Iran nuclear deal delayed or scuppered?

[David Guyatt]

The give away statement that tells us things have changed for the worse:

Iranian officials said the Vienna talks appeared to be making good progress as late as Sunday morning and that the negotiators were beginning to draft the text of an agreement, but by the afternoon western positions hardened. "There was a change of course on Sunday. We don't know why," an official said.

And which "middle east states" are being referred to here, I wonder?

Steinmeier also hinted that the demands of other Middle East states, which were not represented in Vienna, could have added to the complexity and difficulty of the talks. "We bear responsibility not just for us six but for many states in the world … that have legitimate security concerns about the development of the Iranian nuclear programme," he said.

Iran nuclear talks extended to 2015 after failure at Vienna negotiations

Deadline for deal moved to 30 June but British foreign secretary says aim is to reach broad accord within three months

• Julian Borger in Vienna
  
• The Guardian, Monday 24 November 2014 16.36 GMT
  
• Jump to comments (129)
  

John Kerry: Iran nuclear negotiations to be extended - video

Negotiations over Iran's nuclear programme have been extended until the end of June next year in the hope that the broad outlines of a deal can be agreed within three months.
The extension was announced on Monday after nine months of negotiations culminated in a week of talks in Vienna that failed to close gaps between Iran and a six-nation negotiating group over the scale of a future Iranian nuclear programme and the speed with which international sanctions would be lifted.
The US secretary of state, John Kerry, claimed "progress was made on some of the most vexing challenges that we face."
"Today we are closer to a deal that would make the entire world … safer and more secure," Kerry said. Is it possible that in the end we just won't arrive at a workable agreement? Absolutely. We are certainly not going to sit at the negotiating table for ever. But given how far we have come … this is certainly not the time to get up and walk away."
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani also sounded an upbeat note. "During the talks in Vienna many gaps were narrowed and our positions with the other side got closer," Rouhani was quoted as saying by Iranian state television.
Talks will resume next month to try to consolidate progress made in the Austrian capital and to continue the search for ways to bridge the remaining differences.
Twelve years after Iran's nuclear programme was first revealed, the Vienna talks marked the latest in a long line of failed attempts to negotiate lasting curbs on Iranian activities so that the international community can be confident Tehran is not trying to build a weapon. Last November, when military action by Israel appeared to be looming, an interim deal was agreed in Geneva that froze the Iranian programme and sanctions, significantly defusing tensions. The terms of that interim deal, in which Iran continues to abide by restrictions and can draw on some of its frozen assets around the world, will remain in force until June 30. Kerry argued that alone would make the world a safer place.
"I think we're all clear that we need to take the momentum that has been generated over the last month or so and we need to keep moving with it. We can't afford to stop now," Britain's foreign secretary, Philip Hammond, said. "There will be further meetings in December and our clear target is to reach a headline agreement, an agreement on substance in the next three months or so."
Iranian officials said the Vienna talks appeared to be making good progress as late as Sunday morning and that the negotiators were beginning to draft the text of an agreement, but by the afternoon western positions hardened. "There was a change of course on Sunday. We don't know why," an official said.
Emerging from the hotel that was the venue of the week's talks, the French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius said: "In the course of the past few days, some new ideas came up. They clearly require a very detailed technical assessment because these are complex concepts."
His German counterpart, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, said: "Nobody came out of these negotiations feeling depressed."
Steinmeier also hinted that the demands of other Middle East states, which were not represented in Vienna, could have added to the complexity and difficulty of the talks. "We bear responsibility not just for us six but for many states in the world … that have legitimate security concerns about the development of the Iranian nuclear programme," he said.
An extension could be perilous for the long and complex diplomatic effort to resolve the 12-year standoff over that programme. A new US Congress is scheduled to take office on 6 January. It will be dominated by Republicans who criticise the diplomacy as an excuse for Iran to fend off new sanctions while keeping its nuclear infrastructure intact. The Republicans have threatened to impose new sanctions, which could trigger a backlash from hardliners in Tehran who have been equally critical of the negotiations.
Addressing the press after the talks, Kerry said he hoped Congress "will come to see the wisdom of leaving us the equilibrium for a few months to be able to proceed. We certainly stand prepared to work with Congress in every way possible."
He added that it was "premature" to talk about a presidential veto."
An escalation could reverse the progress made in last November's interim deal, the terms of which have been extended until the end of June. Hammond said those arrangements would be extended until June 30, with Iran continuing to draw $700 million a year.
"I think we are beginning to understand each other and each others positions and the challenges that we all face. Everyone is going to have to show some flexibility to get an agreement," he said.
Ali Vaez, an Iran analyst at the International Crisis Group, said: "Both sides now know what their real positions, incentives of success, and disincentives of failure are. The window between now and when the new Congress takes power is the best opportunity to clinch the elusive deal."

[David Guyatt]

Are the Iranians being manouevred by the neocons into repudiating their prior agreement with the US in order for the US and Israel to prepare for war? It feels very much the case to me. The neocon want war not peace, oil and gas, not talk or agreement.

From Consortium News:

The Risks of No Iran-Nuke Deal

November 24, 2014

Facing Republican/neocon pressure, President Obama balked at a final deal with Iran over its nuclear program, extending talks but increasing chances that political forces in Iran might repudiate more moderate leaders favoring a deal, a risk that ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar says would not serve U.S. or Iranian interests.
By Paul R. Pillar
The single most important fact about the extension of the nuclear negotiations with Iran is that the obligations established by the Joint Plan of Action negotiated a year ago will remain in effect as negotiations continue.
This means that our side will continue to enjoy what these negotiations are supposed to be about: preclusion of any Iranian nuclear weapon, through the combination of tight restrictions on Iran's nuclear program and intrusive monitoring to ensure the program stays peaceful.

Secretary of State John Kerry speaks sith Turkish Foreign Minister Cavusoglu about Iranian Nuclear Talks in Vienna. (State Department photo)

Not only that, but also continuing will be the rollback of Iran's program that the JPOA achieved, such that Iran will remain farther away from any capability to build a bomb than it was a year ago, and even farther away from where it would have been if the negotiations had never begun or from where it would be if negotiations were to break down.
Our side the United States and its partners in the P5+1 got by far the better side of the deal in the JPOA. We got the fundamental bomb-preventing restrictions (including most significantly a complete elimination of medium-level uranium enrichment) and enhanced inspections we sought, in return for only minor sanctions relief to Iran that leaves all the major banking and oil sanctions in place. If negotiations were to go on forever under these terms, we would have no cause to complain to the Iranians.
But the Iranians do not have comparable reason to be happy about this week's development. The arrangement announced in Vienna is bound to be a tough sell back in Tehran for President Rouhani and Foreign Minister Zarif. The sanctions continue, and continue to hurt, even though the Iranian negotiators have conceded most of what they could concede regarding restrictions on the nuclear program.
There will be a lot of talk in Tehran about how the West is stringing them along, probably with the intent of undermining the regime and not just determining its nuclear policies.
That the Iranian decision-makers have put themselves in this position is an indication of the seriousness with which they are committed to these negotiations. This week's extension is of little use to them except to keep alive the prospect that a final deal will be completed.
Also indicating their seriousness is the diligence with which Iran has complied with its obligations under the JPOA. The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed today Iran's compliance with its final pre-November 24th obligation, which had to do with reducing its stock of low-enriched uranium in gaseous form.
Because the P5+1 got much the better side of the preliminary agreement, the P5+1 will have to make more of the remaining concessions to complete a final agreement. The main hazard to concluding a final deal is not an Iranian unwillingness to make concessions. The main hazard is a possible Iranian conclusion that it does not have an interlocutor on the U.S. side that is bargaining in good faith.
We push the Iranians closer to such a conclusion the more talk there is in Washington about imposing additional pressure and additional sanctions, as people such as Marco Rubio and AIPAChave wasted no time in doing in response to today's announcement about the extension of negotiations.
We have sanctioned the dickens out of Iran for years and are continuing to do so, but the only time all this pressure got any results is when we started to negotiate in good faith. Surly sanctions talk on Capitol Hill only strengthens Iranian doubts about whether the U.S. administration will be able to deliver on its side of a final agreement, making it less, not more, likely the Iranians would offer still more concessions.
Any actual sanctions legislation would blatantly violate the terms of the JPOA and give the Iranians good reason to walk away from the whole business, marking the end of any special restrictions on their nuclear program.
Indefinite continuation of the terms of the existing agreement would suit us well, but completion of a final agreement would be even better and without one the Iranians eventually would have to walk away, because indefinite continuation certainly does not suit them.
And besides, the sanctions hurt us economically too. To get a final agreement does not mean fixating on the details of plumbing in enrichment cascades, which do not affect our security anyway. It means realizing what kind of deal we got with the preliminary agreement, and negotiating in good faith to get the final agreement.
Paul R. Pillar, in his 28 years at the Central Intelligence Agency, rose to be one of the agency's top analysts. He is now a visiting professor at Georgetown University for security studies. (This article first appeared as a blog post at The National Interest's Web site. Reprinted with author's permission.)