Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Support Our Annual Fund Drive! CounterPunch is entirely supported by our readers. Your donations pay for our small staff, tiny office, writers, designers, techies, bandwidth and servers. We don’t owe anything to advertisers, foundations, one-percenters or political parties. You are our only safety net. Please make a tax-deductible donation today.
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Negotiating With Iran

by ABOLGHASEM BAYYENAT

The first round of nuclear talks between Iran and the P5+1 countries – the United States, Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom, and Germany – concluded in Istanbul with a rare expression of optimism and satisfaction by both sides. The two sides agreed to resume their negotiations next month in Baghdad.

There were several indications over the past few months that the new round of nuclear talks between Iran the P5+1 countries was going to be different from Istanbul’s January 2011 talks. The letter of Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili to his European counterpart Catherine Ashton on February 14 provided the main grounds for such optimism. Unlike some of his previous communications, he refrained from using any language that would give the impression of non-negotiability to any aspect of Iran’s nuclear enrichment activities.

The cautious optimism expressed soon thereafter by both U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and EU Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton on Jalili’s letter attheir joint meeting in Washington further strengthened such expectations. More recently, Iranian officials also expressed hope that the new nuclear talks would mark a step forward in resolving the remaining issues between the two parties. In a rare act of public diplomacy by an Iranian political official, Iran’s foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi published an opinion article in The Washington Post two days before the nuclear negotiators were to meet in Istanbul, emphasizing the need for building mutual trust between Iran and the United States while advising the parties to have realistic expectations, since outstanding differences between the parties cannot be bridged overnight.

Although neither side has yet to agree on specific concrete measures aimed at building mutual confidence, the chief nuclear negotiators were able to agree on a general framework founded on reciprocity and a step-by-step approach as guiding principles of their future negotiations. They also took into account the rights and obligations of all parties under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Iranian officials have made it clear that the next rounds of talks should also aim at removing the unilateral Western oil and financial sanctions on Iran. Although these sanctions have been crippling, Iran will not necessarily negotiate from a position of weakness in future talks with the West. In fact, it is a general belief among Iranian officials that Iran is in a stronger position compared to the previous talks held in Istanbul. As the head of the National Security and Foreign Policy Committee of the Iranian parliament Alaeddin Boroujerdi recently stated, Iran’s success in enriching uranium to a 20-percent level and producing its own nuclear fuel for the Tehran research reactor, as well as its improved internal political stability since the disputed June 2009 presidential elections, have all increased Iran’s bargaining power vis-à-vis Western powers compared to the previous round of talks in January 2011.

Remaining Hurdles

Major hurdles lie on the path to reaching a lasting solution to Iran’s nuclear issue. Like any other negotiation, setting unrealistic goals will kill off any chance for a compromise between the two parties. Determining the negotiating baseline of the other party is not always a straightforward task, and the parties may end up miscalculating the capacity of the other party for compromise.

For instance, the West may be misreading Iran’s potential for compromise on its nuclear issue in next round of talks. Catherine Ashton’s March 6, 2012 letter to Saeed Jalili provided the first signs of such a possible miscalculation. Highlighting the need for confidence-building measures in the upcoming talks, Ashton wrote, “these confidence-building steps should form first elements of a phased approach which would eventually lead to a full settlement between us, involving the full implementation by Iran of UNSC and IAEA Board of Governors’ resolutions.” In this letter, Ashton sets “the full implementation of UNSC resolutions” by Iran as the ultimate goal of future nuclear talks with Iran, thus ignoring the fact that Iran considers the UNSC resolutions — which call for the suspension of nuclear enrichment and other related activities by Iran — to violate its obvious and fundamental rights under the NPT. If Ashton’s statement truly represents the baseline of the negotiating position of the West and is not just a negotiating tactic, the talks will risk failure.

Failure to give equal weight to the concerns of the other party may undermine the chances for a successful negotation. Despite some lip service paid to the principles of mutual respect and equality, practical commitment to these principles is largely lacking in the official discourse of Western officials toward Iran.

Ashton’s recent remarks about Iran at a press conference in Istanbul represent a general mindset among Western officials that is in part responsible for the mistrust and hostility that has marked the  relationship between Iran and the West over the past three decades. In her interview, Ashton stated that the Istanbul talks is “an important opportunity for Iran to discuss with the E3 +3 to try and find ways through our concerns about the nuclear weapons program that we believe Iran is moving towards.” She continued: “What we are here to do is to find ways in which we can build confidence between us and ways in which we can demonstrate that Iran is moving away from a nuclear weapons program.” In these controversial remarks, Ashton not only took it for granted that Iran possesses a nuclear weapons program, an accusation which the IAEA has not been able to verify despite years of intensive and rigorous inspection and investigation, but also implicitly likens the negotiations to a virtual tribunal where Iran would have to answer Western concerns.

