Western diplomats attending the two days of talks made clear, however, that they never expected to wrap everything up this week. And they also made clear that the Iranian negotiators did talk seriously and professionally, unlike some meetings in previous years where the Iranians just offered rhetoric and avoided substance.
But the two sides were still worlds apart.
Iranian officials outside the talks—and reportedly inside the talks as well—focused almost 
The Big Six—including both Russia and China—made clear there would be no change in sanctions until the Islamic Republic made some substantive commitments—and carried them out.
A box on page seven lists the official demands of the Big Six, as outlined in resolutions from the UN Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), along with the issues the Big Six are understood to be focused on for now, and the “sweeteners” or offerings the Big Six are thought to be making to induce the Islamic Republic to reach an agreement.
The single most important issue to the Big Six is understood to be Iran’s enrichment of uranium to 19.75 percent. If Iran agreed to limit enrichment to no more than 5 percent, this round of talks would probably be considered a success around the world.
Iranian officials are making all sorts of comments about 20 percent enrichment, usually using vague and imprecise phrasing that is difficult to translate. That has led to some Western news reports this week asserting that Iran taken 20 percent enrichment off the table and will no longer bargain over it.
That is not accurate, however. While some Majlis deputies and media commentators have said Iran ought not to bargain over 20 percent enrichment, officials speaking on the record have not done so. They are trying to play hard-to-get and to drive up the price to the Big Six of any Iranian concession, but they have not withdrawn the topic from the table.
Here is the Iranian position on 20 percent enrichment as outlined Sunday by Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehman-Parast and reported by the state news agency: “If Western countries [accept] that our 20 percent enrichment program is peaceful and then ask us not to it, the Islamic Republic will think about their demand [that Iran halt 20 percent enrichment].”
The most important point is that Mehman-Parast did not say Iran would halt 20 percent enrichment if the West called its program non-military; he just said Iran would discuss what to do with its 20 percent enrichment program. Mehman-Parast was not making an offer, he was trying to extract a Western concession for free.
Unfortunately, the Mehr news agency translated Mehman-Parast’s comments somewhat differently. Mehr said Mehman-Parast wanted the West to first recognize “our right to enrich to 20 percent” while the state news agency quoted him as saying the West must accept that Iran’s 20 percent program “is peaceful.” Those aren’t the same. They point out some of the difficulties posed by translation in diplomacy.
But on Tuesday, Mehman-Parast complained that he had been misquoted by the Persian press. “That was not what I said,” he complained, accusing Persian reporters of “negligence.” He did not, however, say expressly what was incorrectly reported. Instead, he said: “Our right to have a fuel cycle and nuclear science should be recognized. It will be a positive step if these countries, the Big Six, remove their illogical presumptions.” He did not mention negotiations over Iran’s enrichment to 20 percent.
There was speculation the problem was not that Mehman-Parast was misquoted but that some officials felt he should not have linked the discussion of Iran’s 20 percent enrichment so closely to recognition of Iran’s nuclear “rights.” His new statement did not, however, expressly de-link the two; it only made everything murkier.
The Big Six response to the call to recognize Iran’s enrichment as peaceful is likely to be that determining that is the whole point of the IAEA probe of Iran’s program. The IAEA says Iran refuses to cooperate so the IAEA cannot now make that determination.
As regards recognizing Iran’s right to enrich, which Iran says is enshrined in the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said years ago that Iran had lost the right to enrich to any level whatsoever when the IAEA and UN Security Council found Iran in violation of its nuclear commitments under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The Non-Proliferation Treaty is actually silent on enrichment. When the treaty was being drafted in the 1960s, the drafters did not realize that enrichment would become an issue. What the treaty grants signatories is the right “to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.” The IAEA and UN say they do not know that Iran’s program qualifies as peaceful.
It was interesting that Mehman-Parast stated publicly Sunday that Iran’s production of 20 percent uranium is not “economical.” The West has known that for years. One reason it suspects Iran of having a military plan is because Iran continues a program that makes no economic sense if it is really peaceful. Iran could buy fuel from abroad for a fraction of what it is spending to produce it.
