The nuclear talks in Baghdad between Iran and the Permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany (P5+1) failed to produce a breakthrough. The bad news is that time is running out. By July 1, the West will escalate with an embargo on oil and sanctions on Iran's Central Bank. Iran will respond in kind and the situation may get out of control. The good news is that the ball is in Europe's court and -- unlike America -- the EU has the ability to make diplomacy succeed in the short term.
After more than a decade of coercive policies, the track record is clear: Iran is paying an increasingly hefty price for its nuclear program. Crippling, indiscriminate sanctions are derailing the Iranian economy and civil society. Even if sanctions are lifted, it may take years before Iran recuperates from the damage it has absorbed.
At the same time, none of this pain has impacted Iran's nuclear calculus in a meaningful way. In fact, Iran's program has progressed and reached several milestones during this period. In 2002, it had less than a few dozen centrifuges, no stockpile of enriched uranium and limited knowledge about the process. Today, it has around 10,000 centrifuges, a stockpile of several thousand kg of enriched uranium, and knowledge of the nuclear fuel cycle that simply cannot be untaught. Any hope to eliminate Iran's enrichment program was lost years ago.
In short, the coercive approach is not the success it is touted to be.
Yet, Iran does not have a nuclear weapon and it is still years from being able to build one. If the coercive approach remains in place, however, the track record indicates Iran will reach a point in which the intensified confrontation with the West will remove any hesitation in Tehran to pursue nuclear deterrence.
If the approach agreed upon in Istanbul in April 2012 is pursued, however, a solution is within reach. There, the two sides agreed to negotiate based on a reciprocal, step-by-step approach within the framework of the Non-Proliferating Treaty. In this concessions-for-concessions approach, both sides would give rather than take, help rather than harm.
But when the rubber hit the road in Baghdad, it turned out that giving wasn't as easy as it sounded. Particularly if you are the President of the United States and you face a hostile U.S. Congress, an obstinate Israeli Prime Minister and an uncertain election in six months.
The U.S. and its allies rightfully demanded that Iran cease enrichment of uranium to 20 percent, ship out its stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium and freeze activities at the Fordo plant. These would be very valuable concessions from the Western perspective.
In return, however, no concessions were offered that were considered valuable by Tehran. Reciprocity faltered, primarily because of the president's limited political maneuverability in an election year. All Obama needs is a limited give-and-take to keep the diplomatic process alive till after the U.S. elections, at which point more sincere negotiations can begin.
This is where Europe comes in. It has a unique opportunity to act. Unlike America, the European political landscape is void of the intractable political interests that have a stake in keeping the conflict alive.
By delaying -- not lifting -- its impending embargo on Iranian oil for six months, Europe will give decisive breathing space to an otherwise constricted negotiation process. The Iranians should, in turn, freeze the enrichment of 20 percent uranium for that same period.
Delaying the sanctions will not ease pressure on Iran. According to renowned Iranian economist Bijan Khajehpour, 85 percent of the embargo is already in effect. Delaying its formal imposition will not cause buyers to return to the Iranian market. All it will do is to provide the West with an ability to use the oil embargo as the bargaining tool it was supposed to be -- and exchange it for tangible, verifiable Iranian nuclear concessions.
If the embargo is formally imposed, however, it will become more difficult and costly to lift it and it will serve as naked escalation that will beget Iranian escalation rather than concessions. The risk of war will increase and the threat of an Israeli strike may materialize.
Between sanctions and peace, the choice for Europe should be obvious. Europe must take the step towards peace that American cannot.
Trita Parsi is the author of A Single Roll of the Dice -- Obama's Diplomacy with Iran. Reza Marashi is a former U.S. State Department Iran Desk offcier. Both are with the National Iranian American Council.
Follow Trita Parsi on Twitter: www.twitter.com/tparsi
Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett: Deep-Sixing the China Option
" Iran is ramping up its production of uranium enrichment to levels for which it has no plausible civilian use, but which could easily and quickly be converted into weapons-grade material.
The uncovering of the recent plot to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador in the United States also shows Iran’s apparent willingness to sponsor terrorism outside its borders.
Iran needs to change direction. We want a negotiated solution and have extended the hand of reconciliation to Iran time and time again. We are prepared to have further talks but only if Iran is prepared to engage in serious negotiations about its nuclear programme without pre-conditions. If not, we must continue to increase the pressure and we are considering with our partners a range of additional measures to that effect."
Hear! Hear!
A blatant lie. The TNR, used to produce medical isotopes, requires 20% enriched fuel.
IAEA statement May 25, 2012
Iran has carried out activities that are relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device.
This information, which comes from a wide variety of independent sources, including from a number of Member States, from the Agency’s own efforts and from information provided by Iran itself, is assessed by the Agency to be, overall, credible. "
Yes, enrichment is relevant to both bomb making and power priduction.
Also see: http://iranian.com/main/blog/arash-irandoost/trita-parsi-and-niac-sale-highest-bidder
You lost me when you conflated "well documented and research" with "Washington Times".
Given the stranglehold AIPAC has in Washington and the degree to which Iran has been demonized, it would be pointless to even have an Iranian lobby group.
No wonder the negotiations are in the haze with Iranians bobbing and weaving but producing no concrete offers.
Perhaps the European sanctions implementation will jolt the Supreme Leader into action. Or not...
Iran made concrete offers in 2003, 2005 and 2009. Washington rejected all of them.
fuel enrichment.
Study before posting.
A decade of negotiations, including the latest flurry, produced no tangible results.
Time to implement strict sanctions is now.
When Iranian economy is in a tailspin, the negotiations will be more productive.
Of course there's no evidence that they are pursuing nukes, but why let facts get in the way of an Islamophobic rant?
How would YOU know?
There's more to the Turkey/Brazil deal. Obama actually asked them to salvage the swap deal, but when they secured the agreement with Iran, Clinton lambasted them for meddling. The French went so far as to describe the agreement as "troubling". Obama had promised Bibbi there would be sanctions - which were obviously more if a priority than resolving the crisis.
So to sum up, the Americans rejected Iran's acceptance of their offer.
Don't credit the Lobby. Most employed people support Israel over the surrounding hostile nations and believe those countries surrounding Israel would gladly destroy Israel if they could.
That's because they have been lied to about Iran producing nukes.
>>Most employed people support Israel over the surrounding hostile nations and believe those countries surrounding Israel would gladly destroy Israel if they could.
What does being employed had anything to do with it? And what poll are you referring to?
Will you two then become unemployed ?
http://operationredpill.com/?p=869
Look at how the prophecy came true and Israel DID get the Dolphin subs with Nukes in that article!
Better adjust that tinfoil or else "THEY" are a-gonna git inside your head!
..drunk again, zenju2...????
Attacking me is futile. Attack my argument instead ;)
A nuclear-free Middle East is NOT possible [this soon] following multiple Arab-initiated attempts to wipe out both the Jews and Israel.
But any hard evidence that a nuclear-armed Iran is about to happen will start a war.
And that war is becoming more likely, in my opinion.
The embargoes and covert operations have been very successful so far. We ought to be increasing covert operations and toughening sanctions NOW. There are regular protests in Iran over high fuel costs that are a result of our sanctions. The Stuxnet virus yielded very real results without resorting the kabuki theater diplomacy you these authors propose.
What success have they produced? Iran have not been phased in the least. Their nuclear program is alive and well.
Iran's economy (barely) runs on :
1. Oil
2. Pistachios
3. Rugs
How is this massive economic growth and diversification?
No. The Mullahs are derailing the Iranian economy and the civil society. Their theocracy is incompatible with social or economic progress.
I'm no neo-Soviet. Just a former leftest who woke up one day and realized what an empty ideology he was apart of.
Realyl? The already fractured and strained Islamic theocracy is going to wage an all out war, which would lead to their demise? Not likely. Not likely at all. The Iranian regime took their lickings over the Stuxnet virus and did not respond out of cowardice... and they'll act in the same manner again it again.
...appear weak in classical Neville Chamberlain fashion. It will do nothing but appease the Iranian theocracy and allow their nuclear program to continue at full pace. Trita Parsi and Reza Marashi are not utilizing "smart diplomacy," quite the opposite.
Yes, let us do that. Chamberlain tried to appease Germany in order to avoid conflict in much the same way these authors are hoping to avoid a potential conflict with Iran through appeasement. The problem is that Iran is not interested in relinquishing its nuclear program and living peacefully within its borders, in much the same that Hitler wasn't interested in living peacefully within its borders. See the similarity now?
"Hmm, while that does seem a parallel to American policy towards a certain ME state, that state is NOT Iran."
Yes..... except for the Israel is not expansionist at all.