The Coming Botched Nuclear Negotiations with Iran

The current Indian Summer over the Lake of Geneva will not ensure a smooth launching next Thursday of the international negotiations about the Iranian nuclear program. Too many participants have decided to make them fail. Provocation and contempt, threats and sanctions without underlying negotiable proposals, an Orwellian stage pitting the Five Nuclear Weapons States -- standing on their self-assigned moral high ground -- against a paranoiac, but still Non-Nuclear Weapons State. To secure an Iran without nuclear weapons, a more rational approach will be needed, an approach with strong sanctions complemented by specific technical proposals potentially acceptable to Iran, negotiated in a bilateral framework rather than the now chosen international extravaganza involving too many parties that disagree openly among themselves on how to proceed.

Iran provokes foolishly -- with the launching of missiles and with even more silly sound bites from its president. Tipped by the Russians about the imminent Western announcement of the Qom enrichment site, Iran sends only late September a last-minute letter to the IAEA declaring Qom -- like a rebelling child displaying stolen cookies. Exposure is inescapable in the age of satellite surveillance; the Iranians would have been clever-and-a-half to declare their second enrichment facility much earlier if eager to pre-empt Western accusation of non-compliance with safeguards obligations. But confusion prevails in Tehran.

Fellow-blogger Joe Cirincione has pointed out here the strategically correct approach adopted by the Obama administration, namely to keep confidential all new intelligence information on Iranian activities until bargaining time. Regrettably, last week, tactical considerations got priority when Obama, Brown and Sarkozy went public frenetically with the short-term hope to enlist Russian and Chinese support for subsequent stringent sanctions. Illusion. The Russians will continue to play double games. As an only ally, they keep the Iranians on a short political leash, while extorting horrendous prices for the nuclear fuel services they provide. In a broader context, the Russians will do whatever they can to foil a grand bargain between the US, Europe and Iran, a bargain that could see Iranian natural gas flowing to Europe, thereby helping Europe to reduce its dependency on Russia. As to the Chinese, they do not care; they only want Iranian gas to continue flowing their way.

What to expect from the forthcoming Geneva negotiations? Not much. For sure, the negotiating framework is ludicrous. On one side of the table, the Iranian delegation alone. On the other side, a big crowd: the Five Nuclear Weapons States, and Germany, and the European Union. The P5, those who carry the day at the Security Council, will claim the main seats (like five noisy drunkards threatening a boisterous youngster tempted by his first glass of wine). Well, without the presence of Germany, the so-called P5+1 have little moral authority on nuclear proliferation. As to the European Union, it disagrees fundamentally within itself on how to handle Iran. Most members oppose the British and French claim of speaking on behalf of Europe, and most oppose decisive sanctions. As with the North Korean negotiations, the presence of so many people across the table will not impress the Iranians.

Quite clearly, the Obama administration needs to revert to a strategically more sensible approach, a road map that would see the US engage Iran with a credible Plan B containing specific technical proposals meant to pull the rug from under an emerging nuclear weapons program in Iran. To be realistic, with Iran in political disarray, with its incompetent and quixotic government, the diplomatic logjam could only be broken through a discrete channel that would involve two experienced negotiators enjoying the trust of their respective leaders, personalities with the authority to move an agenda forward. On the Iranian side, there are not too many candidates; the most obvious being Ali Larijani, Speaker of Parliament, a knowledgeable man in an independent position with a direct link to the Supreme Leader. In the US, the former Under Secretary of State, Thomas R. Pickering, would be the best among many possible candidates.

As to the substance, the US must realize that Plan A is a non-starter -- that is, the complete suspension of sensitive nuclear activities in Iran through sanctions alone or military options alone. In the New York Times of September 17, 2009, Roger Cohen wrote concisely what I have advocated for many years: "I cannot see any deal that will not at some point trade controlled Iranian enrichment on its soil against insistence that Iran accept the vigorous inspections of the I.A.E.A. Additional Protocol and a 24/7 I.A.E.A. presence. The time is approaching for the United States and its allies to abandon "zero enrichment" as a goal -- it's no longer feasible -- and concentrate on how to exclude weaponization, cap enrichment and ensure Iran believes the price for breaking any accord will be heavy." An in-depth 2006 report of the International Crisis Group -- of which I was a co-author -- dealt with one particular option to cap enrichment in Iran. There are indeed several options to forestall weaponization and to cap enrichment; they deserve consideration, because they could open the door to Iran's acceptance of the vigorous inspections associated with the Additional Protocol to the existing Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA. I will deal with the pros and cons of various options in the coming weeks.

