Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov revealed a crucial detail Thursday about last week’s nuclear talks with Iran in Geneva that explains much more clearly than previous reports why the meeting broke up without agreement.
Lavrov said the United States circulated a draft that had been amended in response to French demands to other members of the six-power P5+1 for approval “literally at the last moment, when we were about to leave Geneva.”
[...]
There was an American-proposed draft, which eventually received Iran’s consent.” Lavrov thus confirmed the fact that the United States and Iran had reached informal agreement on a negotiating text.
[...]
Then Lavrov revealed for the first time that the U.S. delegation had made changes in the negotiating text that had already been worked out with Iran at the insistence of France without having consulted Russia.
“But amendments to [the negotiating draft] suddenly surfaced,” Lavrov said. “We did not see them. And the amended version was circulated literally at the last moment, when we were about to leave Geneva.”
The crucial details provided by Lavrov on the timing of the amended draft shed new light on Secretary of State John Kerry’s claim in a press conference in Abu Dhabi on Monday of unity among the six powers on the that draft.
Kerry gave no indication of when on Saturday that proposal had been approved by the other five powers, nor did he acknowledge explicitly that it was a draft that departed from the earlier draft agreed upon with Iran. Lavrov’s remarks make it clear that the other members of the group had little or no time to study or discuss the changes before deciding whether to go along with it.If Lavrov is being candid, this is reminiscent of the 2010 Tehran Agreement brokered by Turkey and Brazil, which had been approved by the Obama administration beforehand on the assumption the Iranians would reject the terms. When the Iranians approved it, the U.S. rejected the initiative and terms it green-lighted, and rushed forward with more sanctions against Iran.
Additionally, this is not the first time a more moderate administration in Iran has been left to hang out and dry following rapprochement efforts towards the United States. Previously, the Khatami administration undertook largely successful efforts assisting the United States leading up to and during the initial stages of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. The Bush Administration pocketed that goodwill, only to turn around and brand Iran as a member of an "Axis of Evil," greatly undermining the liberal administration of President Khatami.
It is this sort of historical background that forms the basis for the SL branch of IRIG's skepticism towards the current round of nuclear negotiations.
18 comments:
Mark,
Iran and the six major powers are to meet in Geneva on Wednesday. Both U.S. and Iran have said publicly that they expect an agreement to be reached. Obama administration has particularly working hard to prevent the Israeli leadership and the hard right in the U.S. to create stumbling blocks to prevent an agreement.
The so-called “SL branch of IRGC” is Iran’s version of the hard right and not very happy to see a rapprochement between Iran and U.S. either. It destroys years and decades of belief and propaganda that the U.S. is only after implementing the “Zionist” agenda in Iran and no American administration, Obama’s included, can come to term with any Iranian government, Rouhani’s included. Very difficult for them to describe an agreement in the framework of their anti-American ideology.
Obama/Kerry team, as well as Rouhani/Zarif, will be vigilant, I believe, not to fall for Lavrov’s attempt to change the conversation few days before a new round of talks in Geneva is expected to result in a beginning of a new Iranian/American relationship. Putin/Lavrov might not be very happy with that; but then it is not their country’s economy, nor that of Hollande/Fabius’s, that is being destroyed.
Good Discussion, we will see who is right on Wednesday ...
ARE you honest that RUSSIA is against any positive developments in the US'IRAN relations?
NO amount of spinning will blur the real hypocritical FACE of the US!!, and history is the best witness, as said in brief by MARK!.
Nader, unlike France, Russia will be a big beneficiary of any normalization of Iran ties with the world in general, would it be western or not, and no matter how aggressively American contractors will try to flood Iranian markets whenever it becomes possible to them, Russia has a longstanding tradition of ties with Iran and is well integrated within the Iranian industrial fabric, and these ties include long-term exclusivity attributes that are not even close to trembling so easily in the face of new competitors, special on the arms, oil & gas, and nuclear market. In other terms, others will come to this market yes, but Russians will expand themselves. Just like the Chinese in an even more massive way. Indeed, no matter how drastically different US/Europe/Iran relations evolve over the next few months, it will take them a long time to reintegrate the Iranian economy. And would they like it or not, geopolitical alliances will come into play for every major economic decision, and on this, so long as "Iran" is the "Islamic Republic of Iran", where even the moderates and the hardliners will continue to have natural common ground on main conflicting issues that the US cannot possibly adhere to, but where China and Russia see a counterweight to US influence in the ME, the situation will remain rigged in the latter's favor and will prevent the all-out expansion of ties between Iran and the former.
And because of all this, I can't possibly put France and Russia side by side in their objective to scuttle the talks once more. For Fabius yes, his country has willingly disqualified itself at the expense of its own interest from every major position they once had in Iran, for the sake of satisfying the ever-growing influence of the Israeli lobby within the french political spectrum. And to this regard, have absolutely nothing to loose from an ultimate collapse of the talks, while they can posture as being good allies and get good graces from Israel, whatever they are. At the contrary, Russian contractors are just waiting for a golden opportunity to race back in whatever outstanding and de-facto frozen cooperation contracts they have been eagerly waiting for to become legal for years now, that's a whole other universe we're talking about ! Russia has grounds to become one of Iran's main economic partners in the future, whereas France is close to nothing in Iran today, and chose to become so itself. One only needs to see how France is perceived globally by the majority of Iranian commentator at home and abroad to see what kind of cataclysmic failure awaits any of their potential future attempt to fix what they've done last week. The damage of Fabius's action have yet to be estimated. I live in Paris myself, and I read the press, would it be right-wing or left-wing, there is quasi-consensus in the fact that Hollande's government has failed big time on this issue.
