A senior U.S. official told the Christian Science Monitor that there was “great difficulty” in trying to move toward common positions and spoke of “significant” differences.
The failure to start the process of drafting a comprehensive agreement diminished the growing sense of optimism that the two sides could narrow down their differences by 20 July, the expiration date of their interim agreement, JPOA.
Iran insists that no limits should be put on its uranium enrichment program, as it needs large amounts of enriched uranium to fuel any future nuclear power reactors to be built in the country, asking to be allowed to operate some 100,000 centrifuges. But the large amount of enriched uranium could also be used to build nuclear weapons in short order, hence the insistence of the West to significantly limit Iran’s enrichment program by keeping its number of centrifuges to few thousands.
And the differences between the two sides are not limited to the size of Iran’s enrichment program and encompass other serious issues such as the length of the final agreement and the resulting constraints on the country’s nuclear program, the extent of the international inspection regime of the program, and issues related to weaponization capabilities. Araqchi indeed said that differences remained on more than a dozen issues.
UPDATE: The next round of Vienna talks will be held on 16-20 June.
Iran has exactly ONE nuclear power reactor and hasn't even begun the at least 10 year process of building any others. it's not merely dishonest but quite farcical to insist that Iran needs more centrifuges for any civilian purpose.
ReplyDeleteif the talks fail over this point it's because the Iranian regime desires that they fail.
And the Iranians must, and do know that demanding 50,000 or 100,000 centrifuges is a showstopper. As you said, any new nuclear power reactor takes 10-15 years to build, and none is even designed yet. Why should they need 100,000 centrifuges, to store enriched uranium for use in 10-15 years from now? Doesn't make any sense. Bringing the talks to an impasse over an issue that does not address any of their practical needs is strange, unless they want to have so much enriched uranium for few bombs.
Deletehopefully you understand Iran is an independent country and as such no one can tell it what it needs or what it does not need. It is all up to Iran to determine its own need, period.
DeleteIran is an independent country living in an increasingly smaller globe. It has the right to do anything it wishes, and the rest of the members of the globe have the right to react to what it does. If you were an advisor to the Iranian government, which I hope you are, please tell them not to play the "revolutionary" game, that's long over. Hope they decide what is best for their national interest at this time, and that would be their only criteria approaching the nuclear talks.
DeleteNader UskowiMay 17, 2014 at 8:31 PM
DeleteWhere on earth do you get the idea that iran wanted 50,000 or 100,000 centrifuges?,iran doesnt even have 20,000 centrifuges of all types and only around half of those are in operation
AnonymousMay 17, 2014 at 8:48 PM
DeleteWell said
why the nuclear power is the privilege of specific countries. they should be no double standard and every country should have access to this technology. better for them to cap NK ambition
DeleteI am not but if I were I advise them to not budge under pressure. I fully support Zarif approach though and I don't think his team will accept anything that put Iran independence under other countries opinion. As for your logic: Iran is not doing anything illegal. Enrichment is well within Iran's right. If any country has a problem with that and act based on their problem they act illegally . In this increasingly small globe, few countries are acting like world-police (self appointed one). The vast majority of countries has no problem with Iran's nuclear program as long as Iran provide access to IAEA its only few bullies who try to illegally force their own will on others (in this case Iran).
DeleteWhats best for the country at this time is fine, but that is at the expense of what is good in the long run if they just capitulate to US demands. Those demands if we recall 10 years ago was no enrichment at all period. Israel still demands no enrichment at all. When the oil runs out we wont be able to use gas to make electricty which further poluutes the air that is already so polluted. Irans already saturated its hydroelectric sources of electricty. And solar and wind will at maximun provide only 10-20% of the country's needs.
DeleteThose power outages that were so common in the 80s are now rare, and Iran even exports electricity to all of its neighbors in addition to syria and Tajikistan.
without nuclear power plants we will soon not have any electricty to export and will likley become a net importer of electricty in the coming decades. If that happens Iran will always be blackmailed to do this or that "or we will cut off your uranium supply". We will have the Uranium equivalent of BP running the show for the next 100 years
Iran currently is the 13th largest consumer of electricity in the world, there are only 12 countries in the world that use more electricty than Iran.
Capitulating to sanctions and threats is exactly how the Qajars were coaxed to give our oil rights to the british. After nationalization, sanctions embargos were exactly how they coaxed the Shah to denationalize the oil in 1952 that mossadegh worked so hard to nationalize in exchange for "normalization" and lifting sanctions. At that time there were not just sanctions but the British actually had 2 ships in the straight of Hormoze and didnt allow anything in or out, the economy was worse than today, and people were actually in worse condition than today including famine. The country was even ridiculed and told it was a pariah, rogue state that was thumbing it nose at the International community. Reading what they wrote about Mossadegh at the time including the time magazine article on him in the 50s we see he was treated and portrayed like he was the Ahmadinejad of his time.
