This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/28/iran-nuclear-talks-tuesday-deadline-mohammad-javad-zarif

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Iran nuclear talks likely to miss Tuesday deadline Iran nuclear talks likely to miss Tuesday deadline
(about 2 hours later)
The Iranian foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, was expected to fly home to Tehran on Sunday night for consultations on a final bargaining position as it became increasingly clear negotiations in Vienna on Iran’s nuclear programme would go past their Tuesday night deadline. The Iranian foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, flew home to Tehran on Sunday night for consultations on a final bargaining position as it became increasingly clear negotiations in Vienna on Iran’s nuclear programme would go past their Tuesday night deadline.
Zarif’s departure followed a weekend of talks with foreign ministers from the UK, France, Germany and Russia who joined the talks over the weekend before returning to their capitals. The lead western negotiator, the US secretary of state, John Kerry, is expected to remain in Europe to await Zarif’s return. Zarif’s reported decision to go to Iran followed a weekend of talks with his counterparts from the US, UK, France, and Germany. The European ministers were expected to return to their capitals to await developments, while the lead western negotiator, the US secretary of state, John Kerry, is expected to remain in Europe to await Zarif’s return.
Iran officials suggested Zarif would only be away for 24 hours, but that would leave only a day to meet the 30 June deadline. Western officials said they were expecting to stay for at least a couple of days past that target date. Zarif told Iranian journalists he would be in Tehran briefly, but even if he returned on Monday, that would leave only a day to meet the 30 June deadline. Western officials said they were expecting to stay for at least a couple of days past that target date. However, the EU foreign policy chief, Frederica Mogherini, told journalists she was optimistic that “conditions are right” to conclude a deal this week in Vienna.
A preliminary outline of the deal was agreed in Lausanne in April, laying out general terms by which Iran would accept curbs on its nuclear programme in return for sanctions relief. But it has become clear since then that there are differences of interpretation of the Lausanne ‘parameters’ and a crescendo of opposition to concessions from sceptics in Washington and Tehran. A preliminary outline of the deal was agreed in Lausanne, Switzerland, in April, laying out general terms by which Iran would accept curbs on its nuclear programme in return for sanctions relief. But it has become clear since then that there are differences of interpretation of the Lausanne “parameters” and a crescendo of opposition to concessions from sceptics in Washington and Tehran.
Ali Vaez, an Iran expert at the International Crisis Group, said success in Vienna was not guaranteed.Ali Vaez, an Iran expert at the International Crisis Group, said success in Vienna was not guaranteed.
“A historic opportunity for resolving the prolonged nuclear crisis is at the mercy of a single miscalculation. Both sides are prone to over-reaching, a tendency that has been encouraged by hardliners at home and in the region,” Vaez said. “The risk is that the negotiations are more concerned by constraints of domestic politics than by real imperatives of national interests.”“A historic opportunity for resolving the prolonged nuclear crisis is at the mercy of a single miscalculation. Both sides are prone to over-reaching, a tendency that has been encouraged by hardliners at home and in the region,” Vaez said. “The risk is that the negotiations are more concerned by constraints of domestic politics than by real imperatives of national interests.”
Federica Mogherini, the EU’s top diplomat, told reporters: “It’s going to be tough ... but not impossible.” Federica Mogherini, the EU’s most senior diplomat, told reporters: “It’s going to be tough ... but not impossible.”
The British foreign secretary, Philip Hammond, told reporters: “There are a number of different areas where we still have major differences of interpretation in detailing what was agreed in Lausanne.The British foreign secretary, Philip Hammond, told reporters: “There are a number of different areas where we still have major differences of interpretation in detailing what was agreed in Lausanne.
“There is going to have to be some give or take if we are to get this done in the next few days,” he added. “No deal is better than a bad deal.”“There is going to have to be some give or take if we are to get this done in the next few days,” he added. “No deal is better than a bad deal.”