But if I understand it right, are you basically saying that we cannot trust Lavrov's remarks as being genuine considering their associated interests, precisely where we can take Kerry's word for it stating last week that it was Iran's fault if the agreement was ultimately not sealed ? To be frank, I find it a bit odd, since the latter has not exactly been a champion of objectivity nor credibility over the last few weeks would it be for the Syrian info wars or the Iranian issue in general.... so how can we say Lavrov is either irresponsible/dishonest/biased by stating what he was in a position to know better than anyone during the negotiations, and remain totally silent towards Kerry when he might have well technically lied or at least could have remained silent instead of pointing fingers at Iran's responsibility once more ?
I'd rather see Lavrov's remark as a counter-argument to Kerry's ones that tended to cover Fabius' sabotage (let's call it what it is), and portray Iran as a the sole show-stopper of that unfortunate episode.
-A
No, I was not discussing the trustworthiness of Lavrov’s comments; only the timing of it, changing the conversation at this late stage to who did what or did not do on that late Saturday night/early Sunday morning. What is needed is a final push to get all the six major powers and Iran united on a language acceptable to all.
On Russia-Iran relations, however, I do believe that Iranian interests in the Persian Gulf are much more aligned with those of the U.S. than of Russia. The long term strategic goal of both Iran and the U.S. is obviously keeping the Gulf shipping lanes open. Russia’s long-term interests are not the same. In fact, the Islamic Republic has been acting as a buffer zone against the expansion of Russian influence in the Gulf.
I also believe that U.S. interests in the Gulf is also more aligned with Iran that with Israel. That’s why I believe that Iran-U.S. rapprochement is based on mutual long-term national interests, unfortunately marred by three decades of miscalculations by both sides. It is time to go back to the basics.
The Russians have a Mafia regime. Look what has hapened to the Caspian Sea. Russia benefits from Iran's weakness.
What is the point of these "leaks?" At the end of the day, France told the other 5 countries that you are either with them or with Iran -- AND NO ONE WENT WITH IRAN, NOT EVEN RUSSIA AND CHINA.
So stop the bullshit. It is a completely unified front against Iran.
Nader Uskowi stated:
On Russia-Iran relations, however, I do believe that Iranian interests in the "Persian Gulf" (correct reference) are much more aligned with those of the U.S. than of Russia... I also believe that U.S. interests in the Gulf (Which Gulf? Gulf of Mexico?) is also more aligned with Iran that with Israel..
sir, you are supposed to be an Iranian. Please refer to "Gulf" as "Persian Gulf". There is n o such thing as the "Gulf".
Anon 3:14 PM,
With all due respect, your problem is not political; your problem is with the English language. Once you say the full name of a place, as in Persian Gulf, you do not need to repeat the phrase in the same piece over and over again. Here you could refer to it as Gulf in the second and subsequent referrals. In this example, it would be understood for those who understand the language that you are referring to Persian Gulf. You are welcome to email me and I will be more than happy to discuss the language here.
Yes and the regime must not be allowed to receive any of the money due.
November 17, 2013 at 2:56 PM/November 17, 2013 at 7:54 PM
Sounds like the malcontents are getting worried,nothing frightens them more than the prospect of a deal
AnonymousNovember 17, 2013 at 8:17 AM
Agreed,the europeans have been the big losers in the sanctions game throwing away decades of business relationships worth billions of euros and receiving nothing in return from the us/israel,even in the event of a deal the europeans stand to gain little so why not try and sabotage the talks
Nader Uskowi November 17, 2013 at 9:53 AM
You may be right,but so long as the israelis continue to exercise the level of influence and control that they have over the american political elite,then the chances for any reprochement between the iri and the us are slim to nonexistent at best,now that does not mean that short term or limited deals like the nuclear one are not possible but the idea that these will somehow lead to a detente much less a grand bargain is very naive,only when the us comes to the realization that israels interests are not the us`s interests will there be any chance for this to happen
fanboy, it's bad enough that you flog the nonsense from the Leveretts.......
but this is an endorsement of freaking GARETH PORTER........a disgraced journalist exposed as a denier of the Cambodian genocide.
even for a shameless shill such as yourself, quoting Porter is slimy.
go and bathe.
Anon 2:21AM
The US and the EU won't loose any sleep over lost business opportunities with the rotten clerical theocracy. They just pick it up elsewhere.
Mr Uskowi,
I am afraid you are labouring under misapprehension.
If you in your sentence with reference to “The Persian Gulf”, state “Thereafter referred to as The Gulf”. that would be fine. Otherwise you will have to qualify the reference with a full statement like "The Persian Gulf" . Sounds like your command of English is as goes as my Chinese sir!
in your sentence you refert to "Persian Gulf"
Anon 7:54 PM....You mean a cyber basij like you might be worried the deal wont go through because you know the occupying islamic terrorist regime will be screwed.
"cyber basij"? Is that instead of the cyber shills that the zionist regime hires, known as hasbara?
Post a Comment