Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took heat from his right flank on the issue during a 2009 push for [...]]]>
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took heat from his right flank on the issue during a 2009 push for the deal, reportedly telling Turkish interlocutors (who recounted the point to U.S. diplomats) that “the core of the issue is psychological rather than substance… The Iranians agree to the proposal but need to manage the public perception.”
The website EA Worldview also covered the cable:
Ahmadinejad’s barrier to this mission was not the Americans. Instead he faced “serious domestic problems inside Iran… The Turks actually see Ahmadinejad as ‘more flexible’ than others who are inside the Iranian Government.”
A fuel swap deal in which Iran would ship some of its nuclear material abroad for ready-made fuel for a medical reactor has long been bandied about as a confidence-building measure to de-escalate Iran’s nuclear standoff with the West. In the run-up to the latest round of U.N. Security Council sanctions on Iran, a group of foreign policy heavyweights called a Brazilian and Turkish mediated deal a “first step,” but the U.S. rejected the deal in favor of pursuing sanctions.
Whether or not one views Ahmadinejad’s recent assertiveness as a good thing, this cable shows that his consolidation of political power might, contrary to early assessments, actually make a fuel swap agreement easier for the president to broker.
All of this is to say that, while it ain’t exactly the stars aligning, the U.S. should take the opportunity of talks this month — as I’ve argued before – to try to revive the confidence-building measure and de-escalate the tense standoff with Iran.
]]>Kinzer writes:
While the intensifying confrontation between the United States and Iran disturbs India, an easing of tension would help stabilize both the Middle East and South Asia. It would certainly set off alarm bells, especially in Israel, where the idea of improved ties between Iran and the United States triggers instinctive panic. But Iran has so much to offer the United States strategically, beginning with its ability to help stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan, that reconciliation makes good sense. Some in India want their country to press Washington to change its mind on this crucial question.
Kinzer notes that Turkey — and, I would add, Brazil — views Iran much the same way. Those two countries put together a fuel swap agreement which eminent U.S. foreign policy figures called a good “first step” in confidence building. But the Obama administration, still rejects that offer out-of-hand in favor of another that Iran is less likely to accept. In the fuel swap, Iran will maintain at least a bomb’s worth of its uranium stockpile. But with no deal at all, Iran keeps it all.
How long can Obama spurn these three great emerging democracies — all U.S. allies, (especially now India) — that have asked for a shift in U.S. policy towards Iran?
]]>David Sanger, who I’m told views himself as something of [...]]]>
David Sanger, who I’m told views himself as something of a player, has the scoop:
A senior American official said Wednesday that the United States and its partners were “very close to having an agreement” on a common position to present to Iran. [...]
The new offer would require Iran to send more than 4,400 pounds of low-enriched uranium out of the country, an increase of more than two-thirds from the amount required under a tentative deal struck in Vienna a year ago. The increase reflects the fact that Iran has steadily produced more uranium over the past year, and the American goal is to make sure that Iran has less than one bomb’s worth of uranium on hand.
Iran would also have to halt all production of nuclear fuel that it is currently enriching to 20 percent — an important step on the way to bomb-grade levels. It would also have to make good on its agreement to negotiate on the future of its nuclear program.
While it was Iran that rejected the Vienna deal, it was Washington that dismissed a later, watered-down fuel swap deal known as the Tehran Declaration.
As Eli previously reported, the P5+1 has supported the Vienna Group fuel swap deal, over the Turkish and Brazilian mediated Tehran Declaration deal. Iran favors the latter deal, which even some eminent U.S. foreign policy figures have called a good “first step.”
Those positions hold. But bridging them — which depends heavily on both sides’ red lines — does not seem an impossible task.
Nonetheless, Sanger quotes an unnamed U.S. official who says that Iran’s response to the deal will indicate to the Obama administration “whether the Iranians still think they can tough it out or are ready to negotiate.”
]]>The invitation is for talks to be held in Vienna for three days in mid-November, according to a [...]]]>
The invitation is for talks to be held in Vienna for three days in mid-November, according to a statement from the spokesperson of the European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton.
“Following recent positive indications from Iran that [chief Iranian negotiator Saeed] Jalili is willing to meet High Representative Catherine Ashton on behalf of the E3+3/P5+1 — – the United States, Britain, China, France, Russia and Germany — High Representative Ashton today officially proposed to Iran that these talks should take place over three days in mid November,” the spokesperson said, according to Rozen’s foreign policy blog at Politico.
The “positive indications” were apparently comments that Jalili had made in the press.
Reuters notes that while Jalili had sent a letter to Ashton over the summer requesting the talks, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has since set additional conditions on negotiations, including adding additional participants, making some participants declare their hostility to Iran, and making them state their positions on Israel’s covert nuclear arsenal. However, Reuters was unable to secure a current comment from Ahmadinejad, who is traveling in Lebanon today.
Rozen also laid out some differences in the approaches of the two main parties — the U.S. and Iran:
Iran observers and diplomats have said that Iran prefers to hold talks with an expanded version of the so-called Vienna Group, comprised of the U.S., France and Russia, with which it had previously negotiated a possible nuclear fuel swap deal that broke down, than with the P5+1.
The U.S. is putting more attention on possible international P5+1 Iran nuclear talks, while envisioning a second track of lower-profile technical consultations between the Vienna Group and Iran on a possible updated fuel swap deal.
As Eli previously reported, the P5+1 has supported the Vienna Group fuel swap deal, brokered a year ago in Geneva, over the Turkish and Brazilian mediated Tehran Declaration deal. Iran favors the latter deal, which even some eminent U.S. foreign policy figures have called a good “first step.”
]]>She said:
We reaffirmed our [...]]]>
She said:
We reaffirmed our determination and commitment to seek an early negotiated solution to the Iranian nuclear issue and focused our discussion on further practical steps to achieve it at an early date.
And
We are ready to engage with Iran in the context of implementing the understandings reached during the Geneva meeting of 1 October 2009, and look forward to an early meeting of the E3+3 with Iran.
The Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) called attention to the P5+1’s endorsement of the fuel swap agreement proposed at the Geneva meeting and the lack of any reference to the fuel swap deal brokered by Turkey and Brazil.
An ISIS statement read:
The P5+1 statement underlines the preference of the world powers to negotiate with Iran on a broader set of issues including the nuclear standoff, and to keep discussions on a fuel swap deal under its auspices, rather than a separate group involving Turkey and Brazil, which Iran has sought to bring in to talks.
The Geneva fuel swap agreement had stalled and, in May, a Brazilian and Turkish brokered deal received a tepid response from the White House and the UN Security Council, though it was endorsed by a leading retired U.S. diplomat and a group of proliferation experts.
Still, both the P5+1 and Iran put emphasis on diplomacy and negotiating a fuel swap agreement during this week’s meeting of the UN General Assembly.
At a breakfast meeting on Tuesday with journalists, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called for new negotiations.
The Wall Street Journal’s Farnaz Fassihi wrote:
Mr. Ahmadinejad said the only path forward for the two nations was one of “dialogue based on respect and justice.”
And, in an interview in the Washington Post, Turkish President Abdullah Gul said:
]]>On the Iranian nuclear issue, we have the capacity to help and I believe the U.S. administration has understood that, and they want us to continue to go that route.