Iran hat nuke plant
DeleteTehran 5MW Heavy water
Arak 40MW Heavy water under cinstruction
Bushehr 100 MW , delivered from Russia , operated 100% by Iranian
The Fuel will be provided soon by Iran too
Anon 10:44 PM,
DeleteDirector of Atomic Organization of Iran Salehi was the official who said Iran requires 50,000 centrifuges, and then he increased the number to 100,000. The reporters in Vienna also quoted negotiators as saying the number of centrifuges demanded by Iran were the main source of disagreement. Salehi said Iran needs those numbers to feed its future nuclear power reactors.
Anon 10:58 PM,
Iran currently has 10,000 centrifuges in operations. The P5+1 is recognizing Iran’s right to enrich uranium. The issue here is that the ability to produce large amount of enriched uranium, like with 100,000 centrifuges, will give Iran rapid break out capability, meaning having enough material for a nuclear weapon in a short order. That is a political issue vis-à-vis the Islamic Republic ever since it nuclear program was revealed.
Does Iran need 50,000-100,000 machines? If your answer is yes, then why? Iran does not have any power reactor aside from Bushehr, whose fuel has been supplied by the Russians. Any new reactor will take some 20 years to be designed and built. The length of the final agreement will not be longer than 20 years. Iran can then increase the number of centrifuges. Why then does it need them now? It’s not the question of right, as it will have few thousands in operation during the length of the agreement.
What I am saying is it is up to Iran (not west) to determine its needs. I don't know how many iran needs but its is entirely something related to Iran government and Iran should be able to adjust as it wish.
DeleteBut there is also the matter of logic. You are entitled as anyone else to judge the government's action as logical or not.
DeleteWhat I am saying is it is up to Iran (not west) to determine its needs. I don't know how many iran needs but its is entirely something related to Iran government and Iran should be able to adjust as it wish.---
Deleteand it's the right of the rest of the world not to trade with iran and to impose sanctions upon Iran and anyone who does business with Iranian companies.
if Iran wants to get along with the rest of the world it'll have to make adjustments.
Right but Uskowi, it was the US that urged Iran to transform itself into a nuclear powered country in the first place 50 years ago. Their argument then was that while Iran does have oil it will run out, then what would they use to generate electricity?
DeleteBack then they were promoting the Shah as a progressive visionary who was wise enough to realize Iran had to go nuclear for electricty. He was literally the poster boy for the Westighouse and GE in lobbying nuclear power at home in the US
http://berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2013-04-26/article/41010
Former commander of Nato Wesley Clark gives us some insight as to what US admnistrations true motives really are:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LTdx1nPu3k
what do you mean be the "rest of the world"? As far as I concern it just US , UK and France who oppose Iran's right. The "rest" of the world are getting tired with these bullies.
DeleteAnon 12:59 PM,
DeleteI just don't understand the relationship between Shah's wishes to start a nuclear program, and the number of centrifuges Iran now needs. The discussion is whether Iran is overstating its needs for the next 15 years or so, even if it really was to build up to 20 nuclear reactors as claimed. The length of the agreement with world powers will be some 15-20 years at the most, and when Iran has all those reactors (which will take a long time to build) it can put enough machines in operation there. In the meantime, it will have few thousand machines operating to respect it rights and to have it the opportunity to advance its nuclear technology. Any problem with this?
" what do you mean be the "rest of the world"? As far as I concern it just US , UK and France who oppose Iran's right. The "rest" of the world are getting tired with these bullies."
Deleteround after round of sanctions were voted for by China, Russia and other nations in the UN Security Council, my friend......
the rest of the world is tired of Iran's deceit and lies and also tired of Iranians claiming that Iran is being bullied. that's simply a crock of crap. iran's regime breaks its word and lies about breaking its word and when facing the consequences of Iranian lies and deceit......cries and complains.
it's not merely dishonorable, it's old and tiresome.
Uskowi where did you read that this "Final" and "Permanent" accord will not be final and permanent. Every article, analysis and report on this subject mentions this current "interim" deal will be replaced with a permanent one. I dont see them revisiting this in 10-15 years as you suggest.
DeleteThe final comprehensive agreement between Iran and P5+1 will have a definite ending. Iran wants to achieve all requirements that will be in the final accord in a shorter period. The West might want longer period of time, like 10-15 years. The two sides are not negotiating about a "permanent" pact, only a comprehensive final accord as opposed to the current non-comprehensive and interim agreement.
DeleteAnd everything looked so good, lots of "smiles" on photos, and Rouhani "represented" a choice against "mullahs", but the current stage of american policies, including their "prophecies" that a peace in the ME is about to be implemented soon, show so far their delussions, and the lack of logic pointed earlier by those "mullahs"......
ReplyDelete+A
(in absence of "-A" comments, so far)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCvygCYVUFo --- The untold story of Iran's nuclear ambitions
ReplyDeleteAlso Gareth Porters new book "The Manufactured Crisis" and shed's much light on the US decpetive portrayal in the media about Irans intentions.
Deletehttp://harpers.org/blog/2014/05/manufactured-crisis-the-untold-story-of-the-iran-nuclear-scare/
The Iranian position, accurately detailed by Hillary Mann Leverett and Mohammad Marandi:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cctv-america.com/can-iran-and-world-powers-reach-a-final-nuclear-deal/
when will you cease trying to pretend that the Leveretts have the slightest thing to do with accuracy?
Deletethey are tiresome boors and apologