The West is happy, for now, to let the meter run on negotiations with Tehran. How high a price is Iran’s supreme leader willing to pay?
The just-ended two days of talks between Iran and the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany) at least ended up agreeing on one thing: both sides will meet again in June, in Moscow.
That was one of the few things that they managed to find common ground on – with the two sides failing to reach an agreement about the cessation of Iran’s ongoing enrichment of uranium at 20 percent levels at Fordo as per the West’s wishes, while the P5+1 didn’t agree to the removal of unilateral Western sanctions against Iran’s oil and banking sector as per Iran’s wishes.
Simply put, the two fell well short of the other side’s expectations. Iran insisted on its right to continue with enrichment of uranium as a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), while the P5+1 had no truck with Iran’s demands over sanctions, instead indicating it was willing to offer Iran assistance with safety at its reactors, and help its airline industry acquire spare parts for its commercial airliners.
The P5+1 must surely be aware that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is far from the only Iranian leader who would consider himself unable to accept such a deal, so why make such an offer in the first place? Why not place the onus on Iran by offering them something viable and attractive, such as the removal of banking and oil sanctions? Had Iran accepted such an offer, it would have been a breakthrough for the P5+1, as the most sensitive and dangerous part of Iran’s enrichment program would have come to a halt. And had Iran rejected such an offer, it would have isolated itself even more, while justifying the P5+1’s dual track of sanctions and diplomacy.
Such an outcome would have been a win-win for the P5+1 – all the West had to do was make the offer. So why is it taking its time? And what does this strategy tell us?
First and foremost, the fact that the P5+1 are in no hurry to make a viable offer to Iran is a clear sign that the Obama administration, as well as other members of the P5+1, don’ believe that Iran is making a bomb – at least not yet. Otherwise, a much better offer than the one made in Baghdad would have been made to stop enrichment at 20 percent now, before it’s too late.
It also suggests that the P5+1 clearly believe that Israel isn’t going to attack Iran’s facilities this year, giving them more time to negotiate with Tehran.
But the behavior of the P5+1 also indicates that they believe that sanctions are working, and that biding their time could therefore serve them better. Over the years, Iran has been accused of stalling at the talks to give it more time to develop its nuclear program. This was evident in 2011, when Iran wasn’t even willing to discuss its nuclear program with the P5+1. That same year, Iran made a great deal of progress in enriching uranium to 20 percent, which allowed Tehran to bypass the red lines that the West set for it with regards to enrichment.
Photo Credit: Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
angie
good job meir. I totally agree with the taxi meter idea and the fact that with the elections coming up in America buying time might be the best option. but in general, there is no guarantee that Khamenei’s view stays the same. Iran’s domestic politics is so complicated as you know and that now that he is for a deal the West should grab it. I don’t believe in regime change. I don’t think this regime could be replaced by any better option. our only option is making change through reforms which seems more viable through engagement and Western policies towards Iran are not helping.
Sassan1
Bottom line: this regime must go. It is a threat to not only Israel but to the entire free world and to the sanctity and human rights of the Iranian people. Simply ignore the regime apologists and cronies. People like Rehmat post on other forums and are known to be Islamic Republic stooges. They actively work on behalf of the Islamic Republic and their murderous ways.
ACraigs
Replying to Rehmat and Mark Thomason above who defend Iran’s rights to nuclear energy and offer some conspiracy theories about. Te “Zionist entity” (with Mr. javedanfar hardly better)…
Indeed, Iran, as a signatory to the NPT does have the right to nuclear power, but they most certainly do not need uranium enrichment beyond 5% to fulfill those needs. 20% enriched uranium or higher would be like putting rocket fuel in the gas tank of your car. There is only one use for 20% enriched uranium, and that is a stepping stone to nuclear weapons. Together, with the development of clandestine enrichment facilities clearly indicates that this issue is not about nuclear power at all, but rather about something else. Therefore, defending Iran’s right to nuclear power is disingenuous at best, and highly dangerous.
Iran’s leaders have consistently stated three aims for their relations with the Western world: destroy the Big Satan (the USA), destroy the Little Satan (the UK), and destroy the Zionist Entity (Israel). Please note that none of these states have reciprocated with a threat to “wipe Iran off the map.”. Iran is too weak economically, militarily, politically, and philosophically to win this victory over their declared adversaries (USA, UK, and Israel), but a nuclear weapon would change that. In addition to the oil reserves native to Iran, a nuclear weapon would give Iran control over all the Gulf oil, Iraq, Saudi, the UAE. With this power, Iran could send the world economy, already severely weakened, into outright free fall.
