October 11-13
American and Iranian plans for nuclear negotiations were reduced to an Alphonse and Gaston routine this past week as each said the other must go first at the October 15-16 talks in Geneva.
The United States—and other members of the Big Six—have long complained that the Islamic Republic has never responded to the Big Six proposal made last February to Iran. There have been frequent complaints that Iran’s now-deposed negotiator, Saeed Jalili, never engaged on the Big Six proposal and just danced around the issues.
The United States, backed up by others in the Big Six, has repeatedly said Iran must follow diplomatic practice and formally respond to the Big Six offer, outlining what it finds appealing and what it finds objectionable.
The Iranian response was expected to top the agenda October 15. But Foreign Minister Mohammad-Javad Zarif upset the apple cart last week and defied the diplomatic niceties by simply declaring the Big Six proposal to be a dead letter and ordering the Big Six to come up with something new.
He said that in Tehran in a TV interview October 6, just nine days before the talks with the Big Six are set to resume and hardly time for the Big Six countries to meet, yet alone draft and coordinate a new proposal among six different foreign ministries.
The message conveyed by Zarif’s stand was that little if anything would be accomplished at the October 15-16 meeting. And that outcome would likely prompt US congressmen to move ahead with yet more sanctions on Iran.
In his TV interview, Zarif said, “We have said that that [February] proposal has faded into history and they must come forward with something new…. The players must put away this illusion that they can impose anything on the Iranian people.”
But no one is trying to impose anything. The Big Six is just insisting that the Islamic Republic follow diplomatic practice and respond to an offer with an analysis or a counter-proposal.
Zarif may feel he must sound tough to counter hardliners in Tehran. He said in the TV interview, “Just as the Supreme Leader said, we do not trust them [Americans]. They must build the trust of the Iranian people toward them in public and private discussions.” He did not acknowledge that few in the United States trust the Islamic Republic and he did not recognize any need for Iran to do anything to build trust.
Two days after Zarif’s interview, US Secretary of State John Kerry politely rebuffed Zarif. Kerry did not attack Zarif or criticize his comments about the Big Six proposal having faded into history. Kerry was very polite and said, “The group of six put a proposal on the table at Almaty [Kazakhstan in February] and I don’t believe as of yet Iran has fully responded to that particular proposal. So, I think we are waiting for the fullness of the Iranian difference in their approach now. So, what we need are a set of proposals from Iran that will fully disclose how they will show the world that their program is peaceful.”
Significantly, Kerry did not say anything about Iran suspending enrichment. He simply called on Iran to explain how it would make its nuclear program transparent so the world could believe its assertions that the program has no military aspect.
Kerry spoke while standing beside Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Lavrov neither endorsed nor contradicted what Kerry said, but instead added a new spin to Zarif’s remarks. Lavrov said Iran and the Big Six had the same goals and that the leadership in Tehran “probably wanted more specifics” about the Big Six proposals.
That was clearly not what Zarif said. But Lavrov seemed to be trying to avoid a conflict with either Kerry or Zarif and thus just went off in an entirely different direction, ignoring what both men had said.
US Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, who has been the principal US negotiator with Iran the last few years, was far more blunt than her boss. In testimony to Congress, she said: “The onus is on Iran. We will not put new ideas on the table until we hear from Iran.”
After you, Gaston.