Iran, big powers agree - to keep talking

ISTANBUL Sat Apr 14, 2012 7:25pm EDT

1 of 4. Turkey's Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu (R) welcomes Iran's chief negotiator Saeed Jalili (2nd R) before their meeting in Istanbul April 14, 2012.

Credit: Reuters/Hakan Goktepe/Pool

Related Topics

ISTANBUL (Reuters) - At their first meeting after a year of sanctions and saber-rattling over Iran's nuclear programme, negotiators from Tehran and six world powers said "constructive" talks on Saturday meant they would sit down again together next month.

A deal to reconvene in Baghdad on May 23 had been billed in advance by diplomats as a mark of a positive resumption and both Western and Russian negotiators at the talks in Turkey spoke of a more engaged tone from Iran, whose chief negotiator said he wanted to talk next about lifting Western sanctions on Tehran.

Washington made clear such a demand was premature, however. A senior U.S. official in Istanbul spoke of an "urgency ... for concrete progress" as the "window" for diplomacy was closing.

Over the past year, Israeli and U.S. warnings of military strikes if Iran does not stop working on some aspects of nuclear technology have stoked fears of war - and raised oil prices - in an unsettled Middle East. A resumption of the kind of prolonged dialogue spoken of by both sides could help dampen anxieties.

"We expect that subsequent meetings will lead to concrete steps towards a comprehensive negotiated solution which restores international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of the Iranian nuclear programme," said Catherine Ashton, the EU foreign policy chief who leads negotiations for the six powers.

The group comprises the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council - Russia, the United States, China, France and Britain - along with Germany. It is known as the P5+1.

Calling Saturday's talks "constructive and useful", Ashton said: "We want now to move to a sustained process of dialogue."

The meeting in Baghdad, a rare friendly venue for Iranians in the Arab world, would be part of a "step-by-step" approach. Junior officials would meet again before May 23, she added.

Chief Iranian negotiator Saeed Jalili, however, made clear that Iran had no intention of stopping its plants that enrich uranium to contain 20 percent of fissile material - much higher than the quality needed to generate electricity, but which Tehran says is for medical and other uses, not for warheads.

Nonetheless, however remote a final accord may be between the Islamic republic and its adversaries, a return to the negotiating table may calm nerves after 15 angry months.

In that time, the West has imposed crippling, new economic sanctions while Iran, watching its key regional ally Syria collapse into internal strife, has threatened to blockade oil tankers. And Israel, fearful a nuclear Iran would jeopardize its very survival, has planned for possible "pre-emptive" strikes.

One diplomat from the six said Iran's willingness to at least discuss its nuclear programme marked a shift away from the stalemate which marked previous meetings early last year: "We spent the whole day discussing the nuclear issue."

Before, when Westerners raised allegations of a secret weapons programme, "they would have walked away", the envoy said, adding negotiators were not "overly optimistic" but saying: "There is a seriousness to discuss the nuclear issue."

IRAN SEES PROGRESS

The negotiators for Iran, where the clerical leadership's defiant defense of a right to nuclear energy has proven one of its more popular policies, said they were keen to talk further.

"We witnessed progress. There were differences of opinion," chief negotiator Jalili said. "But the points we agreed on were important." Asking for talks to include the lifting of sanctions that have begun to add to widespread hardship in the energy-rich nation, he said: "The next talks should be based on confidence-building measures which would build the confidence of Iranians."

His defense of 20-percent enrichment did not impress the United States or others who question the justification and say that that level of enrichment makes a "break out" to weapons-grade material much easier and could give Iran the possibility, if it wanted, to build a nuclear bomb in a year or two.

Referring to Iran's rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) on nuclear weapons, Jalili told a news conference:

"Enrichment of uranium is one of these rights that every individual member state should benefit from and enjoy for peaceful purposes." Western governments argue Iran has broken the NPT by conducting secret research on nuclear weapons.

While there was little new heard in Istanbul on the substance of the disputes, the resumption of a process, which its adversaries hope might let Iran's leaders perform a face-saving climbdown and also may stay Israel's hand, was seen by observers as favoring the chances of a peaceful outcome.

"Today's round of P5+1 talks with Iran in Istanbul established a positive foundation for progress on the nuclear question. The talks exceeded initial expectations," said Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association, a Washington-based research and advocacy group.

"The further high-level and technical talks announced today are the logical next step to reach agreement on specific, concrete steps that can help prevent a nuclear-armed Iran."

WEST WANTS ACTION

Foreign Secretary William Hague said Britain wanted peace:

"Today's talks were a first step towards that objective, but there is still a long way to go," he said. "We now need agreement on urgent, practical steps to build confidence around the world that Iran will implement its international obligations and does not intend to build a nuclear weapon."

Echoing comments by other diplomats, a senior U.S. official said the atmosphere had been positive but added: "Now we have to get down to the hard work.

