeguards agreement is limited to facilities and
activities that have been declared by the government. Additional Protocols to IAEA
comprehensive safeguards agreements increase the agency’s ability to investigate undeclared
nuclear facilities and activities by increasing the IAEA’s authority to inspect certain nuclear-
related facilities and demand information from member states. Iran signed such a protocol in
December 2003 and agreed to implement the agreement pending ratification. However, following
the 2005 breakdown of the limited agreements with the European countries to suspend uranium
enrichment, Tehran stopped adhering to its Additional Protocol in 2006.2 Subsidiary arrangements
to IAEA safeguards agreements describe the “technical and administrative procedures for
specifying how the provisions laid down in a safeguards agreement are to be applied.”3 Code 3.1
1 For more information, see CRS Report R40094, Iran’s Nuclear Program: Tehran’s Compliance with International
Obligations, by Paul K. Kerr.
2 Iran announced that it would stop implementing the protocol two days after the IAEA Board of governors adopted a
resolution in February 2006 which referred Iran’s noncompliance with its IAEA safeguards agreement to the U.N.
Security Council.
3 2001 IAEA Safeguards Glossary. Available at http://www-pub.iaea.org/books/IAEABooks/6570/IAEA-Safeguards-
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
1
Interim Agreement on Iran’s Nuclear Program
of Iran’s subsidiary arrangement to its IAEA safeguards agreement requires Tehran to provide
design information for new nuclear facilities “as soon as the decision to construct, or to authorize
construction, of such a facility has been taken, whichever is earlier.”
In addition to concluding the JPA, Iran signed a joint statement with the IAEA on November 11,
2013, describing a “Framework for Cooperation.”4 According to the statement, Iran and the IAEA
agreed to “strengthen their cooperation and dialogue aimed at ensuring the exclusively peaceful
nature of Iran’s nuclear programme through the resolution of all outstanding issues that have not
already been resolved by the IAEA.” The agency has long sought to resolve some outstanding
questions regarding Tehran’s nuclear program, some of which concern possible Iranian research
on nuclear weapons development.
Background on Nuclear Program5
Iran has nuclear programs that could potentially provide Tehran with the capability to produce
both weapons-grade highly enriched uranium (HEU) and plutonium—the two types of fissile
material used in nuclear weapons. Statements from the U.S. intelligence community indicate that
Iran has the technological and industrial capacity to produce nuclear weapons at some point, but
the U.S. government assesses that Tehran has not mastered all of the necessary technologies for
building a nuclear weapon.
A November 2007 National Intelligence Estimate assessed that Iran “halted its nuclear weapons
program” in 2003.6 The estimate, and subsequent statements by the intelligence community, also
assessed that Tehran is “keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons.”7 However,
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper stated during an April 18, 2013, Senate Armed
Services Committee hearing that Iran has apparently not decided to produce nuclear weapons.8
And, U.S. officials argue that the IAEA and/or U.S. intelligence would likely detect an Iranian
attempt to use its safeguarded facilities for producing weapons-grade HEU.9 Tehran is
considerably more likely to use covert facilities to produce fissile material for a weapon, partly
because the IAEA would likely detect an Iranian attempt to use its safeguarded facilities for this
purpose. U.S. officials have also expressed confidence in the United States’ ability to detect
(...continued)
Glossary-2001-Edition.
4 Available at http://www.iaea.org/press/?p=4018.
5 For more information, see CRS Report RL34544, Iran’s Nuclear Program: Status, by Paul K. Kerr.
6 The estimate defined “nuclear weapons program” as “nuclear weapon design and weaponization work and covert
uranium conversion-related and uranium enrichment related work.”
7 For example, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper stated during a January 31, 2012, Senate Select
Intelligence Committee hearing that Iran has “is keeping open the option to develop” nuclear weapons.
8 “Hearing on Current and Future Worldwide Threats,” Senate Committee on Armed Services, April 18, 2013. Clapper
explained that such a decision “would be made singly” by Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamene’i.
9 “Hearing on Security Threats to the United States,” Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, March 12, 2013. Then-
IAEA Deputy Director General for Safeguards Herman Nackaerts stated in July 2013 that the IAEA “would know
within a week,” if Iran were to use its safeguarded facilities to produce weapons-grade HEU. (Barbara Slavin, “Tight
IAEA Inspection Regime Hampers Iran’s Nuclear Breakout,” Al-Monitor, July 22, 2013).
Congressional Research Service
2
Interim Agreement on Iran’s Nuclear Program
Iranian covert nuclear facilities.10 The Administration asserts that the JPA has improved the
international community’s ability to identify any Iranian effort to develop nuclear weapons.11
Iranian Nuclear Facilities12
This section contains a brief description of the Iranian nuclear facilities most relevant to the JPA
and negotiations on a comprehensive accord. It is worth noting that, according to a November 14,
2013, report from IAEA Director-General Yukiya Amano, Iran had, even before the JPA was
agreed, generally stopped expanding its enrichment and heavy water reactor programs.13
Enrichment Facilities
Iran has three gas centrifuge enrichment facilities. Gas centrifuges enrich uranium by spinning
uranium hexafluoride gas at high speeds to increase the concentration of the uranium-235 isotope.
Such centrifuges can produce both low-enriched uranium (LEU), which can be used in nuclear
power reactors, and weapons-grade highly enriched uranium (HEU). LEU used in nuclear
reactors typically contains less than 5% uranium-235; HEU used in nuclear weapons typically
contains about 90% uranium-235. Tehran argues that it is enriching uranium for use as fuel in
nuclear power reactors and nuclear research reactors.
Natanz Commercial-Scale Enrichment Plant
In this facility, Iran is using first-generation centrifuges, called IR-1 centrifuges, to produce LEU
containing up to 5% uranium-235. Iran has installed about 15,400 of these centrifuges,
approximately 8,800 of which are enriching uranium. Iran has also installed about 1,000
centrifuges with a greater enrichment capacity, called IR-2m centrifuges, in the facility. Those
centrifuges are not enriching uranium.