One of the remaining contentious areas is the sequencing of sanctions relief, and in particular what steps Iran would have to take to dismantle its nuclear infrastructure before major economic and banking sanctions are lifted.One of the remaining contentious areas is the sequencing of sanctions relief, and in particular what steps Iran would have to take to dismantle its nuclear infrastructure before major economic and banking sanctions are lifted.
Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, caused confusion this week with a speech insisting on the removal of US and UN sanctions from the moment the agreement is signed. That contradicts the US version of the Lausanne parameters, which stipulate that Iran would have to radically reduce its uranium enrichment capacity by dismantling centrifuges, export or convert its stocks of low enriched uranium. It would also have to remove the core from the heavy water reactor it has been building in Iran (which would be capable of producing plutonium), before substantial relief is granted. Iranian officials had also acknowledged it would take months before Iran reaped any benefits from the deal. Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, caused confusion this week with a speech insisting on the removal of US and UN sanctions from the moment the agreement is signed. That contradicts the US version of the Lausanne parameters, which stipulate that Iran would have to radically reduce its uranium enrichment capacity by dismantling centrifuges, and export or convert its stocks of low enriched uranium. It would also have to remove the core from the heavy water reactor it has been building in Iran (which would be capable of producing plutonium), before substantial relief is granted. Iranian officials had also acknowledged that it would take months before Iran reaped any benefits from the deal.
One possible way out of the impasse being discussed in Vienna, according to Trita Parsi, the head of the National Iranian American Council, is for formal signing to be put off until after the US Congress has reviewed the agreement, assuming it approves the deal or fails to block it. Under the Corker bill that made such review mandatory, that will take 30 days if a deal is concluded before 10 July, or 60 days if the diplomats in Vienna take even longer. The Iranian parliament, the Majlis, has also insisted on its own right of review.One possible way out of the impasse being discussed in Vienna, according to Trita Parsi, the head of the National Iranian American Council, is for formal signing to be put off until after the US Congress has reviewed the agreement, assuming it approves the deal or fails to block it. Under the Corker bill that made such review mandatory, that will take 30 days if a deal is concluded before 10 July, or 60 days if the diplomats in Vienna take even longer. The Iranian parliament, the Majlis, has also insisted on its own right of review.
Parsi added he did not think that Tehran would start dismantling infrastructure until the congressional review had been completed. In that case, the problem would have been deferred rather than solved.Parsi added he did not think that Tehran would start dismantling infrastructure until the congressional review had been completed. In that case, the problem would have been deferred rather than solved.
The French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, said there would also have to be a mechanism by which sanctions could be reimposed automatically if Iran violated the agreement. Fabius listed the other “indispensable” conditions as enduring constraints on Iran’s capacity to carry out research and development, and rigorous inspection of all suspect sites, including military facilities.The French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, said there would also have to be a mechanism by which sanctions could be reimposed automatically if Iran violated the agreement. Fabius listed the other “indispensable” conditions as enduring constraints on Iran’s capacity to carry out research and development, and rigorous inspection of all suspect sites, including military facilities.
“These three conditions respect Iran’s sovereignty. They have still not been accepted by everybody, yet they form the key base of the triangle that forms the robust agreement that we want,” he said. “These three conditions respect Iran’s sovereignty,” he said. “They have still not been accepted by everybody, yet they form the key base of the triangle that forms the robust agreement that we want.”
Iran has accepted that it will be subject to a more intense inspection regime than any other country on earth, at least for the first decade of the agreement’s lifetime. Even after that, it will undergo significantly higher scrutiny than current levels, as a result of joining a permanent enhanced inspections regime, known as the Additional Protocol, operated by the nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Iran has accepted that it will be subject to a more intense inspection regime than any other country on earth, at least for the first decade of the agreement’s lifetime. Even after that, it will undergo significantly higher scrutiny than current levels, as a result of joining a permanent enhanced inspections regime, known as the Additional Protocol, operated by the nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The protocol gives IAEA inspectors the right to examine locations that Iran has not declared as nuclear sites, but the idea that western officials could barge into military bases has aroused significant resistance from the security establishment and conservatives, who view the IAEA as being deeply infiltrated by spies.The protocol gives IAEA inspectors the right to examine locations that Iran has not declared as nuclear sites, but the idea that western officials could barge into military bases has aroused significant resistance from the security establishment and conservatives, who view the IAEA as being deeply infiltrated by spies.