Imbalance of Power

The language and demeanor adopted by Western officials toward Iran reflect the material power disparity between Iran and the Western powers. Such an approach has characterized the relationships of unequal powers since the beginning of history. Yet it is simply anachronous in the 21st century to allow the language of diplomatic communications to be reduced to such paternalism, which creates resistance and resentment in a proud nation like Iran. Iran prides itself for its pioneering history in art, science, and literature, a fact that has deeply influenced Iran’s relations with other states.

True, many Iranian officials also have a lot to learn about how to properly address Western audiences. But more than 30 years after the Iranian revolution, Western officials have not yet developed a solid understanding of how to properly and effectively communicate with their Iranian counterparts.

For instance, it should have been evident from very early on that any explicit or implicit display of superiority would put off high Iranian political officials. While describing the talks as constructive and positive, for example, Iranian chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili countered Ashton’s language of superiority by stating that the West should restore the trust of the Iranian nation  as part of the ongoing nuclear talks between the two parties. Similarly, the Iranian foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi used the phrases “mutual respect”  and “as equals” seven times in his recent short opinion article in The Washington Post, which also demonstrates Iranian obsession with equality in interstate relations.

Given the deep roots of principles of equality and mutual respect in the post-revolutionary political culture of Iran, the success of future nuclear talks between Iran and the West will depend in part on whether the West is able to treat Iran as an equal in word as well as in deed.

Abolghasem Bayyenat is an independent foreign policy analyst covering Iran’s foreign policy developments. He can be reached through his website at www.irandiplomacywatch.com

This article originally appeared on FPIF.

More articles by:

2016 Fund Drive
Smart. Fierce. Uncompromised. Support CounterPunch Now!

  • cp-store
  • donate paypal

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

Weekend Edition
September 30, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Henry Giroux
Thinking Dangerously in the Age of Normalized Ignorance
Stanley L. Cohen
Israel and Academic Freedom: a Closed Book
Paul Craig Roberts – Michael Hudson
Can Russia Learn From Brazil’s Fate? 
Andrew Levine
A Putrid Election: the Horserace as Farce
Mike Whitney
The Biggest Heist in Human History
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: the Sick Blue Line
Rob Urie
The Twilight of the Leisure Class
Vijay Prashad
In a Hall of Mirrors: Fear and Dislike at the Polls
Alexander Cockburn
The Man Who Built Clinton World
John Wight
Who Will Save Us From America?
Pepe Escobar
Afghanistan; It’s the Heroin, Stupid
W. T. Whitney
When Women’s Lives Don’t Matter
Julian Vigo
“Ooops, I Did It Again”: How the BBC Funnels Stories for Financial Gain
Howard Lisnoff
What was Missing From The Nation’s Interview with Bernie Sanders
Jeremy Brecher
Dakota Access Pipeline and the Future of American Labor
Binoy Kampmark
Pictures Left Incomplete: MH17 and the Joint Investigation Team
Andrew Kahn
Nader Gave Us Bush? Hillary Could Give Us Trump
Steve Horn
Obama Weakens Endangered Species Act
Dave Lindorff
US Propaganda Campaign to Demonize Russia in Full Gear over One-Sided Dutch/Aussie Report on Flight 17 Downing
John W. Whitehead
Uncomfortable Truths You Won’t Hear From the Presidential Candidates
Ramzy Baroud
Shimon Peres: Israel’s Nuclear Man
Brandon Jordan
The Battle for Mercosur
Murray Dobbin
A Globalization Wake-Up Call
Jesse Ventura
Corrupted Science: the DEA and Marijuana
Richard W. Behan
Installing a President by Force: Hillary Clinton and Our Moribund Democracy
Andrew Stewart
The Democratic Plot to Privatize Social Security
Daniel Borgstrom
On the Streets of Oakland, Expressing Solidarity with Charlotte
Marjorie Cohn
President Obama: ‘Patron’ of the Israeli Occupation
Norman Pollack
The “Self-Hating” Jew: A Critique
David Rosen
The Living Body & the Ecological Crisis
Joseph Natoli
Thoughtcrimes and Stupidspeak: Our Assault Against Words
Ron Jacobs
A Cycle of Death Underscored by Greed and a Lust for Power
stclair
Abu Mazen’s Balance Sheet
Kim Nicolini
Long Drive Home
Louisa Willcox
Tribes Make History with Signing of Grizzly Bear Treaty
Art Martin
The Matrix Around the Next Bend: Facebook, Augmented Reality and the Podification of the Populace
Andre Vltchek
Failures of the Western Left
Ishmael Reed
Millennialism or Extinctionism?
Frances Madeson
Why It’s Time to Create a Cabinet-Level Dept. of Native Affairs
Laura Finley
Presidential Debate Recommendations
José Negroni
Mass Firings on Broadway Lead Singers to Push Back
Leticia Cortez
Entering the Historical Dissonance Surrounding Desafinados
Robert J. Burrowes
Gandhi: ‘My Life is My Message’
Charles R. Larson
Queen Lear? Deborah Levy’s “Hot Milk”
David Yearsley
Bring on the Nibelungen: If Wagner Scored the Debates
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail
[i]
[i]
[i]
[i]