With significant factions on both sides rooting for failure in the Iranian nuclear talks, it should come as no surprise that they came up short after wrapping up last night.
A U.S. administration official said that after so many hours of tough exchanges, the parties need to talk to each other, parse what had been said, consult with their governments and determine whether there is a road ahead.
“I am very sober about what occurred here,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in line with the rules set for a news briefing [...]
Although the discussions took place behind firmly closed doors, their difficult nature became clear when Saeed Jalili, the Iranian negotiator, told reporters that his country had an inalienable right to enrich uranium at any level it chose, suggesting it was far from meeting the demands of the international community.
“It remains clear that there are significant gaps between the substance of the two positions,” said Catherine Ashton, the European Union’s top foreign policy representative and lead negotiator.
Apparently the talks were much more frank and detailed than previous sessions, but that only showed the gulf in negotiating positions between the two sides.
There isn’t much of a way forward at this point. Nuclear experts from the two sides will meet in Instanbul in early July to discuss the technical issues surrounding the negotiations. After that, some deputy-level talks may ensue, but the principals have no future timetable.
The P5+1 (permanent five members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany) want an end to high-level uranium enrichment, with Iran shipping out of the country its enriched uranium and closing its most secretive nuclear facility at Fordo, which is buried inside a mountain. Iran wants an end to economic sanctions and a statement that the country has the legal right to pursue a civilian nuclear energy program under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Neither side wants to give up all of that, and so the negotiations have drifted. Furthermore, we’re now headed into election season in the US, with elections coming up not too far down the road in Iran next year. So the conditions for a deal aren’t really there as much as the conditions for continued belligerence.
This will only serve to ratchet up pressure. In fact, that’s already happening. France announced that they want tighter sanctions after the close of the talks. By July 1, the new package of EU sanctions on oil shipments will be implemented, amounting to an embargo on a large swath of the market.
I suspect we’ll hear a louder set of war talk over the next several weeks, sadly.




16 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Flynt & Hillary Mann Leverett think that O is delaying deliberately to stall and Israeli attack.
I appreciate their expertise and sensible approach to the subject.
But I have a more sinister view, which is that O wants to degrade economy of Iran until it is weak enough for world’s biggest baddest empire to throw against the wall. Like U.S. did to Iraq.
The odd, strange fact that the US, Israel, and many European powers already HAVE nuclear capability just keeps rearing its ugly head!
That means that they are still talking about substantive issues and seeking a technical cover for a deal.
Obama has an election this year. Ahmedinejad has an election next year. The political pressure is on for some sort of settlement. Angering the Iranian public ahead of the Iranian election could very well force an unpopular Ahmedinejad back into office. Likely, the Obama State Department will not repeat the mistake that the Bush administration made by including Iran in the “Axis of Evil”.
And yes, if Israel really intends to attack (there are recurrent reports that neither Mossad nor the IDF have signed on to Bibi’s wanting to do this), President Obama will try to forestall it.
Where the negotiations are right now is the technical question: What constitutes the difference between a civilian program and a military program? And also: How can the world verify that Iran is pursuing only a civilian program?
It would help very much if Israel signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty and followed the example of South Africa. Whatever nuclear weapons capability Israel has is more symbolic than practical in their situation. So much so that no one is really deterred by the thought that Israel might use nuclear weapons in defense or offense.
Except for the fact that both the US and Russia have much fewer nuclear weapons than they did thirty years ago. I believe the stockpile has been reduced by two-thirds, and the fuel reprocessed to go into electrical generation–which might btw explain why no policy-makers are quite ready to shut down nuclear electrical generation. And the only European nations with nuclear weapons are the UK and France.
I dealt with Israel, which is not a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, in my comment above.
Can’t say the man doesn’t have plan.
IMO, Israel will do what is has to do when it has to do it regardless of what anybody else thinks.
You can take that to the bank.
Most of what Israel is doing at the moment is not something it has to do. It is partially what it wants to do, regardless.
Nonetheless, if Israel really is interested in a more peaceful neighborhood, a first step would be to end its nuclear weapons program and sign the NPT.
And if the US really believed in the rule of law, a first step would be ending the drone assassinations and ratify the treaty that created the International Criminal Court.
Special Book Salon up with Chris Hayes’ Twilight Of The Elites: America After Meritocracy hosted by David Dayen
Having “fewer” nuclear weapons means little when the ability to destroy the world many times over is available to both the US and Russia. Both the US and Israel threaten Iran just as their PROJECTED ability to deploy “threatens” us, no? Don’t see where you are coming from on this at all. As long as the Hillary Clintons of this world are declaring, ad nauseum, that “no options are off the table,” etc. . . .
According to wikipedia nuclear “sharing,” which involves “pilots and other staff” of “non-nuclear” NATO states Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, and Turkey “practicing, handling, and delivering. . . U.S. nuclear bombs, and adapting non-U.S. warplanes to deliver U.S. nuclear bombs,” is an ongoing practice. At the very least, they are “protected” by and dispose of a potential threat to deploy nukes that Iran does not possess, even as they press Iran not to build.
Let’s not forget that Saudi Arabia (Sunni) is one of the primary beneficiaries of our bellicosity towards Iran (Shia), as well as Israel. The real axis of evil, when it comes to the ME, is comprised of the USA, Israel, and Saudi Arabia.
I agree 100%. But I suspect that is “pie in the sky”. Lately it’s been “do as we say not as we do”.
We even helped India go nuclear without demanding they sign the NPT, but they and the others are our “allies”. The USA always creates a foreign threat to justify its MIC.
It’s been “do as we say, not as we do” ever since we attained “super power” status. You do know that we have something in common with Israel; they believe that they are “the chosen people” and we believe that we are “exceptional”, so we’re both delusional.
Ahmadinejad plans to retire after this term, reportedly.
http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/06/17/221137.html
The idea that India was a US ally in 1974 is a stretch. Henry Kissinger was very much tilted to Pakistan, and India was nominally the leader of the non-aligned movement.
India developed it nuclear program out of US and Canadian “Atoms for Peace” sharing of technology beginning in the 1950s. The Nonproliferation Treaty began receiving signatures in 1968 and did not go into force until 1970. After a nation has nuclear weapons, it is very difficult to get them to sign the Nonproliferation Treaty.
The idea that we helped India go nuclear without demanding they sign the NPT is an anachronism. And given our closeness with Pakistan for over forty years, it is likely that the US has no leverage over forcing them to sign now–except to mount a campaign like the one it is carrying out against Iran and North Korea.
One reason might be that in spite of both India and Pakistan having nuclear weapons and having had serious conflicts to the point of military action, both countries have not engaged in nuclear brinksmanship of the kind that the Cuban Missile Crisis produced.
Neither Russia nor China were allies when they began developing nuclear weapons and both got their technical information through a combination of espionage and technical development on their own.
The motive of the Atoms for Peace program was to subsidize the nuclear power industry and give it a competitive advantage in international markets.
Iran also got its first reactor and technology through the Atoms for Peace program. And students from other countries were allowed to pursue nuclear engineering degrees a US civilian institutions. There was no sense in the 1950s that civilian nuclear power would turn out to be a dual-use platform.
He’s further on the outs with Khamenei that has been previously reported. Who then are the Presidential candidates?