Iran nuclear talks yield only one agreement: Let's meet again

Jalili said the P5+1 in these talks were "more objective, more serious, and more realistic," compared to the rancorous round in Baghdad last month that nearly collapsed.

He repeated Iran's rejection of nuclear weapons, and said documents had been presented that "prove" that UNSC intervention in Iran's nuclear dossier was "illegal from our point of view."

"Enrichment of uranium for peaceful purposes in all levels is an inalienable right," Jalili said. "Positive and constructive" negotiations could only proceed if "reciprocal and balanced steps" were taken, he added, and the "aggressive attitude" toward Iran eased.

Who will budge first?

Diplomats close to the talks, on both sides, said afterward that it was not yet clear – after the third round of high-level negotiations this year – which side might budge first.

"We don't want a crisis or collapse of talks," said one Western diplomat. He said that not all of Iran's engagement was positive, and that Iran did not specifically say what steps it was willing to take regarding easing concerns about its 20 percent enriched uranium, which is a few steps away from weapons grade.

Detailed discussion of the fatwa by Iran's supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, which declares making or holding nuclear weapons a "sin" and un-Islamic, needed to be "operationalized" by Iran in the view of the P5+1, he said.

"It's not collapse, it's not suspension," the Western diplomat added. But there was also not enough common ground yet to commit to another top-level meeting.

Iranian diplomats close to the talks also expressed pessimism, with one telling the Monitor that negotiations were "not good at all." The final sessions focused on the content of the technical meetings; the P5+1 position was inflexible and "not moving."

"The whole dispute is that P5+1 want to have a technical meeting in order to respond to the issues Iran raised regarding their proposal," said the Iranian diplomat. "While Iran wants to have legal, technical, and political experts to respond to both proposals tabled by each side."

It was clear to the Iranian delegation that the Americans – represented at the table by US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman – were looked to for guidance.

"When something new was raised everyone was looking to Sherman, therefore I think it is important to see how far these countries could go," said the Iranian diplomat.

"It is obvious that sanctions are very important to Iran. Question is whether Americans are ready to ease them," the diplomat told the Monitor. "They are asking Iran to take confidence-building measures while they are not ready to ease those sanctions. I think at this stage they just want to take and give nothing."

Tehran looking for right to enrich

Prior to the Moscow talks, Iranian sources said that Tehran's "minimum" requirement was recognition of its right to enrich. American officials have said Iran can eventually have a "peaceful nuclear program" – with no reference to enrichment – though a Western diplomat said "we are a long way from that."

"The expert meeting is still a step forward that can pave the way to an agreement centered on the 20 percent enrichment, as long as it is pegged to the broader issue of Iran's NPT rights," says Kaveh Afrasiabi, a former adviser to Iranian nuclear negotiating teams from 2004 to 2006, contacted in New York.

"[The] Moscow round may well be remembered as another opportunity lost," says Mr. Afrasiabi. "Only when these [P5+1] powers respect Iran's red line on the nuclear fuel cycle under IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] safeguards can the present deadlock be broken." 

Such a possibility appeared remote on the P5+1 side of the table in Moscow. Said the senior US official: "If Iran wants more from us, which of course they do, then they would have to do more."

Previous

1 | 2