The EU and the United States had said there was no point is holding another meeting between Iran and the Big Six if Iran would once again try to dodge the key issue of its nuclear program.
The Islamic Republic has told its public for years that the talks with the Big Six—China, Russia, Germany, France, Britain and the United States—are aimed at broader international issues, such as global crime and economic development in Latin America, where Iran gives its advise to the Big Six.
Whether Iran will really talk substantively when it meets with the Big Six remains to be seen. The concession made by Iran really only proves that it feels it is important not to have the talks severed with Iran condemned for being balky.
But Tehran does not appear to be in a big rush to meet. Catherine Ashton, the EU foreign affairs chief, sent Iran a letter October 21 proposing a meeting in “a few weeks.”
She complained periodically that Iran hadn’t responded. Regime officials often made public comments about their eagerness to meet, but they did not send a written response to Ashton.
In December, Iranian officials said the letter had finally been sent. But nothing arrived at Ashton’s office. In January, other Iranian officials said the letter had now been sent. But it hadn’t. Last week, another announcement said the letter had been sent—and Ashton’s office confirmed receipt. But the letter did not propose a date or place; after four months, it merely expressed a willingness to talk.
Ashton and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met in Washington Friday and went over the Iranian letter, signed by Saeed Jalili, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council and chief nuclear negotiator for Iran.
In a news conference after their meeting, Ashton and Clinton were cautious—but Clinton said Jalili appeared to have made a major concession that pleased her. She called the letter “an important step.”
Clinton said it had long been policy that “any conversation with Iran has to begin with a discussion of its nuclear program,” something Iran has long tried to duck. But Clinton said Iran’s latest letter “does appear to acknowledge and accept that.”
Jalili had written that Ashton had shown respect for Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy and, therefore, “by committing to this approach, our talks for cooperation based on step-by-step principles and reciprocity on Iran’s nuclear issue could be commenced.”
While Clinton called that important, she said the Big Six must still “be assured that if we make a decision to go forward, we see a sustained effort by Iran to come to the table, to work until we have reached an outcome that has Iran coming back into compliance with their international obligations.”
Clinton did not, however, say what Iran needed to do to give that assurance. It would appear that could only be tested in actual talks.
Clinton was actually more optimistic than Ashton, who was standing beside her. Ashton said, “Iran may be ready to start talks. We’ll continue to discuss and make sure that what we are looking at is substantive. But I’m cautious and optimistic at the same time.”
Ashton was, however, more precise in what she wanted. She noted that Iran and the Big Six last met in Istanbul in January of last year. No progress was made. But, Ashton said Friday, “we put out in Istanbul a series of options for confidence-building measures, things that Iran could do that would help us move forward with the talks, things that the [IAEA] inspectors would be allowed to do, for example. We also said at that time they could come forward with their own ideas about what they wanted to do, so this was a genuine open process.”
In Europe, French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe was also cautious, complaining that the Jalili letter was “ambiguous.”
With all the comments from both sides, it seemed likely that a new session of talks would resume. But how soon that would be remained up in the air. Ashton’s October 21 letter had asked Iran to propose a date and place. But Jalili’s letter just kicked that administrative detail back to Ashton, He wrote, “I propose to resume our talks in order to take fundamental steps for sustainable cooperation in the earliest possibility, in a mutually agreed venue and time.”
More importantly, it remains to be seen if the Islamic Republic is prepared for substantive talks or will just use delaying tactics as the Big Six members complained happened in the last two negotiating sessions with Iran in 2010 and 2011.
In Washington, the general tenor of the analysis was far less optimistic than Clinton sounded.
Some suggested, however, that Clinton really wasn’t optimistic but feels that it is important to actually sit down to talks. These analysts suspect that Clinton sees talks as a win-win situation for the United States. Either Iran will make some serious proposals and progress will be made, or it will stall and further irritate the Russians and Chinese who appear to be showing unease at Iran’s snail’s pace.
Critics also noted that while Jalili said he would be prepared to discuss the nuclear issue, his four-paragraph letter also proposed that the talks focus “on a spectrum of various issues,” which smelled to critics like Iran’s old proposal for Iran to give advice on global warming and nuclear disarmament.