Iran's Zarif hints at way to bridge nuclear deal impasse

[webfact]

Iran's Zarif hints at way to bridge nuclear deal impasse

By Arshad Mohammed and Jonathan Landay

 

FILE PHOTO: Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif attends a meeting with Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Moscow, Russia January 26, 2021. Russian Foreign Ministry/Handout via REUTERS

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif suggested a way on Monday to overcome the U.S.-Iranian impasse over who goes first in returning to the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, saying a top EU official could "synchronize" or "choreograph" the moves.

 

Zarif's stance was a shift from his position, expressed in a Jan. 22 article in which he said the United States should remove U.S. sanctions before Iran returned to the deal.

 

"There can be a mechanism to basically either synchronize it or coordinate what can be done," Zarif told CNN when asked how to bridge the gap.

 

Each government wants the other to resume compliance first with the agreement, which former U.S. President Donald Trump abandoned in 2018 but which President Joe Biden as said he will rejoin if Iran resumed "strict" compliance.

 

Under the accord, Iran agreed to limit its nuclear program to make it harder for it to develop nuclear weapons in return for relief from U.S. and other economic sanctions.

 

Zarif noted the pact created a Joint Commission coordinated by the European Union foreign policy chief, now Josep Borrell. Borrell "can ... sort of choreograph the actions" needed from both sides, Zarif told CNN.

 

The commission includes the EU and the seven parties to the deal: Iran, Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States.

 

After abandoning the deal, Trump reimposed U.S. sanctions and imposed new U.S. economic penalties on Iran.

 

Analysts said Zarif's stance might lay the ground for talks on reviving the deal despite Iran's prior insistence that the United States lift sanctions first.

 

"It is entirely unsurprising to me that we are hearing, amid a largely uncompromising position from the Iranians, occasional breadcrumbs that will enable them" to enter into a negotiation, said Suzanne Maloney of the Brookings Institution.

 

(Reporting By Arshad Mohammed and Jonathan Landay; Writing by Arshad Mohammed; Editing by Chris Reese; editing by Grant McCool)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2021-02-02

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[dexterm]

For the two sides of an agreement that was working before Trump reneged on it, the synchronization suggestion seems to make sense to rebuild trust, to make sure that one side or the other don't shift the goalposts.

 

If slowly slowly return to the agreement ends nuclear proliferation, that's good news for all of us. 

[Scott]

A post with an altered quote has been removed along with reply. 

 

2. Please do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes or wording. Such posts will be deleted and the user warned.

[ezzra]

Iran knows very well and are smart enough to realize that their quest for enriching uranium to a level that suggest the preparations of a nuke device will not go down well with several countries of whom few that CAN stop Iran from achieving that goal, so better start talking about to to go about it the civil ways before those doors will shut again...

[Rocking Robert]

This is an Israeli problem let Israel deal with it

[Tug]

I for one hope an agreement beneficial to both sides can be worked out and we both can take the first tentative steps towards better relations peace and commerce not blood and bullets

[ezzra]

Not really Israel's problem only, most countries are against anyone who goes nuke an its government are ruled by unstable fundamentalists or rouge regime govern by Mullahs and clergymen, China also oppose nuke Iran fearing destabilization of the region fragile relations of its Muslim population, its seafaring commerce routs practically rewriting the power sharing in the region, than you have the Gulf countries and Iran's nemesis Saudi Arabia, the US ( big Satan) and of course Israel, the little Satan, put it this way, Iran WILL NOT have nukes if any of the afford mentions countries can stop them from having any...

[Morch]

7 hours ago, Rocking Robert said:

This is an Israeli problem let Israel deal with it

 

This is a nonsense post. I'll deal with it.

 

Saudi Arabia.

World's gas and oil reserves.

 

There you go.

[Morch]

Just more of the same from Iran - creating an impeding crisis situation, then accepting/offering a way out.

 

In this case, the 'crisis schedule' is dictated by the pace of Iran's enrichment drive. As already noted by the IAEA and the European parties to the agreement, levels of enriched Uranium would soon reach a level amounting to  breach of terms. There was talk about initiating the agreement's mechanism for dealing with that - potentially bringing back all (or at least, more) sanctions on Iran.

 

Iran can talk tough, can posture as if it's on an equal footing, but reality is different. The Iranian economy is already under tremendous pressure from both USA sanctions (which, afaik, weren't undone by Biden) and the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. Having more sanctions on top of that would make the situation problematic for the Iranian regime.

 

I think what the Iranian are opting for is a swift resolution, assuming both European parties and the Biden administration do not have the stomach for a full on confrontation at this time - and so will accept a simple return to the old terms of the agreement.

 

On the other hand, the Biden administration is in no hurry to be painted as 'appeasing' Iran, or to give up the advantage resulting from Trump's sanctions. Going back to the agreement? Sure, but let's add/change a bit here and there. Guess some of this is for PR and some representing real issues. In the meantime, France's Macron put it that regional parties should be consulted/included as well (a notion Iran flatly rejected).

 

The issues in question are Iran's ballistic missile (and now, long range drone) program and capabilities, the agreement's wording making a clearer reference to military aspects of Iran's nuclear program, and finally, Iran's 'extracurricular' activities in the region (and in Europe). Of these, the wording amendment seems likely to be doable, the other two less so.

[Sujo]

Well done iran. 

US pulled out, iran giving an option to get back in.

The agreement was working until trump.

 

Win win.

[Morch]

36 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Well done iran. 

US pulled out, iran giving an option to get back in.

The agreement was working until trump.

 

Win win.

 

Iran is desperate for the USA to return to the agreement and sanctions lifted.

There's not much future in going on with the enrichment drive under current conditions.

But feel free to paint it as "giving an option" if it makes your day.

 

Returning to the agreement is win-win, yes. I think parties other than Iran may consider returning to an amended agreement a Win-win, though.