Tweet
Hopes that last week’s diplomatic round between the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany) and Iran would produce progress on the nuclear question have begun to wane, hampered by a media pushback from hardliners on both sides.
From the West, we’ve had a series of somewhat dubious articles about nefarious Iranian activities, just days after the completion of the talks and the announcement that they would continue in June. First, the AP used anonymous sources to make a damning accusation about highly enriched uranium found by IAEA inspectors at an Iranian facility. But in reality, the article only cites “trace” amounts of uranium enriched up to 27%, which could easily be explained by technical reasons. The headline makes no mention of the insignificance of this finding. Next, a story out today from Joby Warrick accuses Iran and Hezbollah of working together on assassination attempts, but there’s little beyond conjecture in the article.
From the Iranian side, whether in reaction or just from their own hardliners, we have this. First, one anonymous Iranian diplomat called the P5+1 talks a complete failure, saying that the West demanded too much in return for the small carrots they were willing to give to Iran on civilian nuclear energy. Those anonymous whispers led to this announcement today.
Iran’s nuclear chief, reversing the country’s previous statements, said on state television on Sunday that the country would not halt its production of higher-grade uranium, suggesting that the Iranian government was veering back to a much harder line after talks in Baghdad with the West last week ended badly.
The official, Fereydoon Abbasi, said there would be no suspension of enrichment by Iran, the central requirement of several United Nations Security Council resolutions. He specifically said that applied to uranium being enriched to 20 percent purity — a steppingstone that puts it in fairly easy reach of producing highly enriched uranium that can be used for nuclear weapons.
“We have no reason to retreat from producing the 20 percent, because we need 20 percent uranium just as much to meet our needs,” Mr. Abbasi said, according to Iranian state television.
I think we can assess this by acknowledging that there are hardliners on both sides who are heavily invested in not having this standoff end diplomatically. In the US, this leads to anonymous media leaks about Iranian treachery, and very public displays like the Senate vote tightening sanctions on the Islamic Republic, which happened on the eve of negotiations, and which leading Iranian negotiator Said Jalili said poisoned the atmosphere at the talks.
In Iran, hardliners use these actions as proof that the West will not keep their promises, leading to belligerence and defiance. Both sides’ hardliners work off one another to their mutual benefit, in other words. It becomes very difficult in such an environment to find anything resembling sanity.
The next hurdle is the EU oil embargo on Iran scheduled for July 1. This also could affect shipping of Iranian oil worldwide. Hopefully this escalation in tensions is just an effort to gain maximum leverage for the June talks. But things aren’t looking great.
12 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
“Hardliners on Both Sides Push Iran Diplomacy Further Apart.”
“Both Sides” … as if those are the ONLY “sides”?
You see, David, how unfortunate we are that there are NO other “sides”, no alternative views … or candidates.
When will THAT fact become part of the larger equation?
Do you think that you might help?
Or silence … as if the questions here posed were NEVER even asked …?
The answers do matter, are germane, and timely as hell.
DW
The consequences of these actions need to be vetted in detail. The costs of war in lives injuries destruction assets money diplomatic ties all need to be weighed carefully. Until then rational solutions are not available. Repeat Iraq/Afghanistan? Now Russia and China are starting to get belligerent. The consequences are grim.
It’s interesting that a blockade –using the military to prevent goods leaving or reaching a country– is considered an act of war, but an embargo –using other means to prevent goods leaving or reaching a country– is not.
Yet, the effect is essentially the same. Is it not? Or are there sufficent work arounds that give the embargoed nation the ability to still keep its commerce, well, alive?
USA,USA, USA
Another american f/u by developing and deploying Atomic weapons, we are less safe than any other time in our history. Sure was worth it not to find a harder honorable way to end that war. We’ve become death’s hand maiden.
Insanity you can drop from 35,000 feet.
o is no John F Kennedy when it comes to standing up against the CIAmilitary rulers.
Aren’t you willing to give up everything Social security, Medicare, Medicaid, the education system, the environment and your family as protection money for the CIAmilitary “protection” ? What kind of american are you anyway ? /s
This controversy was manufactured by the West to demonize Iran(Shia) and further the interests of their allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia(Sunni). The US and the UK have never forgiven Iran for deposing our puppet the Shah, who we put into power by staging a coup against their democratically elected leader Mossadegh. The West is not bargaining in good faith, as Iran’s a signatory of the NPT and their enrichment program is in line with that treaty’s stipulations. The nations vilifying Iran utilize these actions as a weapon of mass distraction to shift the focus of their citizens from the economic terrorism that their corporate governments have subjected them to and to create fear of the “other”. Ask yourselves why these nations have no incentive to investigate or expose the nuclear power of the two nations that are their “allies” and didn’t sign the NPT, Israel and India.
I fear this will not end well. To simplify, this reminds me of Peanuts.
Obama is Peanuts only far more feckless. Lucy is Iran. And the football is the bomb.
Nuff said, the rest is mental masturbation.
Except that Lucy actually has a football and Iran doesn’t have the bomb.
Maybe not just yet, but time is certainly on their side.
Ergo your previous comment has no merit and your characterization of Iran’s “bomb” is the result of mental masturbation rather than reality.
I really don’t give rats ass if Iran develops a nuclear weapon. I know the “conventional wisdom” is they are crazy enough to use it. Well I heard the same song and dace about those evil crazy Russians that would nuke us in a New York second. They aren’t crazy as everyone seems to think.
I actually think it’s probably the sanest move on Iran’s part, to develop a nuke. Remember they just had two countries on either side of them invaded by the U.S. They’d have to be nuts not to want one.
Iran is just this countries current bogey-man. Not to worry there is a long line waiting to be our next bogey-man.
No, we can’t so assess.
Iran is merely following a national policy for a civilian nuclear program just as dozens of other countries are, in full compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that Iran signed years ago. There is nothing “hardline” about what Iran is doing or they way that are defending what they are doing.
The U.S., however, is continuing a thirty-year program of sanctions against Iran, which include illegal demands from the US puppet UN Security Council that Iran quit its uranium enrichment program.
NPT: “Nothing in this 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 articles I and II of this Treaty.”
The US and its allies are not serious about these talks. They are being used to steady the price of oil and prevent a shock to their increasingly weak economies, particularly in Europe. Also there is a US election coming up.
The US has sanctioned Iran for thirty years. The sanctions, plus the “Axis of Evil” chatter, in 2005 caused Iran to stop implementing its Additional Protocol safeguards agreement with the IAEA. The increased sanctions in 2010 caused Iran to cancel its agreement with Brazil and Turkey to out-source its 20% enrichment. Further increases in sanctions will make any agreement impossible.
George Perkovich, director of nuclear nonproliferation at the Carnegie Institute for Peace, warned that, without a U.S. or European willingness to ease sanctions—particularly with stringent oil export sanctions set to go online in July—there was little hope for a deal and the conflict could escalate.
“One thing we know from looking at Iranian decision making and actions since 2005 is, when there is a big disappointment or the next turn of the ratchet, they increase the activity that we are most concerned about,” he said.