Sayed Hadi Mousavi- Tehran
The latest round of nuclear talks between Iran and the p5+1 countries, comprising the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany, concluded last Saturday with all parts voicing satisfaction. After 15 months of ineffective pressures by sanctions and "war drums beating", the West had no choice other than to sit at the negotiating table without any precondition.
To discuss this topic, we talked to Dr. Morad Enadi, foreign relation and nuclear expert that because of his previous and current responsibilities, has been directly involved in the negotiations and its development. What happened in the Istanbul 2 negotiations that both Iran and West made positive statements?
The talks happened after a 15 months break. The "Istanbul 1" talks were on January 22, 2011 and between these two dates; the West (the United States and the European Troika) put the most pressure they could on Iran. They thought that it can soften our stance, disrupt Iran's nuclear developments and cause economic problems. Whereas Iran took some major steps in the nuclear field: Nuclear fuel rods and new fourth-generation centrifuges were domestically produced, uranium was enriched to 20% and the Fordo facility started operating. In the international arena, because of ties with India, China, Japan and some European countries, the sanctions weren't crippling for us.
The other point is that the disagreement between the P5+1 persists and they didn't get the result they were expecting. So they changed their tone in the correspondence for the "Istanbul 2". This could be also seen in Mrs. Catherine Ashton's [EU's foreign policy chief] words that "We have agreed that the Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) forms a key basis for what must be serious engagement to ensure all the obligations under the treaty are met by Iran while fully respecting Iran's right for the peaceful use of nuclear energy."
Iran had always stressed that the impasse could only be resolved through diplomacy. The steps should be taken one by one and based on "action on action". Trust-building should be bilateral and "negotiations for negotiations" must have an outcome.
In Istanbul 2, some agreements were made on general basis and Mr. Ali Bagheri [Deputy Iran's Supreme National Security Council] and Mrs. Ashton will discuss the details and a draft for the modality of the Baghdad negotiations. The whole shows the success of Istanbul talks and has made the Zionist Regime and Netanyahu furious.
Some analysts believe that as in the Istanbul talks, details were not discussed, challenge didn't occurred. Indeed the results of the Baghdad talks will be the same as the previous ones.There is no doubt that Baghdad talks will be more complex and technical. But this presumption that none of the sides will compromise is wrong. It depends on the modality that will be drafted by the two sides.
Naturally, the atmosphere of the Geneva talks, where the West had raised the precondition to stop uranium enrichment, was very different. Now they are accepting the 3.5% enrichment and are ready to guaranty fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor. The West and the United States have reached to this conclusion. So, although in Baghdad the situation will be more complicated, the atmosphere will be different. You should be more careful when telling that you're sure that talks in Baghdad wouldn't have any outcome, because both sides are more determined before to reach a concrete result.
As the Iranian Foreign Minister has said, do you expect in the interval, any ease of the sanctions on Iran?
Immediately after "Istanbul 2" there has been said that Iran is expecting the lift of oil and banking sanctions and on the other side, the West expects the stop of 20% uranium enrichment. I believe that this outcome is unlikely in Baghdad talks. More time is needed and in two months, the two sides can't take these big steps. Expressing these issues, even in form of media diplomacy instead of official talks, shows the position and stance of them. The outcome of the official negotiations depends on the level of bilateral compromise.
Iran doesn't accept a zero sum game or a win or lost. Iran wants a win-win game. If not, the Baghdad talks will have the same results as the previous ones. The deadlock can only be resolved through negotiations based on a win-win formula. The West should change its harsh tone and negotiating under pressure. On the other hand, the countries that prefer destabilizing the region are against the success of the negotiations because if this happens, Iran's regional power will be reinforced. This is against the will of the Zionist regime and some countries in the region that are benefiting from tensions in the relation between Iran and P5+1.
Finally I should point out the important role of Russia and China in the talks. Iran opposes the view of the United States and the European Troika, while China and Russia are the interlocutors. So if China and Russia play a more serious role, the talks can be more fruitful.
Source: moqawama.org
River to Sea
Uprooted Palestinian 
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!
No comments:
Post a Comment