IRAN: Inside nuclear talks, frustrating diplomacy
No one expected a miracle. But faint hopes that historic talks Saturday in Geneva between Iranian diplomats and world powers over Iran's nuclear program could lead to an immediate breakthrough were quickly dashed.
In truth, insiders were gearing up for the talks to fizzle days before they took place.
European officials say they urged the United States to send Undersecretary of State Willam J. Burns to the meeting in part to give Americans understanding of what they are up against in convincing ideologically hard-line Iranian officials close to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to halt enrichment of uranium, a process which can be used to create fuel for power plants or a nuclear bomb.
Despite recent positive remarks by Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and others in Tehran’s foreign policy circles, Europeans say they’ve grown increasingly frustrated with Iranian nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili, who they say talks without listening and never gives a straight answer.
“Jalili is a perfect representative of Ahmadinejad,” said a Western diplomat in Tehran.
In advance of the talks, Western diplomats downplayed expectations.
“The best that we can hope for is to prevent the situation from deteriorating,” said one European diplomat in Tehran.
Still, Jalili had begun to show more diplomatic savvy in recent months, tempering his public comments since taking over from the more pragmatic Ali Larijani last year.
But once the meeting was underway, it was clear that Iranians would refuse to budge. Instead of offering a yes-or-no answer on the so-called "freeze-for-freeze" proposal trading no new Iranian centrifuges for no new sanctions, Jalili launched into a tiresome speech.
Here's Cristina Gallach, European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana's spokeswoman, in a note to the Los Angeles Times:
The Iranians missed an opportunity to give a clear reponse to the ... paper which spells in a very clear manner the "freeze for freeze".... They came with a counter proposal. This counter proposal is not at all appropriate, since it does not respect the time lines nor the scheme that we presented.
Of course, Iranians described the Iranian response in more glowing terms. According to a report by the official Islamic Republic News Agency, the hours-long meeting was a success. Jalili told IRNA:
We entered into negotiation with a positive approach and we presented our proposal package upon our joint concerns. We believe that for common concerns we need common cooperation upon collective obligations. By presenting our proposal package we offer such good potentials for a constructive cooperation in direction of peace, stability, security and democracy, indeed.
Iranians downplayed the presence of Burns, whose appearance marked the highest level diplomatic contact between Iran and the U.S. in 29 years. Some officials said the Iranians were unsure how to respond.
One European insider in Geneva said Jalili did not address the American's comments directly.
The presence of Bill Burns was an extremely positive development, which unfortunately the Iranians did not put in [the] value as [they] should have done. Bill was clear, short, constructive. He spoke about the commitment of the U.S. to a negotiated agreement. Interestingly enough, Jalili did not reply specifically to his words, but continued making generic comments.
In truth, Jalili may have not made any response because he has no power. According to one Iranian analyst, he and his delegation are little more than messengers:
They go to Geneva and move their lips, but they don't have any decisionmaking power. They come back to Tehran and report to the big figures in the shadows, who decide what to do next.
They'd better decide quickly. Iranians have already been slapped with four United Nations Security Council resolutions and three sets of economic sanctions for failing to halt their production of reactor-grade enriched uranium. Frustrated European, Russian, Chinese and American envoys in Geneva gave the Iranians two weeks to give a substantive, up-or-down response on the "freeze-for-freeze" proposal.
"Otherwise," said one official, "the noise on new sanctions will reappear."
— Borzou Daragahi
Photo: Saeed Jalili arrives at Tehran's Imam Khomeini en route to Geneva. Credit: Hassan Ghaedi / Fars News Agency
P.S. The Los Angeles Times issues a free daily newsletter with the latest headlines from the Middle East. You can subscribe by registering at the website here.
José man, how can you write such trash? Are you really so blind that you can't see that there is only one country that truly wishes to "dominate the region and the world" as you put it? That country is not Iran but the US.
Which of the 2 countries has started wars all over the globe and has bases all over world (Iran or the US)?
Which of the 2 countries has proven nuclear weapons?
Which of the 2 countries has threatened the other with attack?
Come on man, wake up!
Posted by: David Sketchley | July 22, 2008 at 05:44 AM
Bankrupt? most likely not. I would be more concern on the shift of the balance of power when Iran already have a bomb. Iran is tough having no bomb yet, just imagine when they have the nuclear bomb in the near future. They can easily threaten any country that go against their way. Iran aims to dominate the region and the world. I youdont trust the US government handling the issue, I do not trust the future if Iran will let go his goals. Mullen already said time and again, Iran is developing a nuclear bomb. Delaying tactics is common to the leaders of Iran to at least get to one bomb , explode it then tell the world they already mastered the technology.
Posted by: Jose Santos | July 21, 2008 at 12:05 PM
You can see the neo-con strategy being laid out. It was set in motion by Bush saying that we must first attempt diplomacy with Iran. Since he's taken a cue from the left and sent a diplomat to the talks, he can say that he's tried diplomacy. Now they'll probably drag us into a different war in the middle east later this year that will push us closer toward becoming a bankrupt nation. Can we do nothing to remove this administration's ability to wage war on Iran?
Posted by: Nate | July 20, 2008 at 02:53 PM