Comments

[Shomali]

The article is all over the place and self contradictory starting with first paragraph:
"....Orwellian stage pitting the Five Nuclear Weapons States -- standing on their self-assigned moral high ground -- against a paranoiac, but still Non-Nuclear Weapons State. To secure an Iran without nuclear weapons, a more rational approach will be needed, an approach with strong sanctions complemented by specific technical proposals potentially acceptable to Iran...."
Strong sanctions? Sanctions is to weaken the enemy before going to war. Iranians know it, they also know they can opt out of NPT with notice of I believe 6 months. Gasoline import sanction --- pushed by Israel and their corner -- is the sure quickest way for them to opt out of NPT all together. Actually, It won't hurt Iran they will with a mixture ration/stopping subsidies and stopping smuggling to Pakistan and Afghanistan could save 40 to 50% consumption. In any case within a year they will have some of the new refineries on stream so the worst sanction will have minimum effect and major risks. The best way to deal with Iran is increasing trade and commerce with them, no one will bomb their suppliers or customers.

[Roozbeh]

Part 1:

The author says: 'will not impress the Iranians', Iranians will never be impressed by anything. They expect the full plate, munching through it, while sitting at top of the table. ------ They are smart, street smart, but not so intelligent. The regime in Iran will always try to get the most of what it can from Europe, Russia, and among others the US, but they will give out little. How to press them?

1) More sanctions and, above all, gasoline sanctions.

2) Pasdaran (Revolutionary Guards) need, somehow, to get embarrassed to a point they would be ridiculed by ordinary people. This is the most effective weapon against a person or a group of authority in Iran. No respect means no authority in Iran.

3) Stop worrying about what would happen to ordinary Iranians. They are already used to hardship and suffering. But to bring them out to the streets they must be put in a much harder position. Certain conditions need to be met before the crowds gather in the streets endangering their lives. Precisely this must be forced from outside.

4) The Iranian people need to know there are other ways of producing electricity, environmentally cleaner and also safer. There are two huge stretches of deserts in the land. They can take advantage of it ond start producing electricity from the sun.

5) The Islamic Republic must not be given the pleasure of cementing the system, after the election protests, by engaging the US in any concievable

[Bruno Pellaud - Huffpost Blogger]

1 and 3 make sense. How can a country with so much oil have to import gasoline? Because it invested much money in nuclear facilities instead of refineries. An embargo on gasoline would drive that point home.
2 is wishful thinking! How would you target the Pasdaran? They are now in charge – dangerous, with nuclear weapons on their minds, more than the the Supreme Leader. Any failure of the regime would be blamed on others.
4. Yes the Iranians have natural energy resources. Well, history should not be forgotten. The Shah started nuclear in the sixties with American support. Thousands of scientists were sent to the US and to Europe. Thereafter, the nuclear program became part of the national mythos.
5 and 6. Yes, but it’s a matter of judgment . With that argument, Nixon would not have gone to Peking, Reagan to Reykjavik to meet Gorbachov and Kissinger to Paris to end the Vietnam War.
7. You take these things too lightly. Iran would lose a regional war, but it has staying power with modern weaponry, money thanks to the gas/oil they sell to India and China, and young soldiers. They can perturb oil transportation routes significantly enough to upset a fragile world economy. These risks are not commensurate with the lower risks associated with the current Iranian nuclear program. Let diplomacy resolve the issue.
8: You are overly optimistic. Force or excessive sanctions will increase support for the regime, will bring together all forces of the country.

[Foxrun]

Your suggestions are obviously comming from an Iranian dissident who is advocating regime change via covert and overt action by foreign elements. They are no different than that of the neocons, the Zionist lobby or Israel.

Iran as a signatory to the NPT has every right to nuclear enrichment. It does not need to obtain the approval of any country - that's what agreements are all about. The fact that for years the EU-3 and later the P5+1 have attempted to deprive Iran of its right while looking the other way when it comes to Israel - smacks of hypocrisy and double standards. Furthermore the U.S. and some of the European countries are the greatest violators of the NPT!!

Unlike how the MSM and some members of the P5+1 want to present it, Iran has not deviated from any of its obligations under the NPT. I highly recommend that you read the NPT and its sub-agreements to determine what the obligations of countries who are signatories are.

Iran is not stupid in not knowing that U.S., Israel, and European satellites have been monitoring its activities. By their own admission they also have human spies in Iran. This information was kept secret since 2006 - a demonstration that for all the barking that the P5+1, and particularly the U.S. continue to make, Iran was not an imminent threat in developing nuclear weapons.