Natanz Pilot Enrichment Plant
Iran is using IR-1 centrifuges in this facility to produce LEU containing approximately 20%
uranium-235. Iran is also testing several types of centrifuges in the facility. Iran’s production of
LEU enriched to this level has caused concern because such production requires approximately
90% of the effort necessary to produce weapons-grade HEU, which, as noted, contains
approximately 90% uranium-235.14
10 “Senior Administration Official Holds A Background Briefing Previewing Iran P5+1 Talks,” November 6, 2013;
Colin H. Kahl, “Not Time to Attack Iran: Why War Should Be a Last Resort,” Foreign Affairs, January 17, 2012.
11 Statement by Secretary of State John Kerry in Vienna, Austria, November 24, 2014.
http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2014/11/234363.htm
12 Unless otherwise noted, this section is based on CRS Report RL34544, Iran’s Nuclear Program: Status, and the
three most recent reports from IAEA Director-General Amano to the IAEA Board of Governors: GOV/2013/27 (May
2013), GOV/2013/40 (August 2013), and GOV/2013/56 (November 2013).
13 Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and Relevant Provisions of Security Council Resolutions in the
Islamic Republic of Iran, GOV/2013/56, November 14, 2013.
14 Former IAEA Deputy Director General Olli Heinonen, “Dealing with a Nuclear Iran: Redlines and Deadlines,”
Center for Strategic and International Studies, February 6, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
3
Interim Agreement on Iran’s Nuclear Program
Fordow Enrichment Plant
Iran is using IR-1 centrifuges in this facility to produce LEU containing approximately 20%
uranium-235. Iran has installed about 2,700 first-generation centrifuges, approximately 700 of
which are enriching uranium.
Enriched Uranium Inventory
Iran has enough uranium hexafluoride containing up to 5% uranium-235, which, if further
enriched, would yield enough weapons-grade HEU for several nuclear weapons. The total amount
of Iranian LEU containing 20% uranium-235 would, if it were in the form of uranium
hexafluoride and further enriched, be sufficient for a nuclear weapon. However, Iran has either
converted much of that material for use as fuel in a research reactor located in Tehran (called the
Tehran Research Reactor), nor prepared it for that purpose. The remaining stockpile of uranium
hexafluoride containing 20% uranium-235 would not be sufficient for a nuclear weapon, even if
Iran were to enrich it further. Tehran’s uranium conversion facility is not set up to reconvert the
reactor fuel to uranium hexafluoride.15
Arak Reactor
Iran is constructing a heavy water-moderated reactor at Arak, which, according to Tehran, is
intended to produce radioisotopes for medical use. Iran has said that the reactor is to substitute for
the Tehran Research Reactor. Although Iran has since decided to refuel the Tehran reactor, it has
also continued to construct the Arak reactor and has begun to produce fuel for it. Iran told the
IAEA in May 2013 that the reactor, which is under IAEA safeguards, was “expected to become
operational during the third quarter of 2014.” However, Iran told the IAEA that this date will
likely slip,16 and the JPA limits further development of the facility.
Iran has a plant to produce heavy water for the reactor. An August 2013 report from IAEA
Director-General Amano states that the plant appeared to be in operation, but his November 2013
report did not repeat this assessment. Prior to the JPA, Tehran notified the IAEA that it had
produced enough heavy water to commission the reactor.
The Arak reactor is a proliferation concern because heavy water reactors produce plutonium
better suited for nuclear weapons than plutonium produced by light water-moderated reactors.17
However, plutonium must be separated from spent fuel—a procedure called “reprocessing.” Iran
has said that it will not engage in reprocessing. A November 2011 report from Amano described
an “absence of any indicators that Iran is currently considering reprocessing irradiated nuclear
fuel to extract plutonium.”18
15 Nuclear Industry in Iran: An Overview on Iran’s Activities and Achievements in Nuclear Technology, Atomic Energy
Organization of Iran, 2012, p.13. This absence can also be inferred from IAEA reports and the November 24 interim
agreement text.
16 Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken indicated during a November 25, 2013, television interview that
Iran could have completed the reactor earlier (“‘Fox and Friends’ Interview with Deputy National Security Adviser
Tony Blinken,” Fox News Channel, November 25, 2013).
17 Both the Tehran Research Reactor and an Iranian nuclear power reactor near Bushehr are light-water reactors.
18 Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and Relevant Provisions of Security Council Resolutions in the
Islamic Republic of Iran, GOV/2011/65, November 8, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
4
Interim Agreement on Iran’s Nuclear Program
JPA Provisions and Implementation
The JPA text describes a two-step process for Iran and the P5+1 to “reach a mutually-agreed long-
term comprehensive solution that would ensure Iran’s nuclear programme will be exclusively
peaceful.” This solution would also “produce the comprehensive lifting of all UN Security
Council sanctions, as well as multilateral and national sanctions related to Iran’s nuclear
programme.” Reiterating previous Iranian statements, the JPA also states that “Iran reaffirms that
under no circumstances will Iran ever seek or develop any nuclear weapons.”
The first step described in the joint plan of action is to last for six months and be “renewable by
mutual consent.” The agreement did not include a start date for this six-month period, but
stipulated that “Implementation will begin following technical discussions with Iran and the
IAEA, and [European Union] preparations to suspend the relevant sanctions, which we hope will
all be concluded by the end of January,” according to November 25, 2013, parliamentary
testimony from then British Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs William
Hague.19 Pursuant to subsequent meetings of technical experts from Iran and the P5+1, the two
sides decided to begin implementing the JPA on January 20, 2014.
Under the JPA, the P5+1 and Iran established a “Joint Commission” to “monitor the
implementation of the near-term measures and address issues that may arise.” The IAEA is
“responsible for verification of nuclear-related measures,” but the commission will work with the
agency “to facilitate resolution of past and present issues of concern,” the agreement says. As
noted, the IAEA has long sought to resolve some outstanding questions regarding Tehran’s
nuclear program. The commission also monitors the implementation of the agreement’s sanctions
provisions.
