Deep freeze

22Jul08

The more I read concerning the weekend Geneva conference attended by US undersecretary William Burns, the more I’m convinced that the Bush Administration wants the talks to fail.  If I am correct, we should see increasingly pessimistic statements from the White House and its media proxies combined with “what next” speculative MSM articles.  Not to be too maudlin, but this was the scenario that preceded the 2003 invasion of Iraq.   This opinion walks out on a limb somewhat (and I hope I am wrong), but it is difficult to see how sending Burns was intended as a “major shift in policy” or some sort of breakthrough.  A new tactic, maybe.   However, if the Administration was hoping for failure, the raising of expectations before Saturday by sending Burns was in their definite interest.  Now, their line is, “See, we went the extra mile, and look what happened?  Nothing.” 

Consider:

1.  William Burns has been a consistent hard-liner on Iran and one of the least likely people to engage in full and frank negotiation with Iran.

2.  There was little more than rumour that Iran would consider a temporary, EU-sponsored suspension of uranium enrichment.  Supreme Leader Khamenei’s statement over the weekend reinforces this; the Majlis also appear to support the President’s refusal to consider any permament suspension.  This appeared in the Tehran Times on Monday:

Supreme National Security Council Secretary Saeed Jalili said here on Monday that the suspension of Iran’s uranium enrichment program was not discussed during his talks in Geneva with European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana. 

Jalili, who is Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, met Solana and representatives of the 5+1 group (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany) in the Swiss city for talks on Iran’s nuclear program on Saturday July 19. U.S. Undersecretary of State William Burns also participated in the negotiations. It was the highest level of diplomatic contact between Iran and the United States in 30 years.“At the Geneva talks, there was no discussion whatsoever of suspension of Iran’s uranium enrichment,” Jalili told reporters at a press conference on Monday morning at Imam Khomeini Airport shortly after his arrival in Tehran.

Asked whether there were any new definitions of suspension, he said, “No discussion of this issue took place. In principle, the aim of the talks was to reach an agreement on the resumption, structure, and timetable of the (future) negotiations.”

 

That’s nice, but talking about another timetable is not what the US has in mind.  By Tuesday the NYT had gotahold of the two page “none paper” circulated by the Iranian delegation at Geneva, which apparently contained no substantive points but was mainly a blueprint on how the talks should be conducted.

Instead, the informal two-page document that Iran distributed at nuclear talks in Geneva on Saturday ignored the main six-power demand on curbing Iran’s enrichment of uranium and called for concessions from the other side.

The title of the English-language text had two mistakes. “The Modality for Comrehensive Negotiations (None paper),” it read, according to a copy obtained by The New York Times. (Diplomatic jargon for an unofficial negotiating document is “nonpaper.”)

For the six powers — the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany — the paper’s substance was just as disappointing as its style. Sergei Kisliak, the Russian deputy foreign minister, could not suppress a laugh when he read it, according to one participant.

The talks on Saturday included the participation of a senior American official for the first time. The six powers were hoping that Iran would accept a compromise formula to pave the way to formal negotiations. For six weeks, Iran would not add “any new nuclear activity,” refraining from the new installation of centrifuges that enrich uranium, and the United States and other powers would not seek new United Nations sanctions.  But both in their paper, and throughout the talks, the Iranians did not discuss the formula, called a “freeze for freeze.” As a result, they left the impression that they wanted to lure the parties into an open-ended, cost-free, high-level negotiating process. “The paper calls for a huge exercise in talking,” said one senior European official. “If you were to try to implement it, it would take a minimum of several years.”

The US expected the prickly Iranians to play to type, which they did, and it now has another excuse to push more sanctions across the table. 

3.   Other than the issue of suspending uranium, there is litle to discuss on the nuclear issue since the other open issues with the IAEA are minor legacy points.  The IAEA has otherwise stated that there had been no diversion by Iran of declared nuclear material.  Iran’s uranium enrichment program is (and has been) open to international inspection.  Accordingly, the suspension of uranium enrichment is the only serious negotiating point, upon which neither Iran nor the US have deviated from positions staked out two years ago.  Any lawyer will tell you that it is precisely the “one issue” cases that are the most difficult to settle, since there are few if any bargaining chips to work with.

4.  Iran has reacted negatively to every ultimatum, including the original 2006 UN Security Council resolution demanding termination of uranium enrichment.  What possible success would another two week deadline have?

Iran will of course put the best face forward, but it will be a major surprise if it backs down now.  On the US side, official pessimism should now be appearing, and it is:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accused Iran on Monday of not being serious at weekend talks about its disputed nuclear program despite the presence of a senior U.S. diplomat, and warned it may soon face new sanctions.

In her first public comments since Saturday’s meeting in Switzerland, Rice said Iran had given the run-around to envoys from the U.S. and five other world powers. She said all six nations were serious about a two-week deadline Iran now has to agree to freeze suspect activities and start negotiations or be hit with new penalties.

But I thought they had twelve days left.  I guess, why wait?  The BBC reported:

“[The meeting sent a] very strong message to the Iranians that they can’t go and stall… and that they have to make a decision,” Ms Rice said.   “It clarifies Iran’s choices and we will see what Iran does in two weeks. But I think the diplomatic process now has a kind of new energy in it.”  Ms Rice said diplomacy offered the possibility of both negotiations and the “possibility of punitive measures”.

Diplomats are hoping that Iran would respond to a so-called “freeze-for-freeze” offer, under which a freeze of Iran’s uranium enrichment programme at its current levels would be matched by a Western pledge not to strengthen sanctions on Tehran.  The BBC’s Jon Leyne, in Tehran, says Iran is interested in the offer but it is unclear whether there are divisions in the leadership or whether the Iranians are playing for time.

The bigger question is what follows assuming Iran does not agree to consider any suspension of enrichment with in the two week deadline.  The danger is that at the US, supported by France, may loudly conclude that “diplomacy has failed” and move on to Stage II, whatever that may be.

Filed under: Iran's foreign relations   |  Leave a Comment