There is, however, no way for Iran to avoid the Additional Protocol, which has already been accepted by most IAEA member states. Western diplomats insist inspections would only take place if the agency had strong suspicions that undeclared nuclear work was underway on a military base. But the questions of inspections would remain a permanent tripwire capable of stalling the agreement even after it was signed.There is, however, no way for Iran to avoid the Additional Protocol, which has already been accepted by most IAEA member states. Western diplomats insist inspections would only take place if the agency had strong suspicions that undeclared nuclear work was underway on a military base. But the questions of inspections would remain a permanent tripwire capable of stalling the agreement even after it was signed.
A bipartisan group of American foreign policy advisers, including former members of the Obama administration, published an open letter last week urging the US to hold firm in negotiations, particular on the issue of “timely and effective access to any sites in Iran”.A bipartisan group of American foreign policy advisers, including former members of the Obama administration, published an open letter last week urging the US to hold firm in negotiations, particular on the issue of “timely and effective access to any sites in Iran”.
Another perpetually thorny issue is the question of Iran’s nuclear past, and suspicions that it carried out weapons development work over a decade ago. The IAEA is investigating these ‘possible military dimensions’ to the Iranian nuclear programme, but has been blocked by Iran from visiting a visiting a military base alleged to have been the location of past experiments, and from talking to Iranian scientists suspected of having played a role in a weaponisation programme. The US has said it is not demanding a ”confession” from Tehran. Western officials say that any such acknowledgement would be tantamount to admitting the supreme leader had lied in the past. The question is whether IAEA inspectors and western capitals would be satisfied with cooperation that stopped short of such a confession. Another perpetually thorny issue is the question of Iran’s nuclear past, and suspicions that it carried out weapons development work over a decade ago. The IAEA is investigating these “possible military dimensions” to the Iranian nuclear programme, but has been blocked by Iran from visiting a visiting a military base alleged to have been the location of past experiments, and from talking to Iranian scientists suspected of having played a role in a weaponisation programme. The US has said it is not demanding a ”confession” from Tehran. Western officials say that any such acknowledgement would be tantamount to admitting that the supreme leader had lied in the past. The question is whether IAEA inspectors and western capitals would be satisfied with cooperation that stopped short of such a confession.
“I’m sure some artful way around this will be found,” said Ilan Goldenberg, a former state department official and now the Centre for a New American Security in Washington. “The IAEA will be cautious in the way it spins its report so that it does not sound like a mea culpa.” Ilan Goldenberg, a former state department official and now director of the Middle East security programme at the Centre for a New American Security in Washington, said: “I’m sure some artful way around this will be found. The IAEA will be cautious in the way it spins its report so that it does not sound like a mea culpa.”
Jim Walsh, an expert on the Iranian nuclear programme at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told a Senate committee last week that the group of six world powers involved in the negotiations “does not need to know everything before it can do anything, and the truth is that we already know a great deal about Iran’s programme”.Jim Walsh, an expert on the Iranian nuclear programme at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told a Senate committee last week that the group of six world powers involved in the negotiations “does not need to know everything before it can do anything, and the truth is that we already know a great deal about Iran’s programme”.
Walsh added: “The IAEA should be left to its job. If they are unable to close Iran’s file, because Iran lacks the political will to take the necessary steps, then there will be no agreement.”Walsh added: “The IAEA should be left to its job. If they are unable to close Iran’s file, because Iran lacks the political will to take the necessary steps, then there will be no agreement.”