Although it was a net
victory for the host nation Iraq, to add to its
regional prestige and showcase its ability to
provide a safe and secure environment for a major
international gathering, the two-day talks in
Baghdad between Iran and the world powers produced
few tangible results, save an agreement to
continue for another round set in Moscow two weeks
from now.
According to Catherine Ashton,
the European Union's High Representative, the
talks showed progress even though important
differences remain, obviously enough to prevent a
timely breakthrough in the Iran nuclear standoff
that has resulted in tough sanctions on Iran and
the constant military threats by Israel.
At this juncture, the mere agreement to
continue the dialogue is considered a step
forward, but obviously the big question is whether
or not these rounds will eventually culminate in an
agreement, given the
approaching European embargo on Iranian oil is due
to commence on July 1.
In his press
conference, Iran's top negotiator, Saeed Jalili,
clarified that the "package" by the P5 +1 nations
that was orally submitted to Iran on the first day
of the multilateral talks actually consisted of "a
single proposal" that focused on Iran's uranium
enrichment program. (The P5+1 - Iran Six -
consists of the United States, Britain, France,
Russia and China plus Germany.)
Jaili's
deputies accompanying him to the meeting have
expressed their disappointment that there was no
offer to bargain an Iranian nuclear concession for
lifting any aspects of the sanctions.
Small step forward, giant leap
backward Indeed, if the Baghdad talks
(which followed an earlier round in Istanbul)
revealed anything, it was on the one hand Tehran's
determination to defend its "inalienable rights"
and, on the other, the West's equally steadfast
determination to stop Iran's uranium enrichment
program, beginning with the most sensitive 20%
enrichment.
In other words, all the
pretensions, ie of Western consent to allow Iran's
low-grade enrichment by giving up on the "zero
centrifuges" option, have now been clearly
exposed, thus raising the question of what is the
real US-led strategy toward Iran?
"Moving
the goal posts is one thing but reintroducing the
'red line' on zero enrichment under the guise of
honest and sincere diplomacy is another thing and
really shows their [Western] duplicity," says an
Iranian source close to the negotiation team who
wishes to remain anonymous.
He adds that
in his "personal opinion", the West has "hardened
its position since the Istanbul talks in April"
and that "is definitely not a good sign".
Countering the other side's "single idea"
with a "comprehensive and step-by-step" proposal
that focused on both nuclear and non-nuclear
issues, including regional security issues, Iran's
hope at the Baghdad talks was to move the process
along the Russian "step-by-step" proposal that had
been reflected in the Group of Eight communique at
Camp David one week earlier. Yet, somehow, it was
replaced at the last minute with a new and
abbreviated proposal that simply demanded that
Iran forfeit 20% enrichment without presenting
Iran with any viable incentives or mentioning any
"endgame".
Instead of making any
substantive suggestions that could end the Iran
nuclear crisis, the Western delegates headed by
Ashton put the focus on "near-term" solutions
while insisting that any lifting of Western
sanctions was unthinkable, thus in effect
precluding a successful breakthrough in Baghdad.
Henceforth, unless there is a shift of
approach by the Western powers between now and
June 8, the date set for the Moscow round, it is
difficult to foresee a different, and more
hopeful, result then that would distinguish itself
from the Baghdad meet.
"We are at a
deadlock at this moment on two fronts: sanctions
and Iran's low enrichment, and on both fronts
either they will show new flexibility or the talks
are doomed," says the Tehran source.
In
effect, then, the US and its allies could be
blamed for the absence of a breakthrough in
Baghdad by refusing to present Iran with even a
minimal concession on sanctions that would enable
the Iranian negotiation team to strike an
agreement on the issue of 20% enrichment, within
the overall context of Iran's nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) right to a civilian
enrichment program.
Clearly, the US's
negotiation strategy of obfuscation was to appease
Israel, whose leaders have insisted on a complete
halt of all enrichment activities in Iran. But, is
this is a wise strategy?
The real US
strategy is centered on crippling sanctions that
have been legislated into comprehensive laws and
are difficult to reverse by the executive branch,
even in the absence of sinister motives to keep
the furnace of the Iran nuclear crisis burning.
Simultaneously, this is a crisis that
gives the US certain leverage over both China and
Russia, by adding to China's strategic energy
insecurity and also pressuring Russia on its
southern flank, not to mention the crisis'
functional utility to contain Iranian power and to
perpetuate US hegemony in the Persian Gulf.
As for Israel, this is a crisis of
opportunity to continue to receive generous
Western assistance and to portray itself as an
aggrieved nation that must prioritize the Iran
threat instead of the Palestinian problem. For
Europe, on the other hand, there is comparatively
little to gain from the continuation of a crisis
that affects its economic well-being.
Signs of US-EU divergence Despite reverting to a more hawkish line
against Iran prior to the Baghdad meeting, Ashton
in her post-talk press conference sounded
guardedly upbeat and again reiterated the NPT
framework of the talks, which is considered a
major plus by Iran since it is tantamount to
acknowledging Iran's right to civilian enrichment.
Yet, as of this date, no one in the US
administration, including the US envoy to the
talks, Wendy Sherman, has ever echoed Ashton on
this delicate yet crucial subject matter.
In turn, this has put the Barack Obama
administration at a critical fork in the road:
either continue with the hardline, yet
unrealistic, zero enrichment approach, presently
nuanced by select-focusing on 20% enrichment, and
thus see the talks end in failure, or shift gears
to a new policy that respects Iran's rights even
though it may be unacceptable to Israel.
Indeed, the US's policy incoherence and
built-in ambiguities, reflected in its behavior at
both rounds in Istanbul and Baghdad, clearly shows
that the US is caught at the crossroads of a
dilemma between Iran and Israel. (See US
caught between Israel and Iran Asia Times
Online, April 28.)
It is possible that the
US has no real fear of an impending Iranian
proliferation risk and if it did it would have put
itself in a bargaining position.
The
non-bargaining posture in Baghdad was geared to
prevent a breakthrough, and thus appease Israel.
This revealed much about the US's non-changing red
line on zero enrichment.
Prospects for
Moscow talks One key advantage of the
coming Moscow round is that it will inevitably
renew interest in the Russian "step-by-step"
proposal that calls for the gradual lifting of
Iran sanctions in return for Iran's satisfaction
of certain nuclear demands.
Spotlighting
the Russian proposal after it was temporarily set
aside in Baghdad will undoubtedly present a viable
option to resolve the Iran nuclear crisis, again
depending on the US's willingness to revise its
script vis-a-vis Iran.
At the moment, in
terms of atmospherics, Iran has the upper hand,
having improved its standing with the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which
is about to sign a new modality for cooperation
with Iran after last week's Tehran visit by the
IAEA general director, Yukiya Amano, and stating
its preparedness to make significant concessions
as long as the other side reciprocates with
regards to sanctions.
This means that it
will be doubly hard for the US to maintain its
present course and to rally world public opinion
against Iran, no matter what the Iranphobic noise
from the halls of the US Congress.
For
sure, one thing US policymakers could think about
is how their uncompromising stance is fueling a
closer Iran-China relationship, in the light of
President Mahmud Ahmadinejad's planned trip to
Beijing to attend a security summit in June, as
well as cordial bilateral talks between Jalili and
Chinese officials at the Baghdad talks.
In
essence, Washington is hurling Iran into the bosom
of China, hardly the sign of a prudent Western
diplomacy.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