Nuclear Program Provisions20
Under the JPA, Iran agreed to refrain from “any further advances of its activities” at the Natanz
commercial-scale facility, Fordow facility, and Arak reactor. Tehran is also to provide the IAEA
with additional information about its nuclear program, as well as access to some nuclear-related
facilities to which Iran’s IAEA safeguards agreement does not require access. These latter steps
are designed to ensure Iran’s compliance with the Iran-P5+1 agreement, as well as improve the
IAEA’s ability to detect Iranian efforts to produce weapons-grade HEU using its declared nuclear
facilities, or to use or develop covert facilities for that purpose.
Officials of P5+1 governments expressed confidence that the IAEA would be able to detect any
Iranian noncompliance with the joint plan of action.21 In addition, Herman Nackaerts, a former
IAEA Deputy Director General for Safeguards, echoed this confidence in an interview with
Reuters.22 Moreover, the interim agreement’s nuclear provisions will add “probably several
19 The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs William Hague, Today’s House of Commons
Debates, November 25, 2013.
20 Unless otherwise noted, this section is based on the agreement text (available at http://eeas.europa.eu/statements/
docs/2013/131124_03_en.pdf), “Background Briefing By Senior Administration Officials On First Step Agreement On
Iran’s Nuclear Program,” November 24, 2013, and GOV/2013/56.
21 CNN, November 25, 2013.
22 Fredrik Dahl, “Analysis: Reversible Iran Deal Puts More Pressure on Final Talks,” Reuters, November 27, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
5
Interim Agreement on Iran’s Nuclear Program
months” to the time needed for Iran to produce a nuclear weapon, deputy National Security
Adviser Antony Blinken stated November 25, 2013.23
Enrichment Program
Centrifuge Limits
Iran is to refrain from feeding uranium hexafluoride into its installed centrifuges that are not
enriching uranium. Tehran is also to replace existing centrifuges only with “centrifuges of the
same type” and produce centrifuges for the sole purpose of replacing damaged centrifuges.
Tehran is to refrain from installing additional centrifuges at the Natanz facility and constructing
additional enrichment facilities.
Level of Enrichment Limits
Iran is to refrain from producing enriched uranium hexafluoride containing 20% uranium-235.
Tehran is also to dilute half of this stockpile to uranium hexafluoride containing no more than 5%
uranium-235 and convert the rest to the same form of uranium oxide that is being used as fuel for
the Tehran Research Reactor.24 Iran is also to refrain from building a line in its uranium
conversion facility for reconverting the uranium oxide to uranium hexafluoride.
LEU Stockpile Limits
Iran is also to, in effect, freeze its production of enriched uranium hexafluoride containing up to
5% uranium-235 by converting the material to uranium dioxide. Tehran would take this step when
it has completed the necessary facility, which is currently under construction. The uranium
dioxide is to be set aside for R&D on fuel for Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power reactor.
According to the joint plan of action, Iran will continue its “current enrichment R&D Practices”
under IAEA safeguards, “which are not designed for accumulation of the enriched uranium.” This
provision prohibits Tehran from producing enriched uranium hexafluoride containing more than
5% uranium-235 as part of an R&D program.
Additional Monitoring
The agreement also provides for additional IAEA monitoring of the enrichment facilities.
Specifically, it allows IAEA inspectors to access video records from those facilities on a daily
basis. Currently, inspectors reportedly access such records (the video is not streamed in real time
to the agency), but not on a daily basis. Deputy National Security Adviser Blinken stated in a
November 25, 2013, television interview that such access would enable IAEA inspectors to detect
Iranian efforts to produce weapons-grade HEU at its declared enrichment facilities “almost
instantaneously.”25 However, as noted, U.S. officials have previously expressed confidence in the
IAEA’s ability to detect such Iranian efforts; the extent to which the November 24 agreement
improves this ability is unclear.
23 “Deal Leaves Iran’s Nuclear Facilities Intact,” National Public Radio, November 25, 2013.
24 As noted, this material is unsuitable for further enrichment. Uranium hexafluoride is the form of uranium used as
feedstock for centrifuge enrichment.
25 CNN, November 25, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
6
Interim Agreement on Iran’s Nuclear Program
Arak Reactor
Iran is to refrain from commissioning the reactor, transferring fuel or heavy water to the reactor
site, testing and producing additional reactor fuel, and installing remaining reactor components.
The agreement allows Tehran to continue some construction at the reactor site and also produce
reactor components off-site that are not covered by the agreement. Iran has also agreed to refrain
from reprocessing spent nuclear material and building a reprocessing facility.26
Iran has agreed to submit updated design information about the reactor and take “[s]teps to agree
with the IAEA on conclusion of” a suitable safeguards approach for the reactor. IAEA Director-
General Amano’s November 2013 report states that the IAEA needs this updated design
information “as early as possible in order ... to ensure that all possible diversion paths are
identified, and appropriate safeguards measures and customized safeguards equipment are put in
place.”
Additional Information
According to the JPA, Iran is to provide the IAEA with other information about Tehran’s nuclear
programs—a provision which appears to reiterate Iran’s commitments pursuant to its November
11, 2013, agreement with the IAEA described above. Provision of this information is required by
the additional protocol and code 3.1 of Iran’s subsidiary arrangement to its IAEA safeguards
agreement.
Iran is also to provide IAEA inspectors with “managed access” to its centrifuge assembly
workshops, centrifuge rotor production workshops, centrifuge storage facilities, and uranium
mines and mills.27 Access to these facilities, which the IAEA has lacked for some time, will help
the IAEA to enhance its understanding of the enrichment program’s scope and thereby improve
the agency’s ability to detect an undeclared Iranian enrichment program.
U.N. Security Council Resolutions
The Iranian actions implemented under the JPA do not fulfill Iran’s obligations imposed by the
U.N. Security Council. However, the JPA states that its parties are to take “additional steps in
between the initial measures and the final step, including ... addressing the UN Security Council
resolutions, with a view toward bringing to a satisfactory conclusion the UN Security Council’s
consideration of this matter.” As part of this process, the Council could adopt a new resolution
altering the resolutions’ current requirements.
