A public back-and-forth between Iranian and Western diplomats may lead to a delay in the nuclear negotiations with world powers in Moscow later this month.
Iran’s top nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili on Wednesday criticized the European Union diplomat Catherine Ashton, who acts as a middle -man between Iran and the P5+1, for dragging her feet in setting up smaller meetings with deputies and experts in between the major talks.
In a letter to Ashton’s office, Jalili said, “The other side’s delay in holding meetings between deputies and experts put into question their determination to hold positive negotiations in Moscow. The Islamic Republic of Iran, with a clear logic and definite initiatives, is ready to engage in forward-looking negotiations for cooperation.”
Iran sought an experts meeting ahead of the Moscow talks. But EU diplomats refused, claiming to be weary of getting bogged down before getting to the substance of a political resolution.
“I am not saying technical issues are irrelevant,” a European diplomat told Al Monitor Thursday. “We need Iran to engage seriously on the substantial proposal we have put forward…as this is a political decision for them to make that cannot be solved at a technical level. We cannot be drawn into long procedural and protocol discussions without substance for the sake of buying time.”
But Western powers have not put forth a “substantial proposal.” Instead, they’ve demanded Iran halt all or most of its uranium enrichment – thus denying the rights afforded them under international treaties – and have refused to ease the harsh economic sanctions dragging down Iran’s economy.
All of this is being done in an environment of intimidation. As Reza Nasri over at PBS Frontline’s Tehran Bureau put it recently, “world powers are again poised to ‘solve’ an international crisis through an ‘agreement’ that is essentially predicated on intimidation, illegal threats of military action, unilateral ‘crippling’ sanctions, sabotage, and extrajudicial killings of Iran’s brightest minds.”
After the failed talks in 2009 and 2010, wherein Obama ended up mysteriously rejecting the very deal he demanded the Iranians accept, as Harvard Prof. of international affairs Stephen Walt wrote last week, the Iranian leadership “has good grounds for viewing Obama as inherently untrustworthy.”
The Iranians have offered a full stop to uranium enrichment at 20 percent – the supposed pretext for these talks – so long as the West agrees to ease the economic warfare crippling Iran’s energy and banking sector. But the West has not yet responded to such overtures, which could lead to a breakdown of talks altogether.
I’m betting that there’s a fifty/fifty chance that Iran will not attend the Moscow meeting as it has become obvious that 5+1 is dragging their feet and are buying time.
Now I guess I have to substanciate what I have said above so that Thomas at the Anti-war.com would not accuse me of “putting forth empty criticisms that have no basis in reality”.
There as an agreement in Baghdad between 5+1 and the Iranians that sometime before the Moscow meeting there should be a meeting between deputies to clarify the substance of the upcoming Moscow meeting. As we just read in the current article, the 5+1 have reneged on their promise. Also, they did not respond to Iran’s 5 point proposal. This means the 5+1 probably has in mind to throw at the Iranians some new proposals for which the Iranian side cannot respond without proper preparation. It looks like a new trick, and change of demands, as always.
"Now I guess I have to [substantiate] what I have said above so that Thomas at the Anti-war.com would not accuse me of “putting forth empty criticisms that have no basis in reality”."
Oh yes…. Thomas Knap self proclaimed [to me] Zionist……….. He and Angela Keaton seem, to run interference for Mr. Knapp's here when Mr. Ramondo is either indifferent or distracted……… Who knows what is really going on here @ AW.com,.
Here is an e-mail I attampted send to Mr. Raimondo…… Did he answer….?? No. Did he see it?? I have no idea…
Mr. Raimondo, Did you see the comment that Angela Keaton posted about Sibel Edmonds in the comments under your article "The Big One Cometh"?
Sibel had posted a comment. She wrote:
I have been a fan of yours for many years. I respect you, and love your fiery, straight-forward and no-nonsense analyses/commentaries. I was also a loyal follower of AW.Com …until two years ago when things began to change significantly. Your news gatherers have been promoting all the known culprits who have by now zero credibility. At any given day at least 45% of news provided come from: Wash Post, BBC, NYT, Al Jazeera. Believe me a few of us have been compiling statistics (have documentation). Not only that, without citing any reasons, your new woman Angela Keaton has decided ban all my articles/analyses (you guys used to publish my pieces regularly in the past). Your moderators have been censoring not only my comments but dozens of other previously loyal AW followers. Many have received labeling response 'Anti-Semite' from Keaton…Exactly the kind of thing you and many of us have been fighting against.
Fair enough right…?? But here is AK's (now deleted) reply:
"I am the Director of Operations at Antiwar.com. I make decisions everyday before anything is foisted upon the editors (who have very exacting standards) at Antiwar.com.
Your pieces were rejected because they are simply not good. Often the articles on your site are substandard and in one case, sub-literate.
Your reputation is also that of a highly difficult contentious prima donna who loathes women and Jews. Over the past years, I have had concluded that is an accurate assessment.
Angela Keaton
323-512-7095
When I read this ad hominem blast by AK, I thought it must have been some hacker into her account posing as her……..
and I posted a reply blaming hackers adding that AK would never be so crude, stupid and tone deaf to post such slanders..
Maidhc responds to my comment with: (AK) "Keaton's Facebook account must have been hacked too:"
“One of the joys of working at Antiwar.com is knowing that 98% of your critics are racist garbage cans.”
I don't want to go on and on!! But AK's intemperance in word during a fund drive seems like a sort of mutiny…..
Do you find Sibel such a person as AK portrays…?? In any case Sybel has done far more than 99.9% of any Americans, in the cause of exposing their dirty BIG secrets, and unless i can be taught otherwise, more than AK ….
The reason that I am sending this to you is because AK's rant was deleted when i woke up, so I am under the impression you may have never seen the actual post AK put up… I think she owes Sibel an apology…… and should be TOLD to be civil to all here that are civil to her….. Ron Paul mentions the Golden Rule and gets boos…. That's America today…
Stuff like this makes it look as if you are a bit out of the loop these days…. I wish you and antiwar.com Gods speed and all the best….]]"
And yes Nathan, thomas knap was posting comments in the same stream and as I remember it, the was taking Angela's side ….. against Sibel………
So Nathan it's not just YOU………
How clever. Ms. Ashton is delaying any technical discussion before Moscow meeting. Thus, they want only "substantive" discussion, but EU and US have no substantive proposal — hence "substantantive" discussion is really a political show that needs no effort and no preparation, and will — predicably— be useless. Other then as a tool for blaming Iran.
Are these officials just lazy? May be we give them too much credit for having some devious policy in mind — and all along they will just want to avoid hard work. It is so much easer to book a ticket, show up at a hotel, and be pointed to a meeting room. There, you can talk whatever comes to your head, and the substance of discussion on Iranian nuclear program, or European debt, or Syrian massacres — is irrelevant. All the bureaucrat needs to do is express concern, with as much contorted face to make it look like real concern. And then, media will do the rest — Iran is blah, blah. And all along, the overworked bureaucrats are just not capable to do much work between plane rides, coctail parties, and getting to and from airports. Who actually thought they would meet to discuss the crux of the issue! Silly us!
One of the virtues of these talks is that as long as they are talking they are not shooting. I suspect the Iran will not walk away as long as the ceasefire persists. At the same time Obama obviously wants to draw out this cease fire since war would probably sabotage his election. That is why they are presenting conditions that both sides know Iran will never accept. Obama needs to draw this out until November because any concession he makes before the election will make him vulnerable to the appeasement charge.
I remain optimistic that these talks are going to work out and war with Iran will be avoided.
WOW, ToivoS………. You really are an optimist…!!!!! I sure hope you are right…………