There are signs that shows the possibility of a deal in the next two weeks
"Talks between Iran and the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany (P5+1), scheduled for next month, provide the best opportunity to break the nine-year deadlock over Iran's nuclear program," Hossein Mousavian, Iran's former chief nuclear negotiator, wrote in an editorial in the Boston Globe.
UNITED NATIONS (*******) - An end to a nearly decade-longnuclear standoff between Iran and major world powers will be possible if the United States and its European allies recognize Tehran's right to enrich uranium, a former Iranian negotiator said in an editorial.
Mousavian, now a visiting scholar at Princeton University in New Jersey, had been seen as a moderate when in the Iranian government. Although he is not currently a policymaker, such public presentations of Iranian thinking is rare.
Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful and rejects U.S. and European allegations that it is secretly amassing the capability to produce atomic weapons. Iran has rejected Security Council demands that it halt enrichment and other sensitive nuclear work, saying it has a sovereign right to atomic energy.
This has led to four rounds of increasingly stringent U.N. Security Council sanctions, mostly focusing on its nuclear and missile industries, but also targeting some financial institutions, a few subsidiaries of its major shipping firm, and companies linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
In recent months there has been increased speculation about possible Israeli air strikes on Iran's nuclear sites - which some analysts fear could spark a Middle East war.
For the talks, expected to take place in mid-April, to open the door to a resolution of the standoff with Iran, Mousavian said the United States and its European allies must make clear that war and coercion are not the only options.
They should seek enhanced engagement with Tehran, as U.S. President Barack Obama has repeatedly called for.
"This could work - since 2003, Iran has been looking for a viable and durable solution to the diplomatic standoff," wrote Mousavian.
POLITICALLY MOTIVATED CHARGES
Mousavian was Iran's chief nuclear negotiator from 2003 to 2005 before conservative President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took over from his reformist predecessor Mohammad Khatami. According to Western envoys familiar with Mousavian, he appeared at the time to be genuinely interested in reaching a deal with the West.
After he was removed from the nuclear negotiating team, Mousavian was arrested and briefly jailed in 2007 on accusations of espionage. He was acquitted of that charge, which could have carried the death penalty, but was found guilty of "propaganda against the system."
Analysts and diplomats said the charges against Mousavian were really a reflection of an internal Iranian dispute over how to handle Iran's atomic dispute with the West. Some Iranians favor the moderate line adopted by Mousavian while others have backed Ahmadinejad's more confrontational approach.
Mousavian writes that if a deal that is acceptable to both parties is to be reached, the two sides' "bottom lines" should be identified.
"For Iran, this is the recognition of its legitimate right to create a nuclear program - including enrichment - and a backing off by the P5+1 from its zero-enrichment position."
"For the P5+1, it is an absolute prohibition on Iran from creating a nuclear bomb, and having Iran clear up ambiguities in its nuclear program to the satisfaction of the International Atomic Energy Agency," Mousavian writes.
The West also needs to abandon calls for regime change and accept that "crippling sanctions, covert actions, and military strikes might slow down Iran's nuclear program but will not stop it."
"In fact, it is too late to demand that Iran suspend enrichment activities," Mousavian writes. "It mastered enrichment technology and reached break-out capability in 2002 and continues to steadily improve its uranium-enrichment capabilities."
The so-called "break-out" capability refers to the ability of a country to construct a nuclear weapon.
A U.S. think tank, the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), has said that capping Iranian uranium enrichment at 5 percent purity level compared with the 90 percent needed for a bomb could form part of an interim deal that would give time for more substantial negotiations.
This and other priority measures would "limit Iran's capability to break out quickly," ISIS said in a report.
Among the things the West should offer to Iran is a package that includes recognition of its nuclear rights, ending sanctions, and "normalization of Iran's nuclear file." In return, Iran should offer the IAEA full transparency and permit the most intrusive inspections possible.
Last edited by IRN34; 03-31-2012 at 05:35 PM.
There are signs that shows the possibility of a deal in the next two weeks
The scheduled discussions will last 2 days, maybe to short to make dill. If a breakthrough is achieved in these talks it will be great.
They're just buying time, stalling nothing more.
From everything that has been going on, It appears that the sanctions are working and its making things harder for Tehran to make do with. Its only a matter of time until the economy falls into a downward spiral, so it would be to Tehran's interests to make clear of what it's nuclear program for what its supose to be is to the world. The biggest players in these talks for sure will be Iran, the US, and Russia and each of them will have something to add to the table on these talks.
Iran is not the only country with economic problems, Europe and US are suffering too. Iran stopped exporting oil to UK, look what happened to the UK. This is a sanction applied by Iran to punish UK, and it has effects.From everything that has been going on, It appears that the sanctions are working and its making things harder for Tehran to make do with. Its only a matter of time until the economy falls into a downward spiral, so it would be to Tehran's interests to make clear of what it's nuclear program for what its supose to be is to the world. The biggest players in these talks for sure will be Iran, the US, and Russia and each of them will have something to add to the table on these talks.
^^ well, the supreme leader says ''it is against islam to produce weapons'' so i dnt know how on earth he will order production of the bombs when he announces such thing
Iran prefers Iraq as venue for talks with P5+1
EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton (L) and Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council Saeed Jalili during talks in Geneva, Switzerland, December 6, 2010
Wed Apr 4, 2012 3:14PM GMT
Iran has reportedly asked Iraq to serve as the venue for the new round of nuclear energy talks between Tehran and the P5+1 -- the US, the UK, France, Russia, China, and Germany
Barak reveals conditions for Iran-West talks
By YAAKOV KATZ
Defense minister says strike not within weeks but can also not wait years, demands Iran surrender 20 percent-enriched uranium, close underground Fordow facility.
Barak revealed what Israel's conditions are for the talks:
1) transfer of all uranium enriched to 20 percent - approximately 120 kilograms out of Iran to a third party country; 2) the transfer of the majority of the 5 tons of uranium enriched to 3.5 percent out of Iran, leaving just enough needed for energy purposes; 3) the closure of the Fordow enrichment facility, buried under a mountain near the city of Qom; 4) the transfer of fuel rods from a third party country to Iran for the purpose of activating the Tehran Research Reactor.
As reported Wednesday in The Jerusalem Post, assessments in the defense establishment are that a confrontation with Iran may be postponed until sometime in 2013. This is the result of the sanctions which have been imposed on Iran and are believed to be effective.
Barak said Wednesday that there was still time before a strike would be required. It is not needed within weeks but it is also not something that can wait a number of years, he said in rare comments to military reporters.
^^ Israel is not in the talks. So for who are these ''conditions'' ?
Why not, Iraq is more neutral ground to hold the talks on.