It’s Too Soon To Pass Judgment on the Vienna Talks

The seventh round of the Vienna nuclear negotiations came to an end on Friday, and the takeaway of the U.S. and its allies was far from positive. French President Emmanuel Macron, talking about the lack of success in this round of negotiations during his trip to the U.A.E., went so far as to predict that negotiations will not continue. Obviously, Macron was just saying this to coax the Emiratis out of more money from his country’s recent sale of 80 Rafale fighter jets and other weapons to the U.A.E. Still, his assessment of the United States' negative approach to this round of negotiations was not off. In fact, his words were in line with those of Secretary of State Antony Blinken, speaking negatively about the negotiations in order to whip up Western propaganda in favor of the West’s proposals. This is the West’s general policy for now, but that’s not the end of the matter.

Despite what Macron said, the talks will continue. That’s exactly why the West has decided to take such a negative stance at the outset, in order to maintain its own bargaining power. It was clear from the beginning that this new round of negotiations would have trouble getting off the ground. Neither side went to Vienna expecting to revive the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action this time, since, the main issues on the table remained unresolved despite the last six rounds of indirect talks between the U.S. and Iran. It’s unlikely that a couple of back and forth meetings in Vienna will be able to resolve them. Among these issues, two are more important than the rest, one regarding the U.S. and the other, Iran.

The American issue is one of untrustworthiness. Donald Trump already showed that you cannot trust the signatures of U.S. officials on any agreement. Our gullibility in trusting John Kerry's signature in 2015 led to Trump tearing up the agreement in 2018, and we can no longer place such trust in Secretary Blinken or even President Joe Biden. This issue is of particular importance given the presidential election that will take place in three years in the U.S. The Republicans have vowed en masse to destroy any deal made with Iran if they recapture the presidency. Without some sort of real, trustworthy guarantee from the U.S., any agreement will only have a three-year lifespan.

When it comes to Iran, the issue is its nuclear advances, which the West wants to reverse by reviving the 2015 agreement. This would include dismantling the developed centrifuges, transferring stores of 20% and 60% enriched uranium out of Iran, and reducing the stores of 4% enriched uranium to the level originally agreed upon in the JCPOA. How can Iran accept such limitations when faced with the untrustworthiness of the U.S. and its Western allies? How can we accept these limitations before verifying that U.S. sanctions have been lifted when these conditions are Iran’s most important leverage in ensuring that the sanctions are in fact removed?

Obviously, these two issues are linked, and finding a mutually acceptable solution to both of them will take time. There was no resolution during the last six rounds of negotiations, and we can’t expect that we will reach any result in a single meeting in Vienna. We should expect several rounds of talks before we resolve these issues, and only then can we properly talk about reviving the JCPOA. Perhaps the most realistic assessment of this round of talks was that of Enrique Mora, the European Union’s coordinator in Vienna, who said, “We have substantial challenges ahead, time is not unlimited, there is an obvious sense of urgency … We will be resuming here in Vienna next week.” It is still too soon to make a judgment on the several days of talks that took place in Vienna, and we should wait and see which way the negotiating process will go in future talks. However, it is at least clear that we have a long way to go before we finally resolve matters and reinstate the JCPOA.