Fission creep: Iran nuclear talks resume

Hey, Ryan Reynolds here wishing you a very happy half off holiday because right now Mint Mobile is offering you the gift of 50% off unlimited. To be clear, that's half price, not half the service. Mint is still premium unlimited wireless for a great price. So that means a half day.

Yeah.

Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment.

Of $45 for three month plan equivalent to $15 per month. Required new customer offer for first three months only. Speed slow 135 gigabytes of network busy. Taxes and fees extra.

See mintmobile.com hey, Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. You know one of the perks about having four kids that you know about is actually getting a direct line to the big man up north. And this year he wants you to know the best gift that you can give someone is the gift of Mint Mobile's unlimited wireless for $15 a month.

Now you don't even need to wrap it.

Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment.

Of $45 for a three month plan equivalent to $15 per month. Required new customer offer for first three months only. Speed slow after 35 gigabytes. If network's busy, taxes and fees extra. See mintmobile.com.

Hello and welcome to the Intelligence from the Economist. I'm your host, Jason Palmer. Every weekday we provide a fresh perspective on the events shaping your world. The security forces in Bangladesh are a fearsome bunch. Beatings and rapes are common, and as the prime Minister's protection force, they've been acting with impunity. But there's a glimmer of hope that new American sanctions may change that. And Japan has done good work in raising the life expectancy of its citizens. But that brings different challenges. So the government is learning how to help people make those latter years healthier and happier. First up, though, Talks resume this week on resurrecting a nuclear deal with Iran. It's been tough going. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, negotiated by the Obama administration in 2015.

Today we have stopped the spread of.

Nuclear weapons in this region and torn up by the Trump administration in 2018. Never, ever always had its critics.

In my life have I seen any.

Transaction so incompetently negotiated as our deal with Iran.

The deal limited Iran's nuclear program and tightened inspections in return for lifting lots of sanctions on the country. But since America's withdrawal, Iran has spun its way well past uranium enrichment limits. And the time limits of the original JCPOA are getting closer. So for all of that negotiation, not to have been for nothing. A return to the deal has to be struck soon.

It depends on whom you ask. Everybody is saying this is crunch time.

Anton LaGuardia is our diplomatic editor.

But there is disagreement as to whether we are close to a breakthrough or close to a breakdown.

And this is now the eighth protracted round of negotiations. In the meantime, where have Iran's nuclear capabilities got to?

The Iranians have made steady, relentless progress in their nuclear program. First of all, thank you very much for speaking to us. My matter last week I spoke to Rafael Grossi, the Director General of the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency. That's the body that inspects Iran's nuclear facilities. Give us your best assessment of the state of the Iranian nuclear program. And he sets out how far the Iranians have come.

Iran has accumulated roughly 10 times as much material as allowed by the JCPOA in its original form. It has developed and is utilizing new types of centrifuges that were explicitly prohibited.

They have enriched a lot more uranium and some of that has been enriched to 60%, which in uranium enrichment terms is a hair's breadth away from bomb grade. In fact, in some cases it is bomb grade.

So what you have here is an Iran that has grown in width, in depth, in height, in all 3D dimensions, its nuclear program.

And apart from Iran's progress in its nuclear program, it has also reduced steadily the degree to which it cooperates with the IAEA in its work of inspecting its facilities. And Mr. Grossi seems very worried about not only what he sees, but by what he doesn't see. Are you confident that you have sufficient, currently have sufficient oversight of Iran's nuclear program to be.

At the moment, no. At the moment, no. At the moment we.

So the negotiations in Vienna then, are still just about rejoining, reforming that JCPOA, which has always had its critics.

Yes, it had a number of limitations. It placed limits on Iran's nuclear program, but did not completely remove its technology. And it was also time limited in that Iran had about 15 years after which it would be able to begin large scale enrichment. The administration promised initially that it would seek an agreement that was longer and stronger than the original jcpoa. That has proven impossible. So what they're negotiating is a mutual return to compliance with the existing agreement. So the question is, is it worth it? Now? The answer is probably yes, in that a restoration of the agreement would remove from Iran large amounts of enriched uranium, it would dismantle centrifuges that they have assembled, and it will place the whole thing under strict Monitoring. So there is value in de escalating for a time. The critics of the agreement say yes, but you're going to end up giving Iran a large amount of money with which it can at the very least sow more trouble in the region. On balance though, I think that it's still worth doing, but only just.

And you say that the feeling on the ground is that it's crunch time now, but this has been kind of dragging on for 8, 10 months. Why is it crunch time now?

It's crunch time for a number of reasons. The first and biggest is that the clock is ticking on Iran's nuclear program. The more progress it makes, the more knowledge it acquires and the harder it is to undo that. The second reason is that the sunset clauses under which Iran would be able to resume large scale enrichment come closer the longer the negotiations go on. So the Americans have this sense that time is running out and they have to get a deal or move on to a different policy.

So the Americans really just want a speedy resolution here. What is it that Iran wants to get out of all this?

Views on what Iran wants are divided. It wants a removal of sanctions. If there were a lifting of sanctions, that would give an economic boost to the President, who is still quite new in Iran, Ibrahim Raisi, and he has at times signaled a willingness to reach some kind of agreement. On the other hand, some Iranian hardliners particularly might want to press their advantage. They are progressing by leaps and bounds and they think that America doesn't want to risk military action in the Middle East. And they also think that their facilities are better protected than they were in the past. And therefore they can afford to risk moving ahead or at least prolonging the negotiations some more.

And so what chance do you give it then of going through?

Views are very divided on this. I've heard some well informed sources talk about a 75% chance of a deal and now there's talk of a 5% chance of a deal. And I think that depends slightly on which end of the telescope they're looking from. The Americans are certainly briefing quite optimistically saying there's a real chance of an agreement and at the end of last week said that they would restore waivers on U.S. sanctions for some companies engaging in some aspects of Iranian nuclear activity. So in effect, they have signaled a willingness to lift sanctions with what looks like a goodwill gesture. However, there are also reasons to think that none of this may come to pass. There's a debate that you can see in Iran about whether it's worth going back into the deal. There are some people, including Mr. Grossi of the IAEA, who think that in the end Iran will want to reach some kind of agreement.

This government defines itself as a pragmatic government and I suppose this means that they want to continue with what they feel it's useful for their national interest.

And what about the alternate view? You say plenty of people have quite a lot of pessimism about this. What would happen if the talks do entirely break down?

If the talks break down, then we're in a period of growing diplomatic isolation, attempts to impose stronger sanctions on Iran and potentially growing military confrontation. One possibility is that the Europeans will invoke the so called snapback provisions of the JCPOA in order to restore UN sanctions. That in turn might lead to a breach with Russia and China who have been surprisingly helpful in trying to nudge the Iranians along. Then you have the Israelis who have been rehearsing military exercises. The Iranians have been very canny in gauging how far they can go in any particular political moment. They may of course miscalculate. The hope is that the Russians and the Chinese will see the risk and because they have some kind of partnership with Iran will be able to keep pushing it towards some kind of deal, limited as it may be. The next two weeks I think are crucial, but also very uncertain.

Thank you very much for your time, Anton.

Thank you, Jason.

For more analysis like this from our international network of correspondence, take out a subscription to the Economist. Get a great introductory deal@Equality.com IntelligenceOffer the link is in the show Notes.

Hi, I'm Cindy Crawford and I'm the founder of Meaningful Beauty. Well I don't know about you but like I never liked being told oh wow, you look so good for your age. Like why even bother saying that? Why don't you just say you look great at any age? Every age. That's what Meaningful Beauty is all about. We create products that make you feel confident in your skin at the age you are now. Meaningful Beauty. Beautiful skin at every age. Learn more@meaningful beauty.com.

We talk a lot about sanctions on the show. It's the go to diplomatic tool choking off funding or travel as a way to stop some countries nasty or dangerous behavior without using force. They don't always work and they rarely work quickly. Iran is just one tough case. North Korea another would be nuclear weapons state is another. But sanctions on one regime seem to be having a real effect. Bangladesh's prime minister has been growing ever more heavy handed for the country's 160 million people. Violence and corruption are just a part of the day to day of government. Suddenly, though, things look a little less grim.

