How France and the United States Have Torn Each Other Apart over Iran

Paris couldn’t tolerate Washington’s secret negotiations with Tehran for an agreement on the nuclear issue, even if it meant causing the talks to fail.

A historic agreement was within arm’s reach. After ten years of deadlock, the thorny Iranian nuclear question, which the West suspected of having a military vocation, was to reach a peaceful outcome. For the second time since the coming to power of the “moderate” Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, the P5+1 group (the five major powers – United States, Russia, China, France and the U.K. – plus Germany) met the new chief negotiator for nuclear matters and head of Iranian diplomacy, Mohammad Javad Zarif, in Geneva, determined to reach an agreement in order to lift the sanctions which are suffocating the Islamic republic’s economy.

A sign that an agreement was imminent was the welcome ball in Switzerland for the Western heads of diplomacy, who weren’t expected at such a celebration, with the meeting traditionally being dedicated to the political directors of the chancelleries. But one of them was soon to put an end to the prevailing optimism: Laurent Fabius. The head of French diplomacy affirmed, after reading the initial text of the negotiations, that he had “no certitude” that an agreement would be reached, as some “important questions” were not resolved. Astonishment reigned in the corridors of the Intercontinental Hotel, which was hosting the meeting: The Western negotiators had had three weeks to agree upon a common text to present to Iran.

Secret Negotiations

“These reactions give the impression that Laurent Fabius only discovered the text on his arrival in Geneva,” remarks François Nicoullaud (1), former French ambassador to Iran. “If the French diplomatic service wasn’t in agreement, why didn’t they block the text before?” French intransigence paid off. After three days of intense negotiations, the P5+1 agreed on a joint text. A deal with Iran will be for another time. In Washington and Tehran, supporters of confrontation over the Iranian nuclear question are delighted. But what on earth happened in Geneva?

What happened is that the initial text presented on Thursday in Geneva was not the work of the P5+1, but that of the Americans and the Iranians. In actual fact, the United States and Iran have been having secret discussions for the last six months. “There has been an unofficial exchange of views between the State Department and the Iranian foreign minister in order to reach an agreement on the nuclear issue,” claims François Géré (2), director of the French Institute for Strategic Analysis. “The Americans agreed to grant Iran the right to enrich uranium on its territory, as well as keeping a certain quantity of 20 percent-enriched uranium under the strict control of the International Atomic Energy Agency.”

France Was Not Consulted

The problem is that these are the very points rejected by France since it started the negotiation process with Iran in 2003. Worse still, Paris was not even informed of the details of the secret talks between Washington and Tehran, even though the Americans are part of the P5+1 group, which was appointed by the U.N. to negotiate with Iran. And so, on Thursday, the first day of the talks, the American delegation arrived in Geneva with its own text, so that it might be used as a basis for negotiations.

The proposal foresees an easing of “reversible” sanctions in the trade, gold and precious metals, and petrochemical industry sectors, as well as the release of $50 billion of Iranian assets frozen in foreign bank accounts. In exchange, Iran suspends the 20 percent uranium enrichment it retains on its territory, while continuing with these activities at lower levels for civilian purposes. Had it been signed last weekend in Geneva, the interim agreement was to have resulted, six months later, in the conclusion of a definitive text providing for the lifting of the toughest sanctions affecting Iranian oil and banks.

Fabius Risks It All

If the British and Germans heartily approved, this was not the case for France, furious at having been kept in the background of an agreement judged to be weak. After learning on Thursday that the American Secretary of State John Kerry was cutting short his visit to Israel in order to come to Geneva, Laurent Fabius decided to get one step ahead and risk it all. Onsite on Friday, he broke the secrecy of the ongoing negotiations with the press as witness. On France Inter [a French national radio station], the minister warned of a “fool’s game,” insisting on the danger linked to the “extremely proliferating” Arak reactor, which will be able to produce plutonium when it is finished in a year’s time.

However, according to Ali Vaez, an Iranian analyst with the International Crisis Group, this heavy water reactor, which was first the subject of a warning by the International Atomic Energy Agency last April and since then by Israel, does not pose a “pressing” risk. “There is no way that it will be finished in six months, when the interim agreement ends, and it will take several years before the Iranians can hope to produce plutonium there.”*

French Deadlock

The expert is sure of this. “It is clearly the Arak issue which upset the balance in the negotiations which had taken place until then and which could not be gotten back to afterwards.”* François Géré even considers that “French diplomacy took up the issue of this reactor to transform it into a reason for a deadlock, annoyed that they did not know what had been decided between the Iranians and the Americans.” Firstly, the “coup de Trafalgar” by Paris has somewhat annoyed the American team. “The Americans, the European Union and the Iranians have worked intensively for months on this proposal, and this is nothing more than an attempt by Fabius to give himself belated importance,” cursed an (anonymous) American diplomat on Saturday. At the Élysée palace, however, they assure that “everything that Laurent Fabius did in Geneva was decided in close collaboration with the president of the republic.”*

The Clock Is Ticking

The French delegation in Switzerland explained that they want to “avoid the euphoria of the half-full glass,” in reference to the unsuccessful 2003 agreement negotiated with France, the U.K. and Germany. At first furious, John Kerry gradually calmed down to the point where on Sunday he blamed the failure of the talks on the Iranians. “This accusation makes no sense,” an Iranian diplomat retaliated today. “We genuinely set out looking for an agreement, as demonstrated by the prolongation of talks until Saturday. The lack of cooperation comes from the other side of the table, in particular France, with their last-minute demands. By acting this way, there will never be a solution.”*

These are accusations which the French side totally rejects. “Our position is no different to that of the Americans. The proof is that we reached a joint text, and it would have never been the case if the circumstances had been as bad as has been made out.”* After 10 years of a united front against the Iranian nuclear threat, the Westerners have never been so divided. “We were firm, because there was nobody on the other side of the table to negotiate with,” stresses a Western diplomatic source. “Today we truly are negotiating.” All the same, the diplomat admits: “The P5+1 group is not very homogeneous, it’s like trying to do a slalom with a bus.” However, he seeks to reassure: “There are tensions, because we are getting close to an agreement.”*

However, the window of opportunity is shrinking. Another failure during the next and final chance, on Nov. 20 in Geneva, could put the Iranian president Hassan Rouhani at odds with the Supreme Leader, to whom he promised a lifting of sanctions. For 2014 will bring new sanctions from the U.S. Congress, dampening once and for all the chances of a diplomatic outcome to this crisis.

(1) François Nicoullaud, author of “Le turban et la rose: journal inattendu d’un ambassadeur à Téhéran” (Éditions Ramsay).

(2) François Géré, author of “Dictionnaire de la désinformation” (éditions Armand Colin).

* Editor’s Note: These quotes, accurately translated, could not be verified.