The Islamic Republic insists almost daily that it has a “right” to make nuclear fuel and will not give up that right. But as one wag said, “Iran also has the right to devote every hectare of its arable land to growing rutabagas. But it has given up that right because it makes no sense at all.”
Fereydun Abbasi-Davani, chief of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, said a few weeks ago that Iran could easily stop enriching to 20 percent once it has enough fuel to run the Tehran Research Reactor, which requires uranium enriched to 19.75 percent. That comment helped push the 20 percent issue to the front burner. No official contradicted Abbasi-Davani, which further helped elevate the issue.
Abbasi-Davani addressed the issue again Sunday, using wording that some thought backtracked on his earlier remarks. But it wasn’t backtracking, just a choice of obfuscating words. Abbasi-Davani said, “We have no reason to cede on 20 percent because we produce only as much of the 20 percent fuel as we need—no more, no less.” Taken literally, one could assume Abbasi-Davani was prepared to halt 20 percent enrichment unilaterally, without extracting any concession from the Big Six. Western experts estimate that Iran already has produced enough 20 percent uranium to run the Tehran reactor for as long as two decades.
At his news conference Tuesday, Mehman-Parast tried another tack. “This approach of pressure [through sanctions] concurrent with negotiations will never work,” he said. “These countries should not enter negotiations with such illusions and misinterpretations.”
Indeed, Mehman-Parast is right that Western diplomats think pressure is needed. Furthermore, they note that Iran only agreed to sit down and talk when the EU started plans to halt all purchases of Iranian crude. That convinced large numbers of Europeans that the Islamic Republic would only take the talks seriously if it was throttled.
Farnaz Fassihi of The Wall Street Journal reported from Tehran that “ordinary Iranians are disappointed that the talks failed, some blaming the regime for unwillingness to put the public good before its own interests. Others blamed the West.”
She quoted a woman named Roya who works at the Culture Ministry as blaming both. “Our future seems very bleak now. These negotiations will not get anywhere because our government’s approach is ideological and not pragmatic and the West is being unfair,” she said.
The Western media paid a great deal of attention to the rhetoric coming out of Iran, where newspaper editorials and student demonstrations called on Iran to walk out of the talks. Western diplomats, however, for the most part dismissed all such as mere posturing to try to strengthen Iran’s hand in the talks.
Right after the end of the two days of talks last week, the major theme from Iranian officials was that the Big Six offer to Iran was “unbalanced.” A senior US official told the Christian Science Monitor, “I would have expected nothing but the Iranians to say that the package was unbalanced. This a negotiation. We each want to get the most and give the least. That’s how negotiations begin.”
As for the Iranian counter-proposal offered last week, the Islamic Republic said it presented a five-point proposal that was “comprehensive,” “transparent” and “practical.” Western diplomats said Iran did indeed say it had a five-point proposal, but that it never listed the five points in the two days of talks.
Many of the comments coming out of Iran sounded downright silly to Western ears. For example, Ali-Akbar Velayati, the foreign policy aide to the Supreme Leader who was foreign minister in the 1980s and 1990s, mocked he Western negotiators Tuesday, saying they were confused and failed to offer a “clear and comprehensive plan” at last week’s talks. He advised them to devote more time to consulting among themselves and trying to produce something useful to the negotiations.
On its face, this was ridiculous since the Big Six offered one unified proposal to Iran. But Velayati’s remarks actually were quite sophisticated—for his needs.
Many revolutionaries are frightened by the West in general and the Americans in particular and believe that sophisticated and masterly foreign diplomats can strip the pants off Iranians in any talks. They do not want Iranians to sit down to negotiations behind closed doors. That is also why Iran refuses to have bilateral sessions with the Americans—to appease the revolutionary zealots who fear a giveaway.
Velayati’s seemingly ignorant remarks were actually keyed to calming the revolutionary right by portraying the Western negotiators as bumbling and inept, and thus no threat to Iran.