At Iran nuclear talks, crumbs of hope and jockeying for advantage

Diplomats underscored their uncertainty about reaching any deal, two days after missing a self-imposed deadline. Still, the talks have witnessed progress that would have been impossible to predict even a few years ago.

|
CARLOS BARRIA/Reuters
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry (R), U.S. Under Secretary for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman (C), National Security Council point person on the Middle East Robert Malley (L) and Chief of Staff Jon Finer (2nd L) meet on the terrace of a hotel where the Iran nuclear talks meetings are being held in Vienna, Austria July 2, 2015.

On a sunny balcony of the 5-star Palais Coburg hotel, enjoying the perfect Viennese weather before a television interview, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif waved like royalty to the press below.

“I have to be hopeful,” he said in reply to a shouted question, referring to the Iran nuclear talks that may be in their final days. “It’s a beautiful day, isn’t it?”

After more than a decade of diplomatic combat, that crumb of optimism may have as much to do with the perfect weather as with the state of play at the negotiating table, as Iran and six world powers jockey for final advantage – two days and counting after missing their latest self-imposed deadline.

Or it may not.

Even as hope spreads here that a deal is imminent to limit Iran’s nuclear program to peaceful use, in exchange for lifting sanctions, officials on all sides urged caution. It was the routine diplo-speak that has changed little for years, even as these talks have repeatedly yielded surprises and progress.

“I don’t think we’re at any kind of breakthrough moment,” British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said today, a sentiment echoed by German Foreign Secretary Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who noted that the “last steps are the hardest.”

A senior Iranian official underscored the uncertainty: “Someone was asking me: ‘Are we going to make it, or not?’ My honest answer is: I don’t know.”

Yet, behind closed doors at the Palais Coburg, experts from all sides have been hammering out a primary text perhaps 80 pages long, with further technical annexes to be attached, that – if finally agreed on – will be the most significant non-proliferation event this century.

Despite all the diplomatic posturing and uncompromising rhetoric, these talks have witnessed progress that would have been impossible to predict even a few years ago.

The near-constant negotiations of recent times – yielding an interim agreement in 2013 that froze Iran’s nuclear work, and producing last April a detailed set of parameters for the final deal – could not be further from the stumbling first steps of this process.

A nuclear fuel swap deal agreed to in October 2009 in Geneva failed to materialize, for example. And when negotiators next met in Geneva, in December 2010, the only outcome was agreement on eight words that included “cooperation to find common ground” – but did not even include the word “nuclear.”

Another round in January 2011 in Istanbul stalled over two Iranian preconditions: That UN sanctions be lifted and that Iran’s “right” to enrich uranium be recognized before talks could even begin.

The ice was finally broken in April 2012 in Istanbul – a round that yielded the most positive atmosphere in nearly a decade, and agreement to begin a “sustained process of serious dialogue” that would be guided by a “step-by-step approach and reciprocity.”

Since then the talks have been buffeted by maximalist positions. The Iranians could hardly hide their anger when, during the next round – in the midst of a sandstorm that closed the Baghdad airport in May 2012 – they were presented with a proposal that would have dismantled nearly all of their nuclear program, with what they considered little in return.

“I think it was a complete failure,” an Iranian diplomat told the Monitor at the time. “The more they talk, the worse it gets. The atmosphere is like Baghdad’s weather.”

The entire unplanned second day in Baghdad was spent trying to craft a mutually acceptable statement. Subsequent rounds were held in Moscow, and two in Almaty, Kazakhstan, in freezing temperatures.

The turnaround came in the fall of 2013, when the newly elected President Hassan Rouhani deployed a fresh team of nuclear negotiators, led by the English-speaking Zarif and powered by a mandate to make a deal that would get sanctions lifted and fix a deeply struggling economy.

Negotiators on both sides note that the talks are tough – and that each side's red lines may not overlap enough to strike a deal.

“What I’ve learned is this is a roller coaster, and if you try to imagine what’s going to happen the next day, you plan for it, you get ready for it, your work for it and then you take what comes,” said one senior US official deeply involved in the talks for more that two years. “I don’t think it’s worthwhile to get into hypotheticals. We will deal with what comes our way.”

Please follow Scott Peterson on Twitter at @peterson__scott 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to At Iran nuclear talks, crumbs of hope and jockeying for advantage
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2015/0702/At-Iran-nuclear-talks-crumbs-of-hope-and-jockeying-for-advantage
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe