Crucial Week for Iran Nuclear Talks

Rarely have diplomatic negotiations been so long and complex. Rarely, however, have the issues been so important: Avoid nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, one of the most volatile regions in the world. The tortuous talks, which began in 2003, are on the home stretch. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and his Iranian counterpart, Mohammad Javad Zarif, will meet on Sunday, March 15 in Lausanne, in order to achieve, by March 31, a political agreement laying down the broad outlines of a compromise, which must then by supplemented by technical annexes by June 30.

Ahead of this intense phase of talks, Mr. Zarif will travel on Monday to Brussels for talks under the auspices of the European Union, with foreign ministers from France, Germany and Britain — a move designed to highlight the multilateral nature of these negotiations, although in reality they are mostly conducted by the Zarif-Kerry team. The discussions will then continue in Switzerland, near Lake Geneva.

The deadline to conclude these negotiations has already been postponed twice since the interim agreement of November 2013 between Iran and the “P5+1” countries, which include the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, plus Germany. This resulted in a temporary freeze on Iran’s nuclear activities and a partial lifting of heavy international sanctions against Iran, which was suspected by the West of seeking to build an atomic bomb under the cover of a civilian program. But a further extension seems unlikely. U.S. President Barack Obama, who is under pressure from a wary Congress to be hard on Tehran, publicly opposes any extension. “The clock is ticking, and the pressure on negotiators is increasing,” says Ali Vaez, a specialist on Iran at the International Crisis Group. *

“An Agreement Is Feasible”

With the approach of this new deadline, Western governments are displaying a cautious optimism, which contrasts with the skeptical tone that had previously prevailed, especially from Laurent Fabius, head of French diplomacy. “An agreement is feasible, there is no fundamental barrier,” said a source close to Fabius, who is known to be a “hawk” on this issue. “But we will be there until the last hour of the last day,” he warned.

The aim of the talks in Lausanne is to arrive at a text of “three to four pages,” according to an informed source, detailing “the broad parameters” of a final agreement. At this point, observes one diplomat, the obstacles are no longer “technical.” As a result of negotiating for almost 16 months, “all the options were screened, and it’s now up to the Iranians to make a political choice,” he says.

The contours of a possible compromise are known. The key issues relate to Iran’s ability to enrich uranium, an ingredient required to manufacture a nuclear weapon, and monitoring mechanisms to ensure that Tehran keeps its commitments under the agreement. “On enrichment, there is more common ground than before,” says Ali Vaez* A diplomat involved in the talks considers “coherent” a scenario where the number of Iranian centrifuges is limited to about 6500; currently, the country has close to 20,000, half of which are active.

The figure is higher than what was originally envisaged by the great powers. In return, Iran would agree not to develop more powerful centrifuges and also would export to Russia a significant portion of its stockpile of already enriched uranium, where it would be transformed to make its use for military purposes nearly impossible.

“The main technical obstacles seem now to be political issues,” notes Francois Nicoullaud, former French ambassador to Iran. There are, he said, two types of outstanding issues: The duration of the agreement and the pace at which the sanctions that have stifled Iran since 2006 will be lifted. On the subject of duration, France considers a period of 10 years, suggested by President Obama, to be “insufficient.” During this period, Iran would be subject to an expanded inspections regime. Tehran, for its part, wants these measures to last no more than five years.

Although Obstacles Remain, Progress Is Real

But for Iran, the main issue is the removal of multiple sanctions — American, European, and U.N. — the impact of which was reinforced by falling oil prices, the country’s main resource. This is a top priority for President Hassan Rohani, whose credibility rests on his ability to improve Iranians’ living standards and counter the radical regime, which is opposed to any concessions on nuclear weapons.

The Iranians are demanding the immediate removal of all sanctions, an illusory demand because it would deprive the West of any leverage in the event Iran fails to keep its word. Tehran primarily wants to lift U.N. sanctions that keep the country’s status as a pariah and paralyze its development; companies are reluctant to invest in Iran, for fear of invoking the wrath of the international community.

For now, the negotiations concern the establishment of a timetable on the principle of give and take. The Europeans, who have fewer constraints on this issue than President Obama, could quickly suspend sanctions imposed in 2010 on the oil and banking sectors. This would have a substantial impact by lifting restrictions on financial transactions, which currently hinder trade, and allowing Iran to return to its full capacity to export oil, estimated at 2 million barrels per day, compared to only 1 million authorized today.

Although there are still obstacles, progress is real, notes Mark Fitzpatrick of the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London. “For the first time,” he says, “Iran agreed to negotiate the principle of a reduction of its enrichment capacity. In exchange, the West legitimized an Iranian nuclear program that they originally wanted to curb. And if the negotiation succeeds,” he continues, “it will be one of the most important non-proliferation agreements since the end of World War II.”*

*Accurately translated, this quote could not be verified.