Q&A on the Iran Deal with UNC peace, war and defense professor

CORRECTION: The original online version of this story misrepresented Klaus Larres' title in the headline. Larres is an adjunct professor in UNC's Department of Peace, War and Defense.

---

Iran, along with the United States, China, Russia, France, Germany and the United Kingdom, proposed a multilateral deal in July to curb Iran’s nuclear program. Staff writer Shweta Mishra sat down with Klaus Larres, a peace, war and defense professor at UNC, to discuss the implications of the deal’s potential passage.

Larres said the deal, contentious for some American politicians, could prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons — while also stabilizing the country’s political and economic climate.

The Daily Tar Heel: If the Iran deal passes, what long-term implications would you foresee?

Klaus Larres: Iran and United States relations will improve. Iran will get back gradually into the international community. Many countries apart from the United States will feel encouraged to trade with Iran, and, of course, Iran is an important oil exporter. That will probably lead to further oil glut on the market.

Then, another important consequence of the deal will probably be that the relationship between Israel and the United States will continue to remain tense, if not deteriorate further. Israel sees the Iran deal as a danger to its security. It believes that Iran will still be able to manufacture atomic bombs. My own personal view is that that is an exaggerated view, that the Iran deal is beneficial, that now at least the Iranian nuclear capability, which will remain to a limited extent, is under international control rather than not.

DTH: What do you believe are the potential security consequences of not having the Iran deal or something like it?

KL: If there was no deal and the Iranians continued with their ambition — to obtain a nuclear missile possibly — maybe at some point, Israel would attack. (This possibility) was revealed in the memoirs of former Israel defense minister (Ehud) Barak, who also for a time was the Israeli prime minister.

DTH: What do you think are some of the deal’s most important points?

KL: The lifting of sanctions will probably help to decrease unemployment in Iran by making the country more prosperous again by being able to trade. That is very important not just for the population, but the maintenance of the clerics in power.

DTH: What response would you have to the main detractors in U.S. politics?

KL: That the deal now needs to be implemented properly, that Iran now needs to definitely stick to each letter and needs to be properly supervised and that the inspectors have full access — that goes without saying. What we shouldn’t overlook is that once a country like Iran, that is largely isolated from the international community — once they become integrated again and there’s more access to the international media and culture, music — that will reform Iran. That is what will happen gradually over time, and that will probably turn Iran into a more liberal, less fundamentalist country. Something like that, which is a side effect, is something which we can look out for.

DTH: Does this interaction have a precedent or parallel in history?

KL: You could take the disarmament negotiations between Gorbachev and President Reagan in the second half of the 1980s, where once-totally hostile countries were able to negotiate successfully to disarm and to reduce their conventional weapons and, above all, their nuclear weapons. That was also something unforeseen and very surprising, and it happened.

state@dailytarheel.com