On the previous day, on the evening on July 14th, Kerry, the heads of the European diplomacy and the coordinator of the “six” Catherine Ashton, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran Mohammad Javad Zarif met for a trilateral meeting, which took place a few hours after intensive negotiations between Kerry and Zarif. So far, out of the negotiating parties’ few measly comments, one could only determine an already “traditional expression,” that between the parties “considerable differences remain.” But the negotiating parties continue to be “filled with determination to overcome them by July 20th” – the date by which they have determined to work out an agreement on international guarantees of the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program and to order the removal of all international sanctions from Iran.
Negotiations at this point are undergoing an intensification of bilateral contacts at the highest level between the US and Iran. Kerry and Zarif conducted a total of three long meetings. One of the main stumbling blocks in the negotiations are the US and Iran’s various approaches to the question of the enrichment capabilities of Iran’s nuclear industry and its limitations. “One of Secretary Kerry’s goals in coming to Vienna was to hold in-depth discussions with Minister Zarif, in order to assess Iran’s commitment to making those critical decisions it must make,” a representative the United States Department of State said on July 14th. Deputy director of Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs Abbas Araqchi told reporters that Zarif and Kerry’s negotiations were “intense, but productive.” Earlier the same day in Vienna, head of Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs Mohammad Javad Zarif and US Secretary of State John Kerry discussed for a few hours creating a comprehensive agreement on the Iranian nuclear program. As both ministers stated, the negotiations were complicated; the Iranian side stressed that individual aspects of progress have not been reached.
On July 13th, the “six” international mediators (Russia, USA, China, France, Germany, UK) tried to “accelerate” a comprehensive agreement with Iran, which should be concluded by July 20th. But the desired results have not been possible. Russia was represented at the summit not by Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov, but by Vladimir Voronkov, Russian permanent representative to international organizations in Vienna. China has also decided to limit its participation in the summit to the level of the deputy Minister. On the eve of the summit the parties stated that they did not intend to discuss prolonging the talks. However, in informal conversations and at the expert level, the meeting’s value is highly doubted. According to Ashton’s spokesperson Michael Mann, the purpose of the meeting is “to hold inventory” of what has been done and not done during the negotiations, which should identify guarantees to the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program which are acceptable to all parties. In exchange, all of the international sanctions will be gradually removed from Tehran. Some participants in the process said that the purpose of the meeting was to intensify the negotiation process, which has been stalled on key issues, in particular the Iranian enrichment capacity.
If all ministers of the “six” met in full and stood for a united position, this could put pressure on the Islamic Republic of Iran. But under present circumstances, because the US has taken a frankly rigid position toward Russia because of the Ukraine crisis, it’s become more difficult for the “six” to stand together under a united position. Russia, before beginning the sixth round, which was opened in Vienna on July 2nd, was skeptical in terms of convening a ministerial meeting. “We must first do our work, before reporting to our superiors,” deputy director of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Sergey Ryabkov told journalists on June 20th, when the fifth round ended. On arriving in Vienna on July 13th, he stressed that he had arrived as head of the Russian delegation of irregular negotiations between Iran and the “six,” but permanent representative Voronkov will represent Moscow at the ministerial meeting.
Under the agreement reached in November 2013 in Geneva, Tehran and the “six” should work out an agreement by July 20th to guarantee the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for a gradual full removal of international sanctions from Iran. Recently, however, media has reported on persistent disagreement between the US and Iran on the Iranian nuclear industry’s allowable enrichment capacity: the number and use of centrifuges. So far the future of Iran’s heavy water reactor in Arak is not clear. Iran has stated that its missile program should not be discussed in the framework of these negotiations; however, the United States has insisted, recalling the fact that Iran’s missile program is referred to in the UN resolution which puts sanctions on the country and, therefore, it must be a part of an agreement.
Recently, there have been reports of differences among the “six” as well. French Minister of Foreign Affairs Laurent Fabius has spoken of the challenges, as well as of the Russian Federation’s crucial position. However, EU High Representative press-secretary Mann tried to allay all fears, assuring journalists that the “six” was and remains a united force. It is true that Sergey Ryabkov said on July 12th that Russia will support the unity of the “six” until this becomes inconsistent with Russian national interests. He stressed that the “six” combines “coordination and national interests. The “six” is not an honorable guard over the Iranian nuclear program, which marches in formation and pays compliments to them by whistling,” Ryabkov said. He listed reaching an agreement on security safeguards for Iran which could not be used as a precedent for limiting nuclear programs of other states in the future as one of Russia’s main tasks in the final stage of the talks.
