this week without reaching any agreement on any matter of substance.
So little was accomplished that the Big Six would not agree to schedule another meeting of the principals. However, to avoid the appearance of total collapse, they agreed to one meeting of “experts,” meaning more junior staffers, to see if they could salvage anything that would justify another meeting at the higher level.
That low-level meeting will be held in Istanbul July 3, a curious timing since it comes two days after the EU ban on Iranian oil purchases takes effect and five days after the new US sanctions go on the books.
Some analysts questioned the choice of date, saying Iranians are more likely to be frenzied that week than almost any other.
Catherine Ashton, the EU foreign policy chief, said that after the July 3 low-level talks, senior officials will meet and discuss whether they accomplished anything to make further talks with Iran worthwhile.
To some, this sounded like a last ditch offering by the Big Six. It gave the Islamic Republic an opportunity to have concessions presented by low-level diplomats. If the concessions then blew up in Tehran, it would be the low-level diplomats thrown to the wolves, not Iran’s senior negotiator, Saeed Jalili. If no concessions were offered, the talks would grind to a talk. But that would not be a surprise because Ashton made publicly clear that concrete progress would have to emerge from the July talks.
Ashton also made clear what that concession would have to be. She said the Big Six all insist—that means with Russia and China joining in—that Iran must stop 20 percent enrichment and export its accumulated stock of such uranium.
Ashton said, “We have begun to tackle critical issues. However, it remains clear that there are significant gaps between the substance of the two positionsÖ. The choice is Iran’s. We expect Iran to decide whether it is willing to make diplomacy work, to focus on concrete confidence-building steps, and to address the concerns of the international community.”
Jalili left the enrichment issue swinging in the breeze. He told reporters, “We insisted on the fact that the enrichment of uranium for peaceful purposes to all levels is the right of the Islamic Republic.” He then added that “the question of the supply of fuel could” be part of a deal. Officials of the Islamic Republic have made that point frequently in recent months. They seem to feel they are asking for a minor concession from the Big Six—recognition of Iran’s right to enrich—in exchange for a major concession from Iran—cessation of 20 percent enrichment.
It is not known if the Big Six have made any effort to negotiate the language of a “right to enrich” statement and the timing of its issuance.
The Moscow talks weren’t negative. Michael Mann, a spokesman for the EU, said the Iranians did come to the meeting prepared to grapple with issues and not just deliver propaganda speeches. But he said mysteriously that the issues were “not discussed in quite the way we had hoped at this stage.”
Such comments are likely to provide fodder for Israeli and GOP critics of the talks who have long accused Iran of intentional foot-dragging with a goal of keeping the talks going ad infinitum while Natanz and Fordo continue grinding out enriched uranium.
Last Friday, just before the Moscow talks, 44 of the 100 US senators sent a letter to President Obama urging him to reconsider holding further talks if there were no tangible progress in Moscow. The 44 signers included some liberal Democrats.
In one new development at Moscow, the Iranians came with a PowerPoint presentation. The Iranian delegation also fleshed out its own five-point proposal. After the previous meeting a month ago in Baghdad, the Islamic Republic boasted of its stupendous five-point plan. Western diplomats said Jalili had indeed spoken of a five-point plan. But they said he never explained it—never even listed the five points.
Iran had spent the two weeks before the Moscow talks playing down the chances of any progress and accusing the United States of plotting to make the talks fail. Officials painted the darkest picture and prepared the public for the bleakest outcome. Even during the first day of the Moscow talks, Iranian diplomats were very negative, with one telling Western reporters the atmosphere was so bad there might not even be a second day of talks on Tuesday.
But when the talks ended with no progress Tuesday, Jalili was suddenly upbeat and bright and positive. He asserted that progress had been made and that the Big Six negotiators had actually contributed usefully to the negotiations. He said the talks were different from previous sessions earlier this year in that the Big Six were serious and realistic.
Some analysts suspect the Iranians had intentionally painted the prospects for the talks in the bleakest terms for two weeks so they could sell even the most minuscule progress as a great success. And after the talks ended, they sold the low-level meeting scheduled for next month as if the sun had just risen over the horizon.
In Tehran, the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), the state-owned news agency, published a bland news article that avoided any negativity. It said the talks in Moscow had “wrapped up its work.” It said the negotiators had even considered staying for a third day because of the large workload; no other news agency heard any mention of a third day.
Jalili did not mention sanctions after the talks ended. But one diplomat in the talks told The Associated Press the Islamic Republic had made its strongest appeal ever for “sanctions relief” during the talks this week. Diplomats also said the Big Six declined to discuss any easing of sanctions at all until the Islamic Republic had carried out some change in policy, with the suspension of 20 percent enrichment considered key. The Russians and Chinese appeared to be fully in agreement with that approach. The Russians have publicly proposed rolling back sanctions one step at a time for each concession made by Iran—but they have not proposed rolling back sanctions before any Iranian concession.
The West had sought something concrete from the Islamic Republic about suspending enrichment to 20 percent purity. Iranian officials have held out that prospect for months with Abbas Davani, the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, saying at one point that there would be no more need for 20 percent uranium once the country had enough to fuel its Tehran Research Reactor. (The Institute for Science and International Security in Washington has calculated that Iran now has enough 20 percent fuel to keep the Tehran reactor going as long as 20 years.)
But diplomats said that in this week’s talks, Iran continued to weave around the 20 percent issue without offering anything concrete.
Mann, the EU spokesperson, said the Iranian delegation, as demanded by the Big Six, “responded to our package of proposals from [the last meeting in] Baghdad. But, in doing so, [they] brought up lots of questions and well-known positions, including past grievances.”