Since Sheikh Hasina came back to power in 2009, the powerful security forces have firmly backed her, helping her win the last election amid claims of vote rigging.

Susannah Savage writes about South Asia for the Economist.

Until recently, any challenge to this rule looked kind of hopeless. But that might be changing now. And this is in part because of American sanctions, which have been imposed on the Rapid Action Battalion, or the rab, as it's known, which is a notorious paramilitary force, and on a handful of top security officers with links to the rab, which includes the country's police chief.

So what is it specifically that triggered these sanctions from America?

Well, there's a lot of background to it. Bangladeshi politics are incredibly bloody and violent. But this has got a lot worse under Sheikh Hasina. Violence is a routine part of political life. And since Sheikh Hasina came back to power, the RAB in particular have enjoyed impunity. This group is supposed to go after terrorists and drug lords, but it's often mobilized in the last few years to settle political scores and to hound the opposition or dissenting voices. It's thought to have killed over 1,300 Bangladeshis. The RAB has also been involved in abducting hundreds of Bangladeshis in enforced disappearances, many of whom have later turned up dead. US sanctions and calls for further actions from non profit organizations revolve around the actions of this particular security force.

So why is it that Cheik Hasina has let the RAB run so wild?

I think it's largely been in her interest. The RAB has been carrying out the whims of the Prime Minister. And she herself is a product of violent Bangladeshi politics. Her political career has been a lot about avenging the deaths of her family, most of whom died in 1975 in a military couple. So she's purged the security forces of any supporters of the opposition, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party. At the same time, she's promoted loyalists and given them access to means to make enormous wealth, often through corruption. These people, as a result, have a sense of impunity and therefore they do pretty much whatever they want.

But you say that because of the American sanctions, that seems to be changing.

Yes, the sanctions have definitely rattled elites in Bangladesh, and this includes those who've been targeted by the sanctions, but also the top brass in general. Many of these elites send their children to Western universities, and they're often dirty cash to Western bank accounts. And they hope to retire to properties in America, Australia or Britain or Canada. So this has had an enormous impact on them. And there's a lot of speculation that a wider group of senior officials could be next too, including the Prime Minister's very powerful son, Sajid Bajid, who has an American green card. So it's not just the sanctions themselves, it's the speculation around them which has led to a far more cautious approach. So, strikingly, the number of extrajudicial killings has actually fallen to zero since the sanctions were issued.

But what are the knock on effects of putting that kind of pressure on the elite, the elites that prop up the Prime Minister?

This could have an impact on support for the Prime Minister, especially as the next election approaches at the end of 2023. When it comes to the elites, their support might wane if some of the financial perks in the US or travel to the US are in jeopardy. But then there's also the question of the security services and their complicity. Sheikh Hasina relied really heavily on them in the last election. Some of them are caught up in the current sanctions. But broadly speaking, senior officers are not necessarily the main problem in terms of money. They're far more dependent on Chinese loans and profits from arms sales, which seem to flow directly into General's pockets. Instead, the bigger problem might come from the poorly paid lower ranks. These are quite reliant on touring as UN peacekeepers to make money. Actually, Bangladesh provides the largest number of peacekeepers, or has done for several years, to the un. And calls are growing in the Biden administration, but also from other organizations like Human Rights Watch, for the UN to suspend Bangladesh's peacekeeping force until RAB elements are removed from it. So if that happens, Sheikhsina could lose support from a large contingent of the security forces, who have historically been instrumental in deciding who gets to rule in Bangladesh.

So, all told, it sounds like a case where applying some sanctions actually has the intended effect.

Yes, but there might be a limit to the positive impact. They would have had more weight, for instance, if other major powers had backed up the us. And I'm not sure how likely that is to happen now. Britain's post Brexit approach, for example, emphasises its former imperial connections, but is shamefully limp on human rights. And in general, Sheikh Hasina has a real aversion to democratic norms. And I'm not sure American sanctions are going to stop this. Already, since the sanctions were introduced, she's mooted new regulations cracking down harder on social media in Bangladesh. And a new draft law is threatening to erode further the accountability of an already gutted election commission. I think when it comes to the hope the sanctions offer, it's not necessarily of America saving the day, but it's about whether international pressure can in some way help create space for those Bangladeshis agitating for change, whether that be in facilitating a fairer election or whatever else. The government is doing all it can to quash dissenting voices, civic groups, democratic minded politicians. Despite this, I would say the numbers of men and women trying to push for change in Bangladesh is increasing. Any extra space for democratic change is welcome, but this can only go so far. I think we need to wait and see what the impact of these are. The time we'll see that is at the next election in 2023.

