Iran Reiterates Demands As US Says 'Serious Issues' Remain In Talks
Nuclear talks with Iran have made significant progress in the last week or so, but very tough issues remain, a senior US State Department official said Friday.
Nuclear talks with Iran have made significant progress in the last week or so, but very tough issues remain, a senior US State Department official said Friday.
The US official, quoted by Reuters, said he hoped Iran's lead negotiator would return in the coming days to Vienna, where the talks are taking place, "with a positive view" but that even if he did, there were still difficult issues on the table.
"There's been significant progress over the last week or two," the US official told reporters on condition that he not be named. "But at the same time, it's important to note that very serious issues remain."
Iran’s official news website IRNA on Saturday drew attention to the “serious issues” in an unsigned article. While it said that no one is privy to the details of disagreements between Washington and Tehran, it is clear what Iran does NOT want.
IRNA elaborated that Tehran does not want a JCPOA+ type of a new agreement or any temporary deal.
A report by Reuters earlier this month said that a draft agreement is being shaped which points toward a step-by-step or sequenced approach starting with the release of some of Iran’s frozen funds in exchange for a five-percent cap on uranium enrichment by Iran. In the following weeks and months, the two sides take more steps to get closer to a final restoration of the JCPOA.
While the Western side in the Vienna talks did not deny the Reuters report, Iran rejected it as fake Western disinformation to influence the talks. IRNA’s reference to a “temporary deal” might be about a sequenced deal, which does not lift US sanctions in one step.
IRNA also said Iran does not want “implicit promises” and “verbal guarantees” in the negotiations, adding that mentioning what Tehran does not want, can shed light on the situation of the talks in Vienna.
This refers to Iran’s position since at least November insisting it wants an iron-clad guarantee by the United States that it would never renege on a new agreement, pointing to former president Donald Trump’s decision in 2018 to withdraw from the JCPOA. The Biden Administration in response has said that it cannot constitutionally provide such a guarantee. A future US president can make his own decisions if the agreement is not a treaty ratified by the Senate.
The US official talking with media on Friday said a deal, if one can be reached, would in many ways track the terms of the original accord on Iran's levels of uranium enrichment, the stockpile of enriched uranium it may hold, and the numbers of centrifuges it may operate.
However, he left open the possibility of some modifications to account the additional sanctions that president Trump imposed on Iran in 2018 and the nuclear advances that Iran has since made.
"We hope that when Iran comes back, it comes back in with a pre-disposition to try to resolve this quickly," the official said, saying there were still disagreements "for which there is not a solution that's on the table."
He also declined to name the sticking points, as did IRNA, and would not be drawn into whether Washington had persuaded Tehran to agree to follow-on negotiations on its nuclear program, its development of ballistic missiles or support for regional proxies.
He also said there has not been any deal reached in separate negotiations about the release of four U.S. citizens whom the United States believes have been wrongfully detained by Iran.
With reporting by Reuters
Negotiations between Iran and world powers to revive the 2015 nuclear deal, known as JCPOA have unofficially paused in Vienna as Iranian envoy Ali Bagheri-Kani returned to Tehran earlier this week ostensibly for consultations.
Former chairman of Iranian parliament’s national security committee, Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh told Aftab News in Tehran on Friday that “the JCPOA became a victim of the war in Ukraine.” He added, “Although I am pessimistic about the long shadow of the war on JCPOA talks, but I still believe that Putin’s attack on Ukraine might lead to a willingness in the West to bring talks with Iran to a conclusion.”
Falahatpisheh noted two possible reasons for his belief that the Ukraine war might speed up an agreement in Vienna. He argued that the United States and its European allies do not want to see Iran fall further into the Russian orbit. Second, they want to end Russia’s influence in the talks.
Indeed, Moscow’s chief negotiator Mikhail Ulyanov has assumed an increasingly prominent role in the talks since November, when Iran’s new delegation headed by hardliners resumed the talks in Vienna.
Many in Iranian media have questioned his role as an active mediator, showcasing his photos sitting alone with US chief envoy Robert Malley in hotel conference rooms on several occasions. Even in Tehran’s press controlled by the government, many questioned why Iran does not directly negotiate with the Biden Administration instead of allowing Russia to act as a broker.
In the same vein, some might wonder if Bagheri-Kani’s sudden return to Tehran a few days ago might not have been related to Russia’s impending attack on Ukraine.
There are some questions about what path Tehran will choose after the unmistakable jolt to international relations by Putin’s invasion.
Tehran might now calculate that it does not need an agreement with the West as long as it is able to break US sanctions and export oil, given the global need for fossil fuels amid heavy sanctions on Russia. Shipments have already reached above one million barrels a day, mainly to China. In the meantime, it can continue its uranium enrichment, become a nuclear threshold state, and have more leverage in any future talks.
The opposite is also possible, though less likely. Tehran might see Russia as isolated and not useful any longer as a diplomatic backer. It might decide to make concessions to the West now, rather than live with US sanctions, amid an environment of Western unity reminiscent of the Cold War.
But remaining a Russian ally in these circumstances might offer Iran even some military cover and weapons systems, as some sort of a ‘Cold War satellite’ for Moscow.
Falahatpisheh in his interview argued that he has repeatedly expressed his preference for a quick agreement before an external factor derails the nuclear talks. Russia is bound to use every card in its pocket now, including the Iran nuclear issue, he said.
The former senior lawmaker even went as far as indirectly hinting that Moscow has already used its influence in the Vienna talks to detriment of Iran. “Russia knew very well that in case of an agreement in Vienna and the lifting of sanctions, Iran could boost its potential for oil and gas exports to Europe and elsewhere in a short period of time and tried to control the Vienna negotiations.” He added, “If Iran had reached an agreement, now it could sell its oil at above $100 a barrel and regain its global market share.”
Falhatpisheh expressed deep regret that President Ebrahim Raisi and chief negotiator Bagheri-Kani “relinquished the management of the talks to the Russians, paving the way for a suitable environment for the Kremlin to pursue its interests”.