Be realistic and extrapolate the endgame. Do you want Iran to have a nuclear weapon? Do you want Iran to control 35% of the world’s oil?
The issue is NOT about the right to peaceful use of nuclear electrical power for civilian use. It has almost nothing to do with civilian nuclear power. Anybody who pretends otherwise is either lying or a fool.
pat
In response to Acraigs: Please check your facts right:
Iran offered the international community to provide it with fuel for tehran university Research Reactor. It produces medical isotope and its fuel require uranium enriched at 20%. The west refused, so they went and produced it themselves.
Even if Iran produced nuvlear weapon, why would it be able to control Saudies, Turkey, all of Persian Golf, etc.? Look at Pakistan which has the weapon and has a much more religous population. Are they able to control anybody? They can’t even control themselves. These are all scare mongering. Iranian leadership is not perfect, but is not stupid either.
Mark Thomason
How high a price will the West pay to placate Israel?
As Iran’s oil leaves the market, only the Saudis claim to have the capacity to replace it, and they may be lying about their reserves, as they often have.
There is also the question of the political will to replace Iran’s oil. The Saudis don’t just dislike, Iran, they fear Iran. Iran can wreck the Saudi oil fields in many ways, since Shiites live on top of Saudi oil, abused and repressed Shiites, not Sunnis who run Saudi. A bit of Arab Spring and a few pipelines bombed would turn Saudi Arabia and the oil markets upside down. Saudis may be unwilling to risk that. Note that while talking about increased supplies, Saudi supply is actually down by a substantial amount this year. Saudi bold words and actions the opposite are the established pattern already.
So delay may not work only against Iran. The meter is running for everyone.
Rehmat
As I expected, the second round of two-day meeting between P5+1 and Iran ended on Thursday without recognition of Iran’s rights to pursue its civilian nuclear program as a NPT signatory. The P5+1 counter offer was no different than what Netanyahu and Barak have been telling the world nuclear powers and IAEA – that Iran must stop its enrichment program immediately and transfer its 20% enriched nuclear material to a third country acceptable to the US and Israel.
The western powers and the Zionist regime know that no Iranian government will dare to agree with such demand and US-Israel will have a permanent excuse to keep threatening Iran with pre-emptive war.
Iranian media has claimed that the P5+1 is not sincere in settling its dispute with Iran based on justice and fairplay. Several newspapers have advised Iranian government not to waste its time in continuing negotiations after Baghdad meeting as there is “very low” chances of a copromise because P5+1 keeps dishing Israeli demands.
“This is what we were afraid of,” says the Iranian diplomat. “No one is going to accept these things this way. The 20 percent and shutting down Fordow, in return for nothing? Nothing?”
The US-Israel charade about Iran’s nuclear program has in fact glued Iranian against foreign interference in country’s internal policy. A 2010 survey conducted by the Zioncon think tank RAND found that 87 percent of Iranians support the civilian nuclear program, with 97 percent calling it a “national right.”
After the stand-off at Baghdad meeting, P5+1 chief negotiator, Catherine Ashton, told reporters that her group will be meeting Iranian negotiators in Moscow on June 18-19.
How sincere is US Zionist-dominated administration in settling its nuclear problem with the Islamic Republic? Well, on May 16, Washington’s Jewish ambassador in Tel Aviv, Dan shapiro, told Israeli officials in a close meeting that the ongoing P5+1 and Iran meeting doesn’t mean “the US would not use the military option against Iran“. Washington which pulls the P5+1 strings – is known as a spoiler in the P5+1 talks with Iran.
Iran’s chief negotiator, Saeed Jalili, still seems to be optimist about the third round of talks in Moscow.
“Iran has always emphasized that the (dual-track) strategy of pressure-and-talks has ended and the strategy of talks-and-cooperation should be pursued. During the Istanbul talks, the Group 5+1 showed interest in this strategy and lengthy discussions were conducted in this ground during these two days and we hope that this strategy will be strengthened day by day,” Jalili told reporters on Thursday.
I hate to repeat myself. Iran’s nuclear program has never been a problem for the West. That’s just a pretext and cover to bring a pro-Israel regime change in Tehran – as was done in Iraq, Libya and Sudan in the past. Now the same lies are being spread against independent regimes in Tehran and Damascus. So, what’s the point in discussing “a common ground” if the pro-Israel western powers have no intention or desire to compromise but in fact specifically want “not to compromise“. There are just too many fundamental, structural problems to these talks which haven’t been overcome, namely, that the USrael has still basically not given up the plan to bring regime-change in Tehran.