26 There is no public official evidence that Iran has such a facility.
27 According to the IAEA, “managed access” to nuclear-related facilities is “arranged in such a way as ‘to prevent the
dissemination of proliferation sensitive information, to meet safety or physical protection requirements, or to protect
proprietary or commercially sensitive information.’ Such arrangements shall not preclude the Agency from conducting
activities necessary to provide credible assurance of the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities at the
location in question.” (2001 IAEA Safeguards Glossary. Available at http://www-pub.iaea.org/books/IAEABooks/
6570/IAEA-Safeguards-Glossary-2001-Edition.)
Congressional Research Service
7
Interim Agreement on Iran’s Nuclear Program
Right to Enrichment
The JPA also addresses the issue of Iran’s right to enrich uranium. Tehran has long argued that it
has the right to enrich uranium pursuant to the NPT, Article IV of which states, in part, that
nothing in the treaty “shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the
Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without
discrimination and in conformity” with the non-proliferation provisions of the treaty. For
example, Iran demanded in a 2012 proposal to the P5+1 that those countries recognize and
announce “Iran’s nuclear rights, particularly its enrichment activities, based on NPT Article IV.”28
According to the agreement, the “comprehensive solution would enable Iran to fully enjoy its
right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes under the relevant articles of the NPT in conformity
with its obligations therein.” This solution “would involve a mutually defined enrichment
programme with practical limits and transparency measures to ensure the peaceful nature of the
programme.” The solution would also “[r]eflect the rights and obligations of parties to the NPT
and IAEA Safeguards Agreements.”
The Obama Administration has not acknowledged that Iran or any other country has the right to
enrich uranium because the United States does not believe that the NPT contains an explicit right
to enrichment. A senior Administration official explained on November 24, 2013, that, although
the comprehensive solution does envision a possible Iranian enrichment program, “the United
States has not recognized a right to enrich for the Iranian government, nor do we intend to. The
document does not say anything about recognizing a right to enrich uranium.”29
The United States also expressed concern that acknowledging such a right for Iran could weaken
the P5+1’s ability to persuade Tehran to accept limits on its enrichment program because Iranian
negotiators could claim that an “acknowledged inalienable right cannot be abridged.”30 U.S.
officials have also wanted to avoid acknowledging such a right because the acknowledgement
could set a precedent that could compromise other U.S. efforts to limit the number of enrichment
facilities in the world.31 Echoing the U.S. argument, then British Foreign Secretary Hague
testified on November 25, 2013, that the JPA does not contain “a recognition of the right to
enrich, which we do not believe exists under the non-proliferation treaty.” French Minister of
Foreign Affairs Laurent Fabius made a similar claim in a radio interview the same day.32
Other governments, including Germany and Japan, argue that the NPT includes a right to
enrichment, Under Secretary Sherman acknowledged during a October 3, 2013, Senate Foreign
Relations Committee hearing. Indeed, Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov
indicated in a November 26, 2013, statement that the agreement acknowledges “the right of Iran”
to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.33
28 Available at http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Iran_Nuclear_Proposals.
29 “Background Briefing By Senior Administration Officials On First Step Agreement On Iran’s Nuclear Program,”
November 24, 2013.
30 Interview with former Administration official, December 4, 2013.
31 Interviews with two former Administration officials, December 4, 2013, and December 5, 2013.
32 Interview given by M. Laurent Fabius to Europe 1, November 25, 2013.
33 Comment from Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, November 26, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
8
Interim Agreement on Iran’s Nuclear Program
Sanctions Easing Under the JPA
The JPA provides for what the Administration terms “limited, temporary, targeted, and reversible”
sanctions relief for Iran.34 Almost all U.S. sanctions laws provide the President with waiver
authority. Those sanctions that have been imposed by executive order could be eased by a
superseding order. And, most sanctions laws give the Administration flexibility to determine
sanctions violations. For information on the use of waivers and other authorities to implement the
sanctions relief of the JPA, see CRS Report R43311, Iran: U.S. Economic Sanctions and the
Authority to Lift Restrictions, by Dianne E. Rennack, and CRS Report RS20871, Iran Sanctions,
by Kenneth Katzman.
The JPA provides for the following:
• Iran is able to repatriate $700 billion per month in hard currency from oil sales,
and to access an additional $65 million per month of its hard currency holdings
abroad for tuition for Iranian students abroad. Iran is estimated to have the vast
majority (80%) of its $100 billion in foreign exchange holdings inaccessible,35 in
part because of a provision (Section 504) of the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria
Human Rights Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-158) that requires Iran to be paid for oil
sales in accounts located in the countries that buy the Iranian oil.
• Under the JPA, Iran’s oil exports are to remain at their December 2013 level of
about 1 million barrels per day—a 60% drop from 2011 levels of about 2.5
million barrels per day. This implied that Iran’s current oil customers would not
reduce their oil purchases from Iran “significantly” during the interim period—
such reduction is a requirement to avoid sanctions on the banks of those countries
under Section 1245 of P.L. 112-81. To avoid penalizing these oil buyers, the
Administration exercised the waiver provisions of Section 1245. The European
Union countries eased sanctions against shipping insurance that deterred some
Iranian oil purchases.36
• Iran was permitted to resume sales of petrochemicals and trading in gold and
other precious metals, and to resume transactions with foreign firms involved in
Iran’s auto sector. The Administration estimated the value of the revenue Iran
would accrue from these changes during the initial six-month JPA period would
be about $2.5 billion. However, the Administration estimates that Iran only
earned about $400 million from petrochemical and auto exports during the JPA
period—dramatically lower than was predicted.37 There are no published
estimates of what Iran earned from these same categories of sales during the
July-November 2014 JPA extension period.
• Under the JPA, the United States was required to facilitate humanitarian
transactions that are already allowed by U.S. law, such as sales of medicine to
Iran, but which many banks refuse to finance. The United States also committed
34 White House Office of the Press Secretary. “Fact Sheet: First Step Understandings Regarding the Islamic Republic of
Iran’s Nuclear Program.” November 23, 2013.