Thanks very much for your time, Susanna.

Thank you.

J.

As you age, you build up experience, friendships, in the best case, wisdom, but also aches and pains. And for many chronic illnesses these days, people are much more likely to live into their 80s or 90s. The question is whether all those extra years are good, healthy ones.

Life expectancy is a measure of how long a person is expected to live on average.

Noah Snyder is the Economist's Tokyo bureau chief.

Healthy life expectancy, by contrast, is a measure of how long a person lives without health problems impeding their everyday life activity. And as you might expect, there's a gap between them. As people get older, they tend to develop all kinds of problems and conditions that get in the way of living a healthy life even as they live longer lives. The global gap between healthy life expectancy and life Expectancy is around 10 years on average, according to the World Health Organization. Reducing this gap, many people think, is really key to transitioning into aging societies.

Which is a particular question for Japan, given all that we've said before about Japan's demographics.

Exactly. So this is really at the top of the agenda in Japan, which is, as we know, the world's oldest country. Men here live an average of over 81 and a half years and women nearly 88 years. That's almost three years longer than the average for advanced economies. But in 2019, the healthy parts of those lives in Japan were on average nine years shorter for men and around 12 years shorter for women.

So how to go about closing that gap then, that gap that's particularly wide in Japan?

Well, that question is occupying a lot of attention in local governments across the country. In fact, there's a kind of extend healthy life expectancy award that that the Health Ministry hands out. There was a winner recently. A prefecture north of Kyoto, called Fukui, which encouraged local companies to sort of let employees wear sneakers to work, which led to a big increase in their daily step counts. There's a prefecture in northern Japan called Aomori which has a big diabetes problem. And one tool they've used is a poetry contest. They've solicited the best poems about diabetes written in Senryu, which is a form of Japanese poetry, is kind of like a haiku, but really focused on human foibles. So there are a lot of things happening all across the map, ranging from serious to the silly, but broadly, they're.

Focused on keeping the machinery of the body well. Things like blood sugar and activity, yes, in part.

But at the same time, what a lot of researchers and a lot of prefectures are increasingly focused on here in Japan is the social side of health. The ways that your social ties, your community networks, the institutions that surround you, the way that those impact your health. And so it's, I guess, a slightly more holistic approach to thinking about public health. Not just looking at disease factors or individual diseases, but thinking about how to keep people socially as well as physically active.

And what are those more sort of socially minded initiatives look like?

To find out, I went up to Yamanashi, which is a kind of a bukalik, a gorgeous prefecture at the foot of Mount Fuji, and it has constantly ranked amongst the top two prefectures for healthy life expectancy in Japan over the past decade. And when I started asking public health specialists why they think that is, they point to two things in particular. One is high employment rates amongst the elderly. The second is a kind of fun local tradition. It's a thing called Mujin, which began as essentially microcredit associations, and they've since evolved into basically social clubs.

So how do these Mujin work?

Well, members all chip into a common pool and get together for regular gatherings, usually food and drink, noodles and sake. Some might prefer tea or mahjong. And actually there are a number of studies by social epidemiologists and public health specialists that show folks who've participated actively in Mujin are staying healthier for longer, even when controlling for wealth and other individual variables. And the hypothesis is that regular group activity gives people a sense of purpose. It acts as kind of an informal safety mechanism. You know, other members notice when someone is absent or if they're looking worse than the previous month. And folks in Yamanashi are so keen on the potential benefits of Mujin that the governor has recently decided to start offering subsidies for Moojin. So if you pull back and put these pieces together. The secret to a healthy life, then, might be similar to the secret to a happy one. Staying busy and regularly seeing friends, even over a drink or two.

Thanks very much for joining us, Noah.

Thank you for having me.

That's all for this episode of the Intelligence. If you like us, leave us a rating and a review and see you back here tomorrow.