EurasiaNet Eurasia Insight - Iran: Tehran Plays for Time as Nuclear Talks Enter Crucial Phase

EURASIA INSIGHT

IRAN: TEHRAN PLAYS FOR TIME AS NUCLEAR TALKS ENTER CRUCIAL PHASE
Kamal Nazer Yasin 7/24/08

Discussions over the fate of Iran’s nuclear program have entered a critical stage. Faced with the stiffening resolve of the international community, Iranian leaders are frantically maneuvering to find a way to avoid the expansion of sanctions against their country. With no clear solution to its dilemma at hand, however, Tehran appears to be playing for time.

Gholamreza Aghazadeh, Iran’s vice president and head of the country’s atomic energy agency, tried to sound optimistic on July 24 when discussing the possibility of a nuclear arrangement that would satisfy both Tehran and the international community. A group comprising the five permanent United Nations Security Council members -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China -- along with Germany (the 5+1 group) is pressing Iran to accept an incentive program in return for verifiable guarantees concerning the Iranian nuclear program. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Aghazadeh outlined Iran’s latest views during a closed-door meeting in Vienna on July 24 with Mohammad ElBaradei, head of the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency.

Following the meeting with ElBaradei, Aghazadeh voiced hope "that the negotiations will be started in a framework of both sides being fully committed to the expectations that are already there." He also attempted to strengthen Tehran’s negotiating position by hinting that increased 5+1 flexibility concerning negotiations could help resolve many "important problems," including "the Middle East, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and also Iraq and also the problem of the price of oil."

The IAEA discussion followed a ground-breaking session on July 19 of the ongoing talks involving Iran and the 5+1 group. The session, held in Geneva, marked the first time that a US diplomat, Undersecretary of State William Burns, had met face-to-face with Iranian officials in nearly 30 years, outside of multilateral talks on the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Geneva session ended without consensus on how to proceed, and the 5+1 states issued a demand, giving Iran two weeks to clarify its position.

The July 19 talks provided a rare instance when all of the conservative factions and political personalities in Iran spoke with one voice, enthusiastically endorsing the gathering. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei publicly backed the new round of discussions in a major speech in mid July -- his first such statement in three years. Even Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sounded a favorable note about the meeting. In a July 23 speech, he lauded Burns for being "polite and decent and respectful" of the Iranian delegation, adding that "we consider this a positive step."

Behind such upbeat rhetoric, however, Iran in Geneva reportedly offered little of substance that would assuage long-standing 5+1 concerns. According to sources familiar with the ongoing dialogue, 5+1 officials had expected Iranian negotiators to raise a potential deal that Tehran have explored previously with Swiss officials. The chief concession mentioned by the Iranians concerned a freeze in the expansion of Tehran’s uranium enrichment activities. But Iranian officials disappointed their 5+1 counterparts by spending a lengthy portion of the July 19 meeting expounding on cultural difference between the two sides. They made no mention of a concession. Meanwhile, a document obtained by the New York Times indicated that Iranians are seeking a protracted negotiating framework.

The US decision to have a top-level diplomat attend the July 19 talks represented a major shift in Bush administration policy, and some experts believe Iran is still trying to interpret the meaning of Washington’s action. Some in Tehran may be interpreting it as a sign of weakness, or, with the Bush administration entering its final months in power, as a sign of anxiousness to resolve the nuclear issue, and thus establish a major element for the departing president’s legacy as a statesman.

Others see Burns’ participation as a US maneuver designed to enhance Washington’s ability to get tough with Iran. By engaging Iran, the Bush administration could claim the moral high ground, and thus more easily pressure its allies to adopt a harder line against Iran, provided the nuclear discussions remained stalemated.

In Washington, it is not clear to many observers whether the White House’s policy shift represents a change in strategic thinking, or if it is merely tactical posturing. Mehdi Khalaji, an Iran expert at the neo-conservative Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy (WINEP), is convinced the move is purely tactical. "Iran will not give up its nuclear program. So by agreeing to join the 5+1 talks with them, the White House shows its good faith," he told the EurasiaNet. If the Iranians, as expected, don’t actively engage the 5+1 countries in substantive bargaining, then Khalaji believes that the international community will quickly come around to support the Bush administration’s hard-line position.

Whatever the Bush administration’s motivation, Iranian leaders now realize that if they don’t do anything, then tougher sanctions against Tehran are inevitable. Iranian leaders do not want to see that happen, yet no one it Tehran is willing to agree to what the international community really seeks -- a moratorium of enrichment activities. At the same time, Iranian negotiators are acutely aware that the clock is ticking.

The EU, for one, is ready to announce major restrictions on Iranian banks should the nuclear talks fail to produce any results. Meanwhile, the UN Security Council is expected to consider a major round of new sanctions against Iran in September, and the United States and Britain are laying the groundwork for the establishment of extensive, new sanctions against Iran’s oil and shipping industries. Underlying the potential moves to punish Iran economically is the possibility of a US or Israeli military strike. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

Undecided on the extent of the concessions they will have to make, Iranian leaders have sought to soothe the 5+1 group with reassuring rhetoric. Aghazade’s comments in Vienna were just the latest in a string of Iranian statements seeking to foster an aura of hope. Other instances of Iranian positive thinking include an early July statement made by Aliakbar Velayati, the Supreme Leader’s senior foreign policy advisor, that Iran was ready to compromise with the 5+1 group. Also in early July, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said during an interview broadcast on CNN that talks on the nuclear question had entered into "a new environment with a new approaching perspective."

By playing for time, Iran evidently is hoping that new divisions will appear in what is now a solid front being presented by the 5+1 group. Thus, Tehran is likely to wait until the very last minute before responding to the 5+1 group’s two-week deadline.

Editor�s Note: Kamal Nazer Yasin is a pseudonym for a freelance journalist specializing in Iranian affairs.

The Central Eurasia Project aims, through its website, meetings, papers, and grants, to foster a more informed debate about the social, political and economic developments of the Caucasus and Central Asia. It is a program of the Open Society Institute-New York. The Open Society Institute-New York is a private operating and grantmaking foundation that promotes the development of open societies around the world by supporting educational, social, and legal reform, and by encouraging alternative approaches to complex and controversial issues.

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the position of the Open Society Institute and are the sole responsibility of the author or authors.