35 Author conversations with congressional staff and experts on Iran, September – November 2013.
36 Daniel Fineren. “Iran Nuclear Deal Shipping Insurance Element May Help Oil Sales.” Reuters, November 24, 2013.
37 “Iran Reaps Less Cash from Eased Sanctions Than Predicted.” Bloomberg Government, November 25, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
9
Interim Agreement on Iran’s Nuclear Program
to license safety-related repairs and inspections inside Iran for certain Iranian
airlines. Such licensing is specifically permitted under U.S. trade regulations
written pursuant to Executive Order 12959 (May 6, 1995) and Executive Order
13059 (August 19, 1997) that impose a ban on U.S. trade with and investment in
Iran. Some U.S. sales to Iranian air lines have been made under this JPA
provision.
• The Joint Commission discussed above is empowered to consider Iranian
complaints about foreign firms that Tehran believes have been sanctioned
inappropriately for their commercial interactions with Iran.
The JPA did not require an easing of any U.S. sanctions that were imposed in the 1980s and
1990s based on Iran’s support for acts of international terrorism. The sanctions relief does not, for
example, permit foreign firms to resume investment in Iran’s energy sector. Iran’s gross domestic
product (GDP) shrank about 5% in 2013 due largely to sanctions, and Treasury Department
officials say the interim deal will have a small positive impact on Iran’s economy.38
Efforts to Forge a Comprehensive Solution
According to the JPA, Iran and the P5+1 “aim to conclude negotiating and commence
implementing” the second step of the comprehensive solution “no more than one year after the
adoption of this document” (by November 24, 2014). The comprehensive solution described in
the JPA would include a “mutually defined [Iranian] enrichment programme with practical limits
and transparency measures to ensure the peaceful nature of the programme.” Specifically, the two
sides are to reach agreement on the “scope and level” of Iran’s enrichment activities, the capacity
and location of Iranian enrichment facilities, and the size and composition of Tehran’s enriched
uranium stocks. These limits would continue “for a period to be agreed upon.” Tehran would be
obligated to “resolve concerns related to” the Arak reactor, refrain from reprocessing spent
nuclear fuel or constructing a facility “capable of reprocessing,” implement “agreed transparency
measures and enhanced monitoring,” and ratify and implement its Additional Protocol.
The JPA also states that “international civil nuclear cooperation” would be part of a
comprehensive solution.39 And, “[f]ollowing successful implementation of the final step of the
comprehensive solution for its full duration, the Iranian nuclear programme will be treated in the
same manner as that of any non-nuclear weapon state party to the NPT.”
P5+1-Iran negotiations on a comprehensive settlement began in February 2014 and reportedly
made progress, although insufficient to reach agreement by the July 20 expiration of the first six-
month JPA period. In July, the two sides announced that progress—and Iran’s compliance with
the JPA provisions as certified by the IAEA—justified extending the JPA until November 24,
2014.
Intensive negotiations attempted to finalize a deal by that deadline, but the two sides again
announced that more time was needed to close still significant gaps in their positions. On
November 24, Iran and the P5+1 announced that they were extending the talks—and all
38 Elad Benari. “Zarif: We Only Spoke with the U.S. About the Nuclear Program.” Arutz Sheva, November 27, 2013.
39 Such cooperation would include “modern light water power and research reactors and associated equipment, and the
supply of modern nuclear fuel as well as agreed” research and development (R&D) practices.
Congressional Research Service
10
Interim Agreement on Iran’s Nuclear Program
provisions of the JPA—with the intent of finalizing a detailed agreement by June 30, 2015. The
parties stated they would first attempt to reach an overarching framework and roadmap for the
agreement by March 1, 2015.
A comprehensive agreement appears to hinge on the issue of what Iran’s centrifuge capacity will
be, as well as the timeline for lifting sanctions. Although the specific remaining gaps in the two
sides’ positions have not been made public, reports indicate that there has been progress on some
areas currently covered by the JPA, such as conversion of the Fordow underground enrichment
facility into a small-scale research facility, technical changes to the Arak reactor so that it cannot
produce large quantities of plutonium, and strengthened monitoring by the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA).40
However, remaining unresolved issues are significant. Iran’s position has been to oppose any
limitation on its centrifuge numbers because it claims to need a large-scale enrichment capacity
for nuclear fuel production for its future reactor fleet. The United States and its partners want to
limit enrichment capacity and tie the amount to Iran’s practical nuclear fuel needs, which will be
minimal in the near term. According to press reports, among the options being discussed are time
limits on enrichment caps, reduced uranium stocks held in Iran, or provision of reactor fuel from
an outside source. Some press reports in early November 2014 said that the P5+1 were ready to
agree to a centrifuge limit of 4,500, if Iran agreed to ship its fuel stocks out of the country for
storage in Russia. However, at present, Iran appears to have chosen not to agree to this
arrangement.41 Another unresolved question for negotiators is how to address Iran’s research and
development activities for an advanced generation of more efficient centrifuges, currently
allowed under the JPA under IAEA supervision.
A wide range of sources indicates that Iran is also seeking immediate relief from sanctions as
soon as a final accord takes effect. The United States and its P5+1 partners reportedly continue to
insist that sanctions relief be implemented stepwise as Iran complies with the terms of the final
agreement.
The P5+1 negotiators have also emphasized that any comprehensive agreement would have to
provide enough monitoring to ensure that Iran could not quickly either “break out” of the
agreement or clandestinely produce material for a nuclear weapon. Under Secretary of State
Wendy Sherman has said that “Our goal now is to develop a durable and comprehensive
arrangement that will effectively block all of Iran’s potential paths to fissile material for a nuclear
weapon. Such an arrangement would bar Iran from producing fuel for a weapon with either
uranium or plutonium. Through inspections and monitoring, it would also offer the best method
to prevent the covert processing of these materials and make any effort by Tehran to turn away
from its obligations so visible and so time-consuming that the attempt would not succeed.”42
Another issue which may be part of a comprehensive agreement is the resolution of outstanding
questions by the IAEA about “possible military dimensions.” This refers to suspected weapons-
relevant work Iran may have conducted in the past, such as research about nuclear payload for
40 “Effective Iran nuclear deal in sight” Arms Control Association Press Release, November 24, 2014.