[Roozbeh]

Part 2:

6) The Islamic Republic must never get a credit for any achivement. One of the regimes's utmost goals is to leave a good name behind and later to be compared in annals of the history with great civilizations. Allowing the Islamic Republic to to run a nuclear facility, enrich urenium, and produce Nuclear Energy will give ordinary Iranians much less chance of getting themselvs of political Islam, either now or later.

7) Do not be intimidated by Iranian regime. They have no means of retaliation without hurtting themselves even more. If they pull terrorist acts in Iraq or Afganistan it would be for their own detriment. Every Iraqi or Afghani then will blame the Islamic Republic, which is great in itself. Or Pasdaran will retaliate by hitting the US bases in the regin. This will be an act of suicide, which is also great. They will probably hit oil tankers, good, it would lead to UN sponsered military attacks on Iranian soil. ------ They can almost do nothing to retaliate.

8) The segments of the Iranian society which supports the regime, when the right moment comes will change their color and will be more pro democracy than the rest. It is always like that. ------- The rest will come later.

[Nargit]

This is a reasonable view on how US policy towards Iran should proceed. The problem is, however, that such policy has been already suggested before by Iran and rejected by P5+1. That is, for 2.5 years Iran had its enrichment activities halted and had adhered to the IAEA Additional Protocol, on its own volition, while trying to negotiate with EU, and US in the background, about mutually acceptable arrangement. After EU repeatedly dodged and delayed substantive negotiations, Iran judged that EU is not really interested in accommodation and resumed enrichment as well as withdrew from the Additional Protocol. The political faction in Iran that advocated accommodation with Europe, headed by then president Hatami, was thoroughly discredited and in 2005 elections the hardliners took over. Given this history, no political faction in Iran ever will advocate repeating that mistake, i.e. negotiating from the position of weakness. Therefore, Iran will not enter into an agreement without a roadmap that would insure its ability to produce nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes and specify concrete steps to be taken by both sides. Of course, P5+1 has no such agreement in mind, and so the standoff will continue for a while until some natural or manufactured event will force P5+1 to change its stance. It is hard to foresee such an event, however, except perhaps negotiated solution of Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

[Bruno Pellaud - Huffpost Blogger]

Your historical summary corresponds to the reality, even though the European negotiators deny vigourously having missed an opportunity. I can only share your pessimistic assessment of the current standoff. The hope is that the Obama Administration will accept negotiating without preconditions, as announced previously, in particular by making the suspension of enrichment an objective and not a precondition. If not forced into the corner, the Iranains could possibly accept severe constraints on their nuclear program. But before that, many people in Washington (and in Tel-Aviv) will have to tolerate negotiations with "the Enemy", remembering that negotiations are usually with enemïes, not with friends, remembering that the US have done so in the past with Red China, with the Soviet Union and lately, with North Korea, the worst nuclear offender around.

[Foxrun]

With all due respects Mr. Pellaud I have read all of the reports during the negotiations of Iran with the EU-3. You will notice who in fact stalled and delayed the process - it was the EU-3 and not the Iranians. Furthermore, without the U.S. the EU-3 did not have any authorization to grant Iran anything in return for stoping its uranium enrichment. In return for all the give in that Iran provided during the Admin. of President Khatami the Bush Admin. coined the term 'Axis of Evil". Now I wonder if you consider this a good trust building measure by the U.S.? No wonder Iran realized that negotiations are fuitile and no amount of give in would satisfy the U.S. unless it gives up its right.

Iran has provided many proposals which for anyone who is truly concerned with nuclear weapons should have been accepted (i.e. JV with countries and their corporations to become equity owners along side with Iran in its nuclear facilities). This proposal would have enabled such countries to have their own men on the ground monitoring the activities of the Iranians.The proposal was outright rejected by the U.S.!!

I question what is the purpose of being a signatory to an agreement when the powerful don't respect agreements and simply want to bully the weaker countries. It doesn't matter whether Iran has gas, or oil - the issue is that it is a signatory to the NPT!!

[unionave]

If we back track down memory lane to prior Iraq invasion N Korea said "they had Nukes so try and do something about it' . Iraq said they did not have Nukes and went around the world pleading their case . So we invade Iraq even against the world oppinion . Now we are manning up in Afghanistan which is on the other side of Iran watching the U.S. display it's might . Being surrounded by so much artilery one would think Iran would develop a serious case of paranoia .

[ThePeacemakers]

Let me try this again...

The US will be occupying 3 mid-east countries by 2012 (maybe sooner). Sanctions soften countries up for invasion.

Whether they are called soldiers, contractors, advisors or trainers - they will be an armed, occupying force.