"The international community expects them to take action."

As for Jalili's request for relief from sanctions, the U.S. official said Washington still expected a European Union oil embargo take effect on July 1 and that other measures would continue: "Dialogue is not sufficient for any sanctions relief. One has to get to get to concrete actions that are significant."

Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, who is leading the Russian delegation, told Interfax news agency: "The atmosphere is constructive, the conversation is businesslike."

For supporters of sanctions, the change in approach from Tehran, which began to discuss renewing negotiations late last year, may be a vindication of the punishment imposed.

"Given that oil revenue accounts for over half of government income, the budget will be under significant strain this year as oil exports fall as a result of sanctions and oil production is cut back by Iran as its pool of buyers begins to shrink," said Dubai-based independent analyst Mohammed Shakeel.

Western officials have made clear their immediate priority is to persuade Tehran to cease the higher-grade uranium enrichment it began in 2010. It has since expanded that work, shortening the time it would need for any weapons "break-out".

Iran has signaled some flexibility over limiting its uranium enrichment to a fissile purity of 20 percent - compared with the 5 percent level required for nuclear power plants - but has suggested it is not ready to do so yet.

(Additional reporting by Jonathon Burch and Alexandra Hudson in Istanbul, Zahra Hosseinian in Zurich, Marcus George in Dubai and Maria Golovnina and Avril Ormsby in London; Writing by Alastair Macdonald)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (9)
xcanada2 wrote:
It is clear that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons. Their religious leader, Ayatollah Khamenie has made a religious edict (fatwa) that such a program would be immoral and they are following this edit. To question his fatwas is somewhat akin to questioning whether the Pope is a liar. Moreover, both Israeli and American intelligence agencies agree that Iran has no nuclear weapons program. In contrast, we, who maintain and continuously increase our nuclear weapons for massive civilian killing, appear to be the immoral ones.

Obviously, though, development of a nuclear energy program has dual use for peaceful use of the atom and for making weapons. Nuclear energy development is the national right of every country in the world, by international agreements. Therefore, Iran is operating well within international law, and the U.S./Israel are acting very irrationally. (For a good summary, see Gary Leupp, http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/04/12/the-irrationality-of-the-case-against-irans-nuclear-program/ ).

It is clear that the US is acting irrationally on behalf of the Israeli Lobby, which dominates our Congress and Administration. You don’t lightly get President Obama making a fool of himself by his veto of Palestinian observer status at the US, as happened last year. You don’t get about 97% compliance in the US Congress for anything except Support Israel votes. (Fifty percent for anything else is very difficult.) So, as Mearscheimer and Walt have delineated, the Israeli Lobby runs our Middle East policy.

The Israeli Lobby are therefore the source of irrationality in our foreign policy. Of course, it is easy to see how this has happened. The psychic wound of the Jewish people created by the Holocaust, is an American burden. We, including Jews, need to deal with it in a straight-forward manner: recognizing, and understanding what has happened will be a good start to ensuring that this condition does not destroy us. “Us” means everybody in this nation.

Apr 14, 2012 11:41am EDT  --  Report as abuse
What will Obama do if Iran says ‘Yes’ but the Israel Lobby replies ‘NO!’?

www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/obama-iran-talks_b_1423856.html?show_comment_id=147956512#comment_147956512

The point is well made. “Israel, the lobby, and its Congressional proxies” are determined to lead the world into war, regardless of the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that Iran has any nuclear weapon program. However, sitting on the eastern Mediterranean, the state of Israel is estimated to have secretly constructed up to 400 nuclear warheads – enough to wipe out half the world.

As the estimated size of Israel’s deadly arsenal is a factor of 100 times the number of nuclear weapons that would be required for defensive purposes to secure the security of the state, it has to be assumed this massive stockpile is for offensive use in order to further its expansionist agenda.

That being the obvious assessment of Israeli government policy, it must be concluded that Israel, backed by its powerful, American lobby and its Congressional proxies, are indeed determined to initiate a nuclear conflict in the Middle East.

The threat that is today facing all of us in the international community is a conflict initiated by Israel with American supplied F15/F16 strike aircraft, helicopter gunships and bunker-busting bombs of unprecedented power, reinforced by a fleet of nuclear-armed submarines.

The only apparent way to counter this malign, anti-democratic influence in Congress would be to make clear to all 300 million ordinary Americans exactly how a nuclear war in the Middle East would escalate and ultimately adversely and dramatically affect their jobs, their families and their way of life. (In Europe, our economies and stock markets would be similarly exposed and damaged). ### 2012-04-14

Apr 14, 2012 12:22pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Actionman990 wrote:
Again with the “World Powers” new world order terminology. These leaders have to realize that they are not the “masters of the universe”.

Apr 14, 2012 1:54pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.