In turn, the US on the eve of the ministerial meeting tried to convince the press that, the “six” was and remains a united team to achieve one main objective: limiting Iran’s nuclear program. “The “six” remains united. Everyone has, of course, a national position. But when it comes to the need to comply with a single approach to the negotiations in order to achieve progress, we remain sufficiently uniform,” said a senior representative of the United States. She once again emphasized that, for the United States the main objective in the negotiations is the long-term maximum limitation of Iran’s nuclear program. “We believe that Iran at the moment is breaching its obligations for the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. For a certain period of time the Iranians should have a maximally limited nuclear program, which will be subject to inspection and increased monitoring,” she said. She also clarified that the limitation period must be a number of years “in the double-digits,” after which Iran would switch to normal non-proliferation requirements. One of the key differences is the scope of the Iranian enrichment program. In the words of a White House spokesman, Iran continues to insist on an increase in the number of centrifuges, while the U.S. requires their substantial reduction. “We have heard about Iran’s wishes for their nuclear program, and this is far from a substantial decrease in the current program,” said a White House representative. She added that Iran’s current “inadequate” position on the subject of uranium enrichment is “unworkable.”
British Minister for Foreign Affairs William Hague also recognized on the eve of the summit that serious contradictions remain. However, one must not lose sight of a unique opportunity to address the Iranian nuclear problem through negotiations. “Achieving an agreement is far from certain,” Hague said. “Significant differences remain … which are yet to be bridged. But I am convinced that the current negotiations are the best opportunity we have had in years to resolve this issue,” he said in a statement to the press. However, on July15th, he resigned from the post.
In western and Russian press, the forthcoming ministerial meeting has mainly been referred to in a skeptical tone or with cautious optimism. The United States Government insisted that diplomats (in Vienna) did not start discussing extending the (deadline), to ensure that attention was focused on meeting it by July 20th … the extension of the deadline for the “deal” may face opposition from skeptics in Congress, who see Iran as trying to stall the negotiations, writes Los Angeles Times. Therefore, the publication notes, US Secretary John Kerry’s visit, since he “believes in the power of personal diplomacy,” is quite understandable: he is seeking to take a more active role in the negotiations with Iran. “Arrival of higher level politicians is a wise strategy. At best, it can salvage the talks and at worst, it obviates the blame that failure was because of their lack of effort,” said Ali Vaez, senior Iran analyst at International Crisis Group, an international conflict resolution organization. “There is no guarantee that the foreign ministers’ arrival could help break the deadlock, but it can’t hurt either,” writes the Wall Street Journal.
The meeting in Vienna does not interest British media; they more or less remain skeptical. However, commentators have noted that in recent months the UK has demonstrated significant progress in mitigating its diplomatic approaches to Iran, as a result of which it is possible to expect certain “breakthroughs.”
Russian media outlet “Kommersant” quotes PIR Center expert Andrei Baklitskiy’s statement that a decision by the western ministers to urgently meet in Vienna looks “a little artificial.” “In November of last year, a preliminary agreement was reached during negotiations led by the political director. The Ministers only flew in when a clearly positive dynamic surfaced … that is, typically things move from the bottom-up, and not vice versa,” Baklitskii’s publication reads.
For the moment, things are not quite clear. And the possibility remains that the parties will not be able to reach a final agreement by July 20th. Otherwise the US will have to concede to Iran, which is contrary to American principles in non-proliferation policies. All the more so as Washington’s main partners in the region – Israel and Saudi Arabia – are categorically against any concessions to Tehran. One thing is clear – the Americans have taken too much upon themselves by entering into a confrontation with Russia on many issues, particularly with respect to Ukraine. The United States should not expect unconditional support for their efforts in Iran from Moscow. Partnership implies equal interaction in all areas. And is not the case, while on the one hand Washington is trying to impose new sanctions against Russia, and on the other is calling Moscow to unity.
Alexander Orlov, political scientist, expert in Oriental Studies, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