41 David Sanger, Michael Gordon, Peter Baker, “A nuclear deal for U.S. and Iran slips away again,” New York Times,
November 24, 2014.
42 Remarks of Under Secretary for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman, Center for Strategic and International Studies,
October 24, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
11
Interim Agreement on Iran’s Nuclear Program
missiles. U.N. Security Resolutions require Iran to resolve these questions by providing full
information to the IAEA, and the Agency holds regular talks with Iran to chart a path forward. A
November 2014 IAEA Director General report to the Board of Governors said that while the
Agency could verify that there was no diversion of nuclear material from the facilities it was
monitoring, it could not conclude that there was no nuclear weapons-related activities taking
place in the country, due to the lack of access to documentation, material, and personnel.43 Iran’s
cooperation and transparency on the issue of past weapons-related activities, even if the
information is not 100% complete, is expected to be a key requirement for comprehensive
agreement.
Congressional Views and Involvement
The JPA contains a P5+1 commitment to “[n]ot impose new nuclear-related sanctions ... if Iran
abides by its commitments under this deal, to the extent permissible within their political
systems.”44 This pledge has direct implications for congressional action while the JPA is in effect
and talks on a comprehensive accord are ongoing, because Congress is in a position to enact
additional Iran sanctions laws.
Some in Congress seek a congressional vote on any comprehensive agreement reached—a
proposal the Administration opposes.45 The Administration also has opposed—to the point of
threatening a presidential veto—legislation to impose additional sanctions on Iran while the
negotiations are ongoing. The Administration has taken that position even with respect to
legislation, such as S. 1881, in which sanctions would go into effect only if no comprehensive
agreement is reached. The Administration argues that new sanctions would cause Iran to leave the
negotiations and could cause some countries to end their cooperation with international
sanctions.46
On the other hand, those in Congress who argue for imposition of additional sanctions might be
strengthened by the failure thus far to reach a comprehensive accord with Iran, despite nearly one
year of negotiations. Many experts question what factors might prompt Iran to accept P5+1
proposals that Iran has until now rejected. Some in Congress maintain that additional economic
pressure on Iran would not cause Iran to exit the talks but rather would succeed in compelling
Tehran to accept additional concessions needed to forge the comprehensive accord.
Beyond refraining from imposing any new sanctions, P5+1 negotiators have acknowledged that a
comprehensive nuclear deal would include a broad easing of international sanctions against Iran.
The JPA indicates that “nuclear-related” sanctions would be eased in a comprehensive deal.
Sanctions that were imposed to affect Iran’s nuclear negotiating behavior—such as those to
reduce Iran’s oil exports—are considered by both sides as “nuclear related,” even if that sanction
does not specifically refer to weapons proliferation or nuclear issues. Iran reportedly is
demanding that a comprehensive agreement ease those sanctions imposed in recent years,
43 Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions in the
Islamic Republic of Iran, Report of the Director General, International Atomic Energy Agency, GOV/2014/58,
November 7, 2014.
44 White House Office of the Press Secretary. “Fact Sheet: First Step Understandings Regarding the Islamic Republic of
Iran’s Nuclear Program.” November 23, 2013.
45 http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/70385cdc-74c3-11e4-a418-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3K6fCnOjY
46 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
12
Interim Agreement on Iran’s Nuclear Program
including those that limit its oil and oil products exports, its use of the international financial
system, and its receipt and repatriation of hard currency.47 Iran appears to have acquiesced that a
nuclear deal will not immediately result in the easing of sanctions addressing purely human rights
issues or Iran’s support for terrorist groups.48
The Administration has said that, at least initially to implement a nuclear deal, it would use the
waiver and other authority to suspend application of sanctions on Iran.49 U.S. officials assert that,
after Iran’s compliance is tested over an unspecified period of time, the Administration would ask
Congress to repeal or terminate those sanctions that cannot be lifted through Administration
action alone.50 The requirements for lifting sanctions are discussed in CRS Report R43311, Iran:
U.S. Economic Sanctions and the Authority to Lift Restrictions, by Dianne E. Rennack, and in a
reported Treasury Department report that has not been released.51 In a background briefing in
March 2014, a senior Administration official stated
we are doing a considerable amount of work, including consultations with the Congress, in
that regard. We need to understand in great detail how to unwind sanctions and what—under
what authorities and what can be done by the Executive Branch, what can be done by
waivers, what will need congressional action.... any sanctions relief, should we get to a
comprehensive agreement, will be phased in and will be in response to actions that Iran
takes.52
Regional Views 53
A comprehensive nuclear agreement with Iran is likely to have profound implications for the
Middle East. An agreement has the potential to lower regional tensions that have, at times,
threatened to boil over into military conflict. Governments generally friendly to Tehran, such as
those of Iraq and Syria, are likely to welcome an agreement because an accord would
substantially ease sanctions on Iran and thereby provide Tehran with additional resources to help
those governments battle their Sunni-led rebellions. One threat is common to both Iraq and
Syria—that posed by the Islamic State organization that has captured substantial territory in both
countries.
The interim agreement has significant potential implications for the Persian Gulf monarchy states
of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE, Qatar, and Oman),
which have been aligned with the United States to contain Tehran’s regional influence. The JPA
and subsequent negotiations lowered regional tensions to the point where Foreign Minister Zarif
has visited several of the GCC states and met with Saudi Foreign Minister Saud bin Faysal Al
Saud. Oman has hosted recent sessions of the P5+1 talks and technical talks on an accord might
return to Oman in December 2014, according to some P5+1 diplomats.