[ThePeacemakers]

The purpose of sanctions is to soften up a country for the coming invasion. But the deniers here will never admit that.

2012 - the US will be occupying 3 mid-east countries, in addition to bases in Saudi land..

Whether they call them soldiers, contractors, advisors or trainers there will be armed foreigners occupying 3 mid-east countries.

[OneTop]

Why does every discussion of nuclear states always exclude one of the biggest offenders .. Is.ra.el.

Given that both the US and Is.ra.el have threatened to bomb Iran, should it be any surprise that Iran would covet a defensive weapon as such.

[myopinion2]

The blog also excluded Pakistan, India and North korea -- because this conflict has nothing to do with them. Or Israel. stop obsessing.

[Wozzeck]

Israel has nothing to do with this, eh? Now that's chutzpah.

[freshnotbitter]

We already decided to make the Gulf a nuclear dominated region when we gave Israel nukes many years ago.

We need to stop pretending that it is somebody else's mistake.

When India detonated a nuke we congratulated them (not officially, of course). Pakistan must have had a nuke ready for quite some time as they proceeded with their own detonation within months.

Now Iran wants one. It is too late. They will have nukes and other countries in the area will have nukes. we can no longer stop it.

[myopinion2]

We did not give Israel nukes.

[000Jade000]

The truth of the matter is that we've been gunning for Iran for a while.

Listen to General Wesley Clark describe the US's foreign policy coup, and the geopolitical intent of the US to take out former Soviet-union clients before a new great superpower rises to challenge us:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TY2DKzastu8&feature=related

[WilliamBradford]

The false assumption that underlies this issue - and the general liberal approach to international politics - is that everyone can be brought to agreement through negotiation. Somehow, it their core, all people are good, or at least rational and so we just need the right words or approach to find a mutually acceptable resolution.

It continues to be clear that Iran has no interest in "negotiations". Their leaders do not need anything from the U.S. - in fact we are their target. They believe that destroying Israel is their right and their destiny. They have proven better at world politics than we are - playing us off the Russians and the Chinese, and tweaking us with visits to South American. None of the "moderate" Muslim nations will oppose them. They have an apocalyptic vision that only has one ending: global chaos and eventual regrouping under an Islamic order.

As we continue to bargain away our strength, they move closer to their objective.

[Foxrun]

What arrogant statement.

Every country does what serves its interest - as do we as should Iran. Iran has been negotiating for years initially with the EU-3 and later with P5+1. It has provided proposals which would have been accepted by any country who feared a nuclear weapons program, However, these were rejected by the U.S. Neither the Europeans or the U.S. have ever negotiated in good faith. No wonder the Iranians do not trust us when we speak about "diplomacy".

On the issue of wanting to destroy Israel - do not confuse rhetoric with action. So far it has been Israel which has invaded Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria; and the U.S. which has invaded Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Iran has not invaded any country for centuries. Don't you find it ridiculous to make a statement that Iran has the power to wipe out Israel a country which by all estimates has 400+ nuclear weapons, and is the 4th largest military power in the world?

Iran hasn't played the U.S. off against the Russians and Chinese - when the U.S. imposes sanctions on Iran, it will find alternative means of obtaining what it needs!! On tweaking us with trips to Latin America - they would say the same thing about the U.S. having occupied two countries to its East, and West and surrounding their country with U.S. military bases and warships in the Persian Gulf.

[SquealingPig]

what we really needed is, TALK, TALK, TALK and if that fails TALK, TALK and more TALK
we have seen for years now how effective this is, and this works perfectly so in the end
we can pace around wringing our hands about how someone should have done SomeThing
They play us like the Fools we are and when they have the BIG deterent Mushroom in the Sky
we can send some Toothless DOGS to Bark even Louder . . Lunacy Rules the Day!
Fool On! Wayne

[research]

The USA toppled the Democracy in IRAN.

The USA, the necons are CONSTANTLY threatening to destroy, invade or attack Iran.

What would any SANE country do?

OF course they want deterrent.

Meanwhile the USA tortures, Goes to war for profit, and has a government for sale to the highest bidder.

The USA has no credibility, no moral authority, and very little democracy.

[Mogamboguru]

You are sailing high on the wind, brother.

May I come aboard?

Fanned!

[wernerholm]

you are correct research! http://www.suburbanempire.com has found an old ad supporting a nuclear Iran published in Boston Newspapers in the mid seventies..... we overthrew the democraticly elected government of Iran in 1953..... and now we have to deal with the CIA's mess!!! and the hawks blame us... rich.

[myopinion2]

When will the statute of limitations on the 1953 coup expire?

