This week’s talks in Geneva have been unusually productive:
In a rare joint statement, the nations called the discussions “substantive and forward-looking” and formalized the next round of negotiations in Geneva on November 7 and 8. The United States and the European Union depicted the talks as “substantive,”“very important,” and “positive.” One senior Obama administration official beamed with excitement. “I’ve been doing this now for about two years, and I have never had such intense, detailed, straightforward, candid conversations with the Iranian delegation before,” said the official. “I would say we really are beginning that type of negotiation where one could imagine that you could possible have an agreement.”
Kaplan is similarly hopeful:
First, the chances for a truly historic breakthrough are pretty good – which, at this stage in talks of such magnitude, is astonishing. Second, the Iranians’ main demands—at least what we know of them – are pretty reasonable. … Not only that, but after the first day of meetings, the U.S. and Iranian delegations broke away for an hourlong bilateral session, which American officials described as “useful” in clearing up ambiguities.
After the second day, another meeting was set for November 7 – 8. Some said it would be at the “ministerial” level, which, if true, would mean Secretary of State John Kerry would head the American delegation. A U.S. secretary of state doesn’t usually become so visibly involved until much closer to the end of a negotiation, suggesting that maybe we’re closer to the end than anyone could have imagined.
This is remarkably fast work for any set of nations negotiating any issue—much less for nations that haven’t had diplomatic relations in 34 years, and on an issue that ranks among the globe’s most perilous and contentious.
Cole is cautiously optimistic:
Can a breakthrough be had? I believe so. The sticking points will be the extremists on both sides. In Iran, the Revolutionary Guards and Leader Ali Khamenei think the negotiations are another imperialist US trick, and getting them to sign on the dotted line of an agreement won’t be easy. On the US side, the Israel lobbies and Israel itself will accept nothing less than the mothballing of the whole Iranian enrichment program, which is highly unlikely to happen. A settlement would therefore have to be one that could be accomplished by Presidents Rouhani and Obama despite the carping of the right wings of their countries.
Colin H. Kahl and Alireza Nader wants the US to be realistic:
Instead of pushing for an impossible goal, the United States and other world powers should push for a possible one: an agreement that caps Iranian enrichment at the 5 percent level (sufficient for civilian power plants but far away from bomb-grade) under stringent conditions designed to preclude Tehran’s ability to rapidly produce nuclear weapons, including restrictions on Iran’s stockpile of low enriched uranium, limitations on centrifuges, intrusive inspections, and halting the construction of a plutonium reactor that could open an alternative pathway to nuclear weapons. Such an accord would allow Khamenei and Rouhani to claim Iran’s “rights” had been respected, giving them a face-saving way out of the current nuclear crisis. Even this might be difficult for the Iranian regime to stomach. But if paired with meaningful sanctions relief, it has a much better chance of success than insisting on the complete dismantling of Iran’s program.
Walt agrees:
Iran had zero centrifuges in operation in 2000 and only a handful in 2005, the last time the Iranians offered to freeze their program. The United States rejected all these previous offers, and now Iran has some 19,000 centrifuges, a plutonium program, and a larger stockpile of uranium that could in theory be enriched to make a bomb if Iran ever decides it wants one. In short, the hard-line position of issuing threats, imposing sanctions, and insisting that Iran give in to all our demands has backfired and put us in a worse position today.
Which is why I support engagement of exactly the kind we’re now doing and believe it is the sanest way to achieve peace and stability in the Middle East – and, ultimately, democracy for the people of Iran. Getting Iran more fully into the international economy, rewarding the reformists, increasing bilateral contact and communication all reinforce each other. We have a chance for a virtuous cycle rather than a vicious one. As Reagan ended the first cold war by engaging moderates, so Obama can end the Iranian version by rewarding Rouhani. Because, like Gorbachev, he’s the best hope we’ve got now that sanctions have almost achieved their goal.
The Dish 