The Iran negotiations are going into the final lap, and AL Monitor is covering the issues. Laura Rozen reports from Vienna:
“We and the Iranians understand that this is a very important moment in the talks,” a senior US administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told journalists June 29. “It is certainly possible to get a deal here, and we do see a path forward to get an agreement that meets our bottom line.
“But there are real and tough issues that remain which have to be resolved to get a comprehensive agreement, and we still don’t know yet whether we will be able to get there,” the US official said. “We want to, we hope, but we do not know.’’ …
Iranian politicians are struggling in recent weeks with how to reconcile the prospective nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic’s revolutionary identity, said Adnan Tabatabai, a Berlin-based political analyst of Iranian affairs.
For Iran, “this is about more” than a nuclear deal, Tabatabai told Al-Monitor on June 28. It can potentially make way for a new era in Iran’s foreign policy, he said.
“In the end, it goes back to the key principles of what the revolution is about,” Tabatabai said. “’Some say, ‘We are an anti-imperialist revolutionary state. We are not willing to give in to the supreme powers.’ They will have to say we made the six most powerful countries in the world acknowledge our right to enrichment, force them to accept that we maintain what we achieved; at the same time, they will have to say we remained the unshakeable one.”
Jullian Pecquet reports on American reactions:
Key players both on and off Capitol Hill are raising their voices in the hopes of preventing what they say would be unacceptable concessions. Their statements suggest that a final agreement may yet attract broad bipartisan support, even as more conservative groups are already actively seeking to kill any deal. …
United Against Nuclear Iran, under the presidency of former Obama administration arms control coordinator Gary Samore, for example has begun a multimillion TV and newspaper campaign ahead of the deadline. The nonprofit advocacy group is critical of past concessions on uranium enrichment and the easing of many restrictions after a decade but says it can get behind a final deal if it avoids further concessions. …
The liberal Jewish organization J Street, for instance, has launched a multimillion campaign that includes advertising, polling and a website dedicated to pushing back against what it calls “misinformation about the nuclear negotiations and the likely parameters of a deal.”
Meanwhile, several conservative groups and publications, such as Secure America Now and William Kristol’s Weekly Standard, have reached the opposite conclusion.
“The impending deal is an embarrassment,” the magazine concludes in its July 6 edition. “The world’s greatest power prostrate before the world’s most patiently expansionist, terror-sponsoring, anti-American theocracy.”
Ali Hashem gives some insight into the various participants:
In a negotiating room overseeing Theodor Hertzl Platz in the heart of Vienna, US and Iranian delegates sit facing each other; sometimes they are joined by others from France, United Kingdom, Germany, Russia and China. It’s rare to hear a word from the Chinese, except when it comes to calling for more effort for a better solution; the Russians have been relatively inactive, and along with China are silent observers. The UK is aligned with the US, while France sometimes plays the role of troublemaker. However, this time around, France has been relatively quiet; it’s now Germany that seems to have its own special view on what is taking place. It has tended to play a role whenever there are serious dilemmas, but are we in the middle of a dilemma? …
The official emphasized that the moment of truth has come and that the United States shouldn’t be hostage to the past, and should make use of the opportunity to start a new era.
I think the comment about not being held hostage by the past is an interesting statement. There was certainly a lot of public trauma caused by the hostage crisis; there is no denying that the Iranians certainly inflicted a public punishment on the USA for perceived and probably very real outrages. The question is how much longer that should be borne in mind by the politicians of the United States – when does it no longer have any bearing?
Meanwhile, the Financial Times reports the deadline may be moved:
In his speech, Mr Khamenei said sanctions relief under any deal would need to be immediate and there would be considerable limits on where international inspectors would be allowed to visit in Iran.
Western governments insist that sanctions can only be lifted after Iran has completed curbs on its nuclear programmes and once inspectors have unrestricted access around the country.
Federica Mogherini, the EU foreign policy chief, struck an upbeat tone on Sunday at the meetings in Vienna. “If we need to have a couple of additional days more, it’s not the end of the world,” she said.
However, there would be “no long term extension” and she insisted that “I see the political will to finalise the deal.” She added: “We are near to closing the deal, it is a good deal.”
Philip Hammond, the UK foreign secretary, sounded more sceptical after a day of discussions. “There is going to have to be some give or take if we are to get this done in the next few days,” he said.
(7/14/2015 – added link to previous posts)