47 Author conversations with Iran experts in Washington, D.C. 2014.
48 Author conversations with Iran experts in Washington, D.C. 2014.
49 http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/221528-kerry-congress-consulted-on-iran-but-dont-need-initial-vote
50 David Sanger. “Obama Sees an Iran Deal Skirting Congress, for Now.” New York Times, October 20, 2014.
51 David Sanger. “Obama Sees an Iran Deal Skirting Congress, for Now.” New York Times, October 20, 2014.
52 Dept. of State. “Background Briefing on Next Week’s EU-Coordinated P5+1 Talks With Iran.” March 14, 2014.
53 Some material in this section was provided by Christopher M. Blanchard and James Zanotti, Specialists in Middle
Eastern Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
13
Interim Agreement on Iran’s Nuclear Program
Yet, GCC officials—as well as those of Israel and other U.S. allies—have long expressed concern
that closer U.S.-Iranian relations that might result from a nuclear accord could empower Iran to
be more assertive in the Gulf region and broader Middle East. Among the GCC states, these fears
are amplified at the moment by GCC perceptions, expressed particularly strongly by officials of
Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Bahrain, of what they see as an expansionist, sectarian Iranian agenda
aimed at empowering Shia Muslims in the region at the expense of Sunnis. Iranian leaders
attribute similarly sectarian motives to their GCC counterparts. Analysts continue to debate
whether Saudi Arabia would seek to acquire its own nuclear weapons capability if Iran did so.
Some GCC officials have also expressed concerns about a “double standard” in which Iran would
be allowed to continue enriching uranium, whereas the United States insists that civilian nuclear
programs in the Gulf, such as that in UAE, not include indigenous production of nuclear fuel.54
Some experts assert that the GCC states, and other regional states that cooperate closely with the
United States on security matters such as Israel and Jordan, privately might question whether the
nuclear negotiations with Iran represent a more fundamental U.S. shift away from the region. In
citing evidence for a possible U.S. shift, leaders of some of these states conflate a potential deal
with Iran with U.S. reticence to act to try to oust the government of Syrian President Bashar Al
Assad, the U.S. pullout of all troops from Iraq in 2011, and U.S. assertions that it will not deploy
any ground combat troops to battle the Islamic State organization in Iraq or Syria.
Still, it is likely that few, if any, regional states will sharply shift their defense and foreign policy
postures. The GCC states are closely aligned on security issues with the United States and host
significant numbers of U.S. troops and amounts of U.S. prepositioned military equipment—in
large part due to contingency plans regarding a potential crisis with Tehran. These states have
been at odds with the Islamic Republic since its 1979 Islamic revolution—and especially during
the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war in which Iran attacked international shipping and some Gulf port
facilities of Kuwait. Pro-Iranian Shia movements reportedly were responsible for acts of
intimidation and terrorism in several of the GCC states during the 1980s and 1990s—an era that
long predated international concerns about Iran’s nuclear program.
Still, the potential for a nuclear accord and improved U.S. relations with Iran have prompted a
GCC examination of alternative security arrangements. In particular, Saudi Arabia has proposed
greater political unity among the GCC states. Failing to achieve consensus on that idea, the GCC
countries have announced plans—to be further formalized at the December 2014 GCC summit in
Qatar—for greater military command integration and defense coordination.
Israel’s leaders routinely assert that their country is uniquely threatened by the possibility that
Iran might, despite limitations and safeguards in any comprehensive accord, eventually obtain
nuclear weapons. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has vociferously warned of the
alleged perils of a deal that would in any way ease the international sanctions regime against Iran
and would accept Iran’s retention of enriched uranium or of infrastructure potentially usable for
the generation of fissile material. Netanyahu appears to believe that his criticisms could cause
P5+1 negotiators to stiffen their terms for a final deal. He might also be attempting to cultivate
support from key audiences such as Congress and broader U.S. public opinion—particularly in
connection with potential legislative initiatives relating to the imposition and/or lifting of
54 Author conversations with Gulf diplomats. 2011-2013.
Congressional Research Service
14
Interim Agreement on Iran’s Nuclear Program
sanctions. However, as for a potential Israeli military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, many—if
not most—observers deem it unlikely while P5+1 hopes remain for a diplomatic solution.55
Implications for U.S.-Iran Relations56
Many of the reported regional concerns about a potential comprehensive agreement assume that a
deal will produce a breakthrough in U.S.-Iran relations at the expense of close U.S. relations with
its allies in the region. Iran and the United States have been mostly at odds since the February
1979 Islamic revolution, and came into limited naval conflict during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war,
when U.S. forces defended the GCC states from attack by Iran. In 1984, the United States placed
Iran on its list of “state sponsors of terrorism” and has accused Iran of numerous acts of terrorism
against the United States and its interests.
Yet, at times the several years prior to the JPA, the United States and Iran have cooperated in the
region when doing so has suited their mutual interests. U.S. diplomats negotiated with Iranian
officials to form the post-Taliban government in Afghanistan in late 2001, and Iran and the United
States have tacitly cooperated in the formation of virtually all post-Saddam governments in Iraq.
The JPA was, in part, a product of quiet U.S.-Iran negotiations brokered by Oman, a GCC state
that maintains excellent relations with Iran, in 2013,.57 The U.S.-Iran talks accelerated after the
June 2013 election of President Hassan Rouhani, who unexpectedly won election on a platform of
ending Iran’s international isolation and obtaining relief from international sanctions. The
potential for rapprochement appeared to improve as the U.N. General Assembly meetings
convened in New York in September 2013. President Obama, in his September 24, 2013, speech,
confirmed that he had exchanged letters with Rouhani stating the U.S. willingness to resolve the
nuclear issue diplomatically,58 and restated that the United States is not seeking regime change in
Iran. The Administration signaled that the President would be open to meeting Rouhani during
the gatherings; a meeting did not occur, but a September 27, 2013, phone call President Obama
placed to Rouhani represented the first direct contact between presidents of the two countries
since the 1979 Islamic revolution. In remarks after JPA was announced, President Obama said
that “we can begin to chip away at the mistrust between our two nations.”59
Iranian leaders, apparently to mollify hardliners who believe that a nuclear deal will increase U.S.
cultural, political, social, and economic influence in Iran, have sought to downplay prospects that
the interim nuclear deal will produce a dramatic breakthrough in relations. Anticipation of a
possible broader breakthrough has been fed by the fact that Secretary of State John Kerry has had
substantial interaction with Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif in the course of the nuclear talks,
including separate bilateral meetings on regional and other issues. U.S. officials acknowledge that
bilateral meetings have discussed the threat posed by the Islamic State organization as well as the
fate of three American nationals confirmed or believed held by Iran. On Iraq, the United States
55 See, e.g., Amos Harel, “With Iran deal sealed, don’t expect Israel to send out the air force,” Ha’aretz, November 25,
2013.
