Iran Talks, Day One: As Expected, No Deal Yet

Iran Talks, Day One: As Expected, No Deal Yet

Iran Talks, Day One: As Expected, No Deal Yet

But Obama should just keep talking—until he has a chance to make a deal with a new president not named Ahmadinejad.

Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky
Pocket
Email


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visits a uranium enrichment facility in 2008. (AP Photo/Iranian President's office, File.)

Both sides seem to want a deal in the talks between Iran and the P5+1 that started today and continue through Saturday in Almaty, Kazakhstan. But they ain’t there yet, and chances are there won’t  be a deal this time, or next time, until after the conclusion of what promises to be a contentious election for Iran’s next president on June 14.

So stay tuned. And, Mr. Obama: Stay calm and keep talking.

By now, everyone knows what a deal would look like. The United States and its partners in the talks would acknowledge that Iran has the right to enrich uranium to 3 percent-purity, fuel-grade quality on its own soil, and the P5+1 would allow sanctions imposed by the United Nations to expire. (Whether the United States keeps its unilateral sanctions in place is another question, and Obama would have to push Congress hard to end those, too.) In response, Iran would pledge not to enrich beyond 3 percent, and it would allow the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency to intensify its inspection protocol indefinitely to assure the world that Iran isn’t militarizing its uranium enrichment program. Such an accord would probably take several steps, and it wouldn’t be completed for a year or two.

In the meantime, it’s clear that Obama and his new national security team, including Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, have zero appetite for war with Iran. Sorry, Bibi.

At the talks, which were preceded by a technical round in Istanbul and lots of upbeat comments by the Iranian side in particular, there appears—at least on Day One—to have been little movement. Western diplomats, speaking anonymously, were reported by the Wall Street Journal to have said that Iran had little give:

"There were some interesting but not fully explained general comments on our ideas," one of the diplomats said. "We have insisted on a second plenary this afternoon…so that they can respond in the kind of detail that will enable us to make progress."

However, Saeed Jalili, the chief negotiator for the Iranian side, who is close to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said that Tehran had presented “specific plans and proposals … to start a new cooperation.” If so, at least so far, the P5+1 isn’t impressed. According to The New York Times, Jalili’s comments after the talks, about a new proposal, were a “bewildering surprise” to the P5+1. Still, as the Journal reports, Iran has taken several steps recently to calm the often-hysterical crisis atmosphere that surrounds its nuclear program:

With Iran's presidential election approaching in June, Iran appears to be keeping its stockpile of 20 percent-enriched uranium below the roughly 250 kilograms that experts say would be enough to produce one atomic bomb. Iran has done so by converting some of that stockpile into fuel plates to power Tehran's research reactor, the IAEA has said. Fissile material in this form is difficult to use in a weapons program, US and European officials say.

The Christian Science Monitor reports on the slightly improved P5+1 proposal to Iran that includes promised technical help for a civilian nuclear program:

The P5+1 would also offer civilian nuclear cooperation, including providing fuel for an aging research reactor in Tehran—which requires 20 percent-enriched uranium for fuel—as well as IAEA technical help with acquiring a modern research reactor, safety assistance and supplying of isotopes for nuclear medicine.

The US would further “license safety-related inspection and repair in Iran for Iranian commercial aircraft” bought years ago from American plane-makers. 

P5+1 diplomats have said this “confidence building measure” is a first step, and this version of the proposal states that “additional significant steps” taken by Iran will yield “corresponding steps” from the P5+1. “In return for further significant action” from Iran, it states, the US and EU would be “prepared to take comparable action, including proportionate relief of oil sanctions.”

But a major sticking point, still, is Iran’s insistence that sanctions be lifted, and not just on a few limited items such as petrochemicals and gold.

The Times notes that Russia and China apparently agree on what the ultimate outcome of the talks will be, at least according to Igor Morgulov, the Russian deputy foreign minister:

"We believe a long-term settlement should be based on the recognition of Iran’s unconditional right to develop its civilian nuclear program, including the right to enrich uranium” provided that all nuclear activity is put under supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mr. Morgulov told the Interfax news agency.

Mr. Morgulov said that the Russian delegation was working in close consultation with its Chinese counterparts. “We highly value a close dialogue with China on the situation surrounding the Iranian nuclear program,” he said. “Our positions coincide in many aspects.”

President Obama knows that, too. Iran may not be able to make the deal before its elections in June, but that will make it easier for Obama, too. Why? Because the ostensible leader he makes the deal with, the next president of Iran, won’t be named Ahmadinejad.

Will Chuck Hagel reign in defense spending, or is it just rhetoric? Robert Dreyfuss comments on the secretary's speech.

Support independent journalism that does not fall in line

Even before February 28, the reasons for Donald Trump’s imploding approval rating were abundantly clear: untrammeled corruption and personal enrichment to the tune of billions of dollars during an affordability crisis, a foreign policy guided only by his own derelict sense of morality, and the deployment of a murderous campaign of occupation, detention, and deportation on American streets. 

Now an undeclared, unauthorized, unpopular, and unconstitutional war of aggression against Iran has spread like wildfire through the region and into Europe. A new “forever war”—with an ever-increasing likelihood of American troops on the ground—may very well be upon us.  

As we’ve seen over and over, this administration uses lies, misdirection, and attempts to flood the zone to justify its abuses of power at home and abroad. Just as Trump, Marco Rubio, and Pete Hegseth offer erratic and contradictory rationales for the attacks on Iran, the administration is also spreading the lie that the upcoming midterm elections are under threat from noncitizens on voter rolls. When these lies go unchecked, they become the basis for further authoritarian encroachment and war. 

In these dark times, independent journalism is uniquely able to uncover the falsehoods that threaten our republic—and civilians around the world—and shine a bright light on the truth. 

The Nation’s experienced team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers understands the scale of what we’re up against and the urgency with which we have to act. That’s why we’re publishing critical reporting and analysis of the war on Iran, ICE violence at home, new forms of voter suppression emerging in the courts, and much more. 

But this journalism is possible only with your support.

This March, The Nation needs to raise $50,000 to ensure that we have the resources for reporting and analysis that sets the record straight and empowers people of conscience to organize. Will you donate today?

Ad Policy
x