[hoosier96]

Unfortunately, Iran is not a sane country.

[research]

My point, is they are acting sanely, in the interest of self preservation. More sanely than the USA.

[Hass]

Sorry, but your claim that Iran only disclosed this site because the US had been tipped off about it, is ridiculous. More likely, the US was trying hard to put as negative as possible spin on the fact that Iran was abiding by its safeguards obligations by reporting the facility, exactly as it was supposed to do. Fact is, if the US was aware of this site and if it was really a "violation" then the US was required to inform the IAEA Board of it, and then the Board could require a "special inspection" of the facility. The US did not do so because 1- it did not in fact know of the site, and/or 2- the site was not a violation of IRan's safeguards.

[Bruno Pellaud - Huffpost Blogger]

I believe that Iran (not the US) declared the site to the IAEA only after having been tipped off by the Russians who had been informed by Western intelligence. I do not think that this was a spontaneous Iranian declaration at such a fortuitous time. Indeed, Iran was abiding by its safeguards obligations according to previous legal arrangements (more than 6 months prior to introducing nuclear materials), but still in violation of the arrangements adopted in 1992 (design information even before start of construction), arrangements accepted by all countries, except Iran. According to official declarations in recent days, the US was aware of this site for more than one year. Yes, if it would have been such a “big deal”, the US should have informed the IAEA and called for a special inspection. While knowing this site, the US did not do so, because the risk was still low (no nuclear material in the facility, probably), and because the US negotiators wanted to placate the Iranians in a straight game of one-upmanship during the forthcoming negotiations.

[alysheba 3]

So you are saying that the US violated it's commitment to the NNPT by not reporting Iran because it wanted to play political games? What a way to foster trust around the world.

[wernerholm]

Bruno, please check out this New England Gas & Electric Ad circa 1975 Supporting a Nuclear Iran! http://www.suburbanempire.com Our CIA has a long history of messing up the affairs of the Iranian Government, and the mess that is Iran today (as far as the U.S. is concerned) is a direct result of the CIA coup in 1953 that ousted a fairly elected Prime Minister who threw out the Anglo Persian (now BP) oil workers almost causing a war with England. The English persuaded Eisenhower and the Dulles Brothers to engage in Project Ajax, (the CIA's first overseas black op) setting the stage for where we are today

[Deparis]

"[...] but still in violation of the arrangements adopted in 1992 (design information even before start of construction), arrangements accepted by all countries, except Iran."

Mr. Pellaud, how exactly can they be in violation of arrangements you yourself say all countries accepted, except Iran. Would you say India, Pakistan and more likely Israel are in violation of the NPT and other IAEA agreements on nuclear issues, to which they are not parties?

[habarigani]

The additional protocols were adopted by Iran on strictly voluntary basis. Since they was not ratified by its parliament, their remained voluntary. When its file got refered to Security council, Iran exited the Additional Protocols and informed IAEA of its decision. So it was perfectly legal for them to wait and give relevant information 180 days before the introduction of nuclear material. For practical purposes, they have met their requirement at this point regarding the development of the new site.

[Hass]

You can believe whatever you like, but belief is no substitue for facts -- unless you have some evidence to present that Iran was somehow forced into declaring this site, beliefs are not worth much. And the "previous" legal arrangements are what are binding on Iran since Iran made it perfectly clear that the concessions it made during the course of the Paris Agreement negotiations were "good will" gestures that were meant to be temporary and non-binding. This was repeatedly asserted by Iran. Once the EU-3 violated the term of the Paris agreement by first dragging out what was supposed to be a 6-month suspension of enrichment to 2 years, and then demanding that Iran abandon enrichment entirely contrary to the explicit agreement, then Iran was perfectly entitled to return to its "previous" legal arrangments since it had never ratifiied the new arrangements. And in anycase, regardless of this quibble over when Iran should have announced the site, the fact remains that Iran announced it a full year early, there's no evidence of any nuclear weapons work there, it will be open to IAEA inspections and will be subject to safeguards once operational. Hardly the "threat" it is being made out to be.

[USfirstAlways]

Same kind of lies and hysteria as before Irag war, repeated over and over again by “foreign-state owned & controlled media” masquerading as our media. How soon do we forget - United States of Amnesia indeed. Nice distraction from the huge gift to health insurance companies and the Afghan disaster though (for us) and the stolen election (for the Iranian people) - Totally disappointed at Obama, Bush-lite is getting heavier day by day - Dr Paul speaks the inconvenient truth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YGiuF97fRE

[Mogamboguru]

LOL! United States of Amnesia. I love it!

Good comment. Really.