56 For detail on U.S.-Iran relations, see CRS Report RL32048, Iran: U.S. Concerns and Policy Responses, by Kenneth
Katzman.
57 http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/11/26/
who_is_the_shadowy_sultan_that_shepherded_the_nuclear_deal_with_iran.
58 Remarks by President Obama in Address to the United Nations General Assembly, September 24, 2013.
59 Statement by the President on the First Step Agreement on Iran’s Nuclear Program. November 23, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
15
Interim Agreement on Iran’s Nuclear Program
and Iran are indirectly cooperating to support the Shiite-dominated government of Prime Minister
Haydar Al Abbadi against Islamic State forces. On Syria, Iran continues to support the
government of President Al Assad, although some U.S. diplomats are said to perceive that Iran
might yet be persuaded to help move Assad aside in order to blunt the appeal of the Islamic State.
U.S. diplomats who take this position note that Iran helped oust Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-
Maliki, who was perceived as an obstacle to winning back Iraqi Sunni support to the government
side, in August 2014.
A possible hindrance to any post-nuclear agreement U.S.-Iran rapprochement will be remaining
U.S. sanctions and issues unrelated to proliferation. U.S. officials have stressed that no sanctions
that address long-standing U.S. concerns about Iran’s use of terrorism or its human rights abuses
will be eased as part of a nuclear deal with Iran. U.S. officials also maintain that a nuclear deal
will not cause the United States to cease its public criticism of Iran’s human rights practices and
its detention of U.S. citizens.
Congressional Research Service
16
Interim Agreement on Iran’s Nuclear Program
Appendix. Nuclear Weapons Development60
An effective nuclear weapons capability has three major elements: producing fissile material in
sufficient quantity and quality for a nuclear explosive device; designing and weaponizing a
survivable nuclear warhead; and producing an effective means for delivering the weapon, such as
a ballistic missile.61 The U.S. government assesses that, although Iran could eventually produce
nuclear weapons, it has not yet decided to do so and has not mastered all of the necessary
technologies for building a nuclear weapon. Tehran had a nuclear weapons program but halted it
in 2003, according to U.S. government estimates.62
Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman explained during an October 3,
2013, Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing that Iran would need as much as one year to
produce a nuclear weapon if the government made the decision to do so.63 This estimate takes
into account the amount of time that Iran would need to produce a sufficient amount of weapons-
grade highly-enriched uranium (HEU), which is widely regarded as the most difficult task in
building nuclear weapons, as well as to develop the other components necessary for a nuclear
weapon. This estimate does not include the time that Iran would need to be able to render a
nuclear weapon deliverable by a ballistic missile. Then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta stated
in January 2012 that Iran would need “possibly ... one to two years in order to put [a nuclear
weapon] on a deliverable vehicle of some sort.”64
A senior intelligence official explained during a December 2007 press briefing that the
“acquisition of fissile material” was the “governing element in any timelines” regarding Iran’s
production of a “nuclear device.”65 However, the estimate articulated by Sherman assumes that
Iran would need less time to produce the necessary weapons-grade HEU than it would to
complete the relevant nuclear weapons design and weaponization tasks.66 This estimate also
apparently assumes that Iran would use its declared nuclear facilities to produce fissile material
for a weapon.67 The other assumptions behind the estimate are not clear.68
60 For more information about Iran’s ballistic missile program, see CRS Report R42849, Iran’s Ballistic Missile and
Space Launch Programs, by Steven A. Hildreth.
61 For a more detailed discussion, see Office of Technology Assessment, Technologies Underlying Weapons of Mass
Destruction (OTA-BP-ISC-115), December 1993.
62 A 2007 National Intelligence Estimate defined “nuclear weapons program” as “nuclear weapon design and
weaponization work and covert uranium conversion-related and uranium enrichment related work.”
63 “Reversing Iran’s Nuclear Program,” Hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, October 3, 2013.
64 Transcript of remarks by Secretary Panetta from CBS’s 60 Minutes interview, January 29, 2012.
65 “Unclassified Key Judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate: Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities,”
Background Briefing with Senior Intelligence Officials, December 3, 2007.
66 Iran has expanded its fissile material production capability after halting the other aspects of its weapons development
program in 2003.
67 It is worth noting that no country has ever used a centrifuge facility designed and built for low-enriched uranium
production to produce weapons-grade HEU. Therefore, Iran may need a trial-and-error period to determine the proper
modifications for its own centrifuge facilities, were Tehran to adapt them for such a purpose.
68 For a detailed discussion of the variables such estimates must take into account, see Iran’s Nuclear, Chemical, and
Biological Capabilities: A Net Assessment, International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2011, pp.69-70 and William C.
Witt, Christina Walrond, David Albright, and Houston Wood, Iran’s Evolving Breakout Potential, Institute for Science
and international Security, October 8, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
17
Interim Agreement on Iran’s Nuclear Program
Tehran would probably use covert enrichment facilities to produce fissile material for nuclear
weapons—a tactic that would require a longer period of time, according to testimony from
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper during an April 18, 2013, Senate Armed Services
Committee hearing. As noted in the body of this report, U.S. officials have argued that the
International Atomic Energy Agency would likely detect an Iranian attempt to use its safeguarded
facilities to produce weapons-grade HEU. They have also expressed confidence in the United
States’ ability to detect covert Iranian enrichment plants.
Author Contact Information
Kenneth Katzman
Mary Beth D. Nikitin
Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs
Specialist in Nonproliferation
kkatzman@crs.loc.gov, 7-7612
mnikitin@crs.loc.gov, 7-7745
Paul K. Kerr
Analyst in Nonproliferation
pkerr@crs.loc.gov, 7-8693
Congressional Research Service
18