Nuclear negotiations between Iran and the P5+1, believed to be on the cusp of a final agreement, appear to have hit a brick wall today amid reports that various Western nations, particularly the US, are changing their positions and “walking back” previous concessions.
Iranian negotiators say that the talks are less and less a multilateral negotiation and more like five simultaneous bilateral negotiations, with every Western nation present Iran their own “red lines” on the deal. They say negotiators are often “flexible” on other nations’ red lines, but not their own.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov confirmed Iran’s assessment of the situation, saying Western nations were suddenly rejecting a draft resolution which others had suggested would be entirely successful, and saying the fault of the latest delay was not Iran’s.
As usual, there is comparatively little detail on what exactly the new disputes are, though inspections of Iranian conventional military sites are believed to be among the issues.
It is noteworthy that while earlier in the week everyone was treating a deal as all but inevitable, US officials began talking down the chances of a deal a couple of days ago. Since then, it seems, the US has made wholesale changes to its demands in the talks, making a quick deal much harder to reach.
Why the US, and apparently other Western nations, have shifted away from the nearly finalized deal with shifting demands is unknown, but may suggest they believe they can coax Iran into more concessions by moving the finish line on the deal.
From many years of negotiations, I recognize this well. This is not unusual at the last minute in negotiations. Typically, it is some combination of buyer's remorse and anxiety about selling the deal on-side. It is also an "I tried that" aimed at on-side critics.
If it often a sign of success about to happen.
You describe that very well and make it very easy to picture.
I think there's some way the peaceniks have been taken in by those people. Seems like there's been enthusiastic talk about getting-a-'deal' … but e.g., do we forget this is essentially the same scam on a contraband concept–and shift of burden of proof–that got us into Iraq? Do we forget Iran's on the hit list? Do we forget that among the players are nuclear weapons states, and that Israel is the main instigator? Iraq inspections were a gimmick that war enthusiasts had to play in order to legitimate their ultimate intent–the gimmick failed when their insinuations came up on their put-up-or-shut-up moment. Is the intent of 'negotiations' just to minimize that when they bomb anyway?
Thanks for the compliment.
"Do we forget Iran's on the hit list? Do we forget that among the players are nuclear weapons states, and that Israel is the main instigator?"
True. I see a power struggle inside the US government. At least since Adm. William Fallon got fired for saying there would be no attack on Iran on his watch, there have been elements inside that are rebelling.
This deal is the playing out of that power struggle on our side, as much as it is negotiation with Iran.
It is not unlike a legal negotiation, when a settlement negotiation at court has turned into a fight between the defense attorney and his adjustor against the insurer's inner councils, with the judge calling the insurance company bosses down to face off in front of him with their own side to get a settlement, and to hear a few threats of the likely cost of being unreasonable.
In this scenario, some of the other P5 plus 1 are threatening with the costs of being unreasonable, primarily that they will walk away from sanctions and leave us with nothing.
In that analogy, I see Obama as the adjustor who wants to settle, but wants to avoid his bosses too, and knows that whichever way it goes he could have real problems. He can be blamed for the settlement, but he'd certainly get blamed if it does not settle and the trial is a disaster as the judge has promised it will be.
It is all very familiar. And in further analogy, Obama personally is not an especially strong character to rely on to get it done.
As maximizing profit in trading war materials for Middle-East oil is the goal of Western nations in this deal, what for the West could be the best possible deal?
So, I could be wrong, but the best possible deal for the West would be no deal.
Wake up Jason. The West, certainly the US never wanted a deal. Using tactics similar to the Israelis, negotiations are dragged on for years. When agreement is imminent, new demands are made and the game is extended until talks break off and war breaks out.
Individual nations, especially the Chinese and Russians can end this nightmare by striking their own deals and ending the sanctions on their own. But everyone has his own priorities, so negotiations will probably continue drifting on indefinitely.
Once the Chinese alternative to SWIFT comes on line, the Iranians may be able to quietly evade much of the sanctions while keeping up the pretense of engagement. Everybody wins.
"The West, certainly the US never wanted a deal."
The West, certainly the US, is strongly divided among leadership elites on a deal.
Both those who respond to Israel and those who dream of unrivaled world power don't want a deal.
Those who are tired of what that led to, who have learned something in this century, do want a deal.
It is a power struggle at a very high level.
All of the Republicans and Hillary too are on the wrong side of that. We may well see a non-choice of wrong or the same wrong.
I'm just sorry that these 'negotiations' are dragging on past July 10th; that means that the U.S. Congress-critters have twice as much time to make mischief.