Iran nuclear talks arrive at pivotal deal-drafting phase

Three months into the talks to rewind Iran’s advance towards a nuclear weapon, and with under three months to run, everything is still to play for and everything still to be lost.
The talks – triggered last November by an accord signed in Geneva – will reopen this week in Vienna at the Coburg palace.

At the meeting, the Iranian delegation will be adamant it should retain its right to enrich uranium while a six-country bloc of leading powers will be certain it must not. The sides will try to close the gap using the promise of rolling back a sanctions regime that has crippled the Islamic Republic’s economy.

Following technical talks in New York last week, the higher-level discussions between Catherine Ashton, the EU’s high representative, and Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister, in the coming days will try to change the tempo.

Although several such cordial meetings have been held since February, nothing of substance has yet been agreed, say diplomats and politicians contacted by the Financial Times.
According to those briefed on the talks, this week will mark the first occasion that Iran and the P5+1 – the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany – will try to begin formally to draft a deal. “It’s now that the rubber hits the road,” said a P5+1 diplomat.

The lack of substance to talks so far is unlikely to be welcomed by political hawks in either Iran or the west. Their clamour to write off the negotiations as a costly boondoggle has been growing steadily louder as time has passed.

In Iran this month, conservative parliamentarians have increased their criticism of Hassan Rouhani, the country’s centrist president, over the talks.
Though the talks can be extended for another six months, few are under any illusions as to the political difficulties that an extension would bring. All sides in Vienna are concentrating on the deadline of July 20 to complete a final deal.

Three outstanding issues will dominate the talks. Foremost is the scope of uranium enrichment. The question will be how the number and sophistication of centrifuges, and the size of Iran’s existing uranium stockpile will affect its so-called “breakout time” – the period it would take to assemble for a bomb enough fissile material that is sufficiently enriched. Anything less than 6 months is almost certain to be unacceptable to the P5+1. However, a shorter time could be accepted if Iran agrees to an unfettered transparency regime overseen by outdside inspectors.

The second issue is the reactor at Arak, which produces plutonium and gives the country a second potential route to a weapon. The P5+1 are likely to allow Iran to maintain the reactor if it is converted into a light-water design that would curb its plutonium production.

The third question concerns “possible military dimensions”, including development of ballistic missile technologies thought to be designed to deliver nuclear payloads. On these issues the gulf is principally psychological because many of the contentious projects are believed to have long been mothballed. However, Iran has never recognised them as having existed.
So far, public pronouncements from both Iran and the P5+1 have described progress on the main issues as “constructive” or “substantial”. However, their tone belies the distance yet to be bridged on the outstanding issues, say those acquainted with them.

“It’s interesting and not unexpected that the parties are talking in positive tones, respectful tones, but this drafting stage they’re entering will be very difficult,” said Mark Fitzpatrick. Mr Fitzpatrick is a non-proliferation expert at the International Institute for Strategic Studies and a former US State department official who was in charge of overseeing the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear activities.

“There will be many bracketed areas of disagreement, and resolving those brackets before July 20 is going to be very, very difficult indeed . . . It’s less than a 10 per cent chance.”

The Financial Times Limited 2014.