Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Time Runs Short for Progress on Iran Nuke Talks

The first meeting between Iran and the world's major powers in more than a year ended with little to show apart from a vague promise to meet again next month in Turkey.

Inter Press Service

The first meeting between Iran and the world's major powers in more than a year ended Tuesday with little to show apart from a vague promise to meet again next month in Turkey.

However, the disappointing results were expected – indeed predicted – by all sides before the two-day session in Geneva. The real question is whether progress on curbing Iran's nuclear programme can be made within the next few months. If not, pressure will grow in Washington and other capitals for new sanctions on top of more punishing implementation of existing measures against the Islamic regime.

Prior to the talks, Western officials had said that they hoped Iran would show a degree of seriousness and willingness to engage in a constructive and sustained manner. However, a Western official who attended the talks in Geneva and commented on condition of anonymity wrote in an email that the Iranians "were not terribly serious, no."

The official continued that the Iranians – who before the talks had said they were not prepared to discuss their nuclear programme – did spend considerable time doing just that, but "mainly to complain about IAEA".

The Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly criticised Iran for failing to provide adequate information to determine whether its nuclear activities are civilian, as Iran claims, or related to weapons, as the U.S. and many other nations suspect.

An October 2009 cable disclosed recently by Wikileaks quotes an unnamed U.S. diplomat as saying that IAEA chief Yukiya Amano of Japan is "solidly in the U.S. court on every key strategic decision". That contrasts with Amano's predecessor, Egyptian Mohamed ElBaradei, who often criticised the U.S. approach to Iran. It is not clear whether the Iranians brought up the comment at the Geneva meetings.

Before the talks, U.S. officials had indicated that they had prepared a new version of a confidence-building measure that Iran had shown interest in a year ago. The plan would require Iran to send out large quantities of low-enriched uranium in return for fuel for a Tehran research reactor (TRR) that makes medical isotopes. In May, after mediation by Brazil and Turkey, Iran agreed to swap 1,200 kilogrammes of its stockpile, but the U.S. and its partners rejected the plan because by then, Iran had enriched more uranium.

The Western official said there had not been "much discussion of a revised TRR" this time in Geneva, suggesting that the U.S. and its allies did not think enough progress had been made to reopen the topic.

Kenneth Katzman, an Iran expert at the Congressional Research Service in Washington, said he was not surprised by the meager outcome of the talks but that there would be "higher expectations for the next set to get to a concrete level of specificity".

The Iranians, he said, "did not want to look like they were knuckling under to sanctions and international pressure."

Prior to the talks, Iranian officials made clear that they would not discuss curbs on uranium enrichment. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the talks would be "fruitful" only if four rounds of U.N. sanctions against Iran were lifted – a completely unrealistic demand.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said that Iran would emphasise nuclear non-proliferation, disarmament and the transfer of atomic technology.

The Iranians, who were led by their national security adviser, Saeed Jalili, also appeared to feel the need to look tough in the aftermath of the assassination of a top nuclear physicist and wounding of another in Tehran last week by unknown assailants.

Standing before a photo of the deceased physicist, Jalili told a press conference that halting uranium enrichment would not be discussed at the next meeting in Istanbul. Jalili declared that "today, more than ever, Iran is powerful. It is in the best economic, political, regional and international shape."

According to a report by Agence France Presse, Jalili rebuffed an overture by U.S. undersecretary of state William Burns to meet one-on-one. Last year, the two had a 45-minute private conversation. This time, Jalili met alone only with the Russian, Chinese and British delegations.

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said "there were brief, informal discussions" between U.S. officials and Iranians but said he wasn't in a position to say "what specifically came up".

Some analysts have suggested that Iran will feel more comfortable resuming negotiations in Turkey, whose Islamic- leaning government has expressed understanding for Iran's position and need to keep face in front of a restive domestic audience. However, no specific date for a new round of talks in Turkey has been set.

Katzman said that "if we go two-three months back and forth without a resumption [of negotiations], then the administration might start talking about new sanctions".

Already, the lame duck Congress has weighed in with a stern admonition to the Barack Obama administration not to compromise over uranium enrichment.

In a letter to President Obama on the eve of the Geneva talks, three Democrats and two Republicans in the U.S. Senate warned that there should be "no enrichment or reprocessing activities" on Iranian territory "for the foreseeable future".

The letter, signed by Democrats Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Robert Casey of Pennsylvania and Republicans Jon Kyl of Arizona and Mark Kirk of Illinois, also said that "it is absolutely essential that the U.S. and its partners make clear & that we intend to continue ratcheting up this pressure, through comprehensive enforcement of existing sanctions as well as imposition of new measures until the full, verifiable and sustained suspension by Iran of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities."

In an interview with the BBC in Bahrain prior to the Geneva talks, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was more conciliatory and said that Iran "can enrich uranium at some future date once they have demonstrated that they can do so in a responsible manner in accordance with international obligations."

Western officials have suggested they feel that they have more leverage now than in many years because existing sanctions are having an impact on the Iranian economy and Iran's nuclear programme has slowed in part due to sanctions, technological problems and sabotage.

The Geneva talks were "pretty much what we expected", the Western official said. "We are trying to start a process that will have practical steps that can begin to build confidence. We'll see where this leads. Good thing we still have time and can continue to ratchet up sanctions pressure."

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks, and one of the prime vacillators among Republicans between objecting to and supporting Donald Trump.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and has deep connections to the Republican Party and the neoconservative movement.


The Washington-based American Enterprise Institute is a rightist think tank with a broad mandate covering a range of foreign and domestic policy issues that is known for its strong connections to neoconservatism and overseas debacles like the Iraq War.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas and an evangelical pastor, is a far-right pundit known for his hawkish policies and opposition to an Israeli peace deal with the Palestinians.


Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and considered by some to be a future presidential candidate.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share