The Arms Control Association’s Kelsey Davenport summarizes a case made by a Turkish professor of international relations for Turkey to be included in the p5+1 (the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany):
Despite the failure of the Tehran Declaration, Turkey’s experience negotiating with Iran [...]]]>
The Arms Control Association’s Kelsey Davenport summarizes a case made by a Turkish professor of international relations for Turkey to be included in the p5+1 (the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany):
Despite the failure of the Tehran Declaration, Turkey’s experience negotiating with Iran lends strength to [Mustafa] Kibaroglu’s argument for Turkey’s inclusion. Ankara demonstrated it can work with Tehran. Additionally, in June 2010 Turkey was one of two countries that voted against UN Security Council Resolution 1929, which imposed sanctions on Iran for failing to comply with early resolutions regarding its nuclear program. Given the animosity spurred on by the current sanctions, Iran may be more willing to work with Turkey than the members of the P5+1.
In addition, Kibaroglu reminds us that Israel is not the only Middle Eastern country that would be threatened by Iran obtaining nuclear weapons and that other regional perspectives on the security environment need to be considered. According to him, a nuclear armed Iran would be the “game changer” that affects the relationship between the two countries and tips the balance of power in Iran’s favor.
While Turkish inclusion in the P5+1 may not be the creative solution that revives the negotiations with Iran, Kibaroglu’s recommendations serve as an important reminder that there is no “one size fits all” formula for diplomatic negotiations. If the current P5+1 track does not achieve a breakthrough, it does not mean that negotiations have failed. Rather, that it is time for diplomats to get creative and consider alternative options, such as exploiting the good offices of new parties, to find a solution to the Iranian nuclear question.
For assessing how Iran may respond to Turkey’s inclusion in the P5+1, read Iran expert Farideh Farhi’s recent analysis of Iran-Turkey relations.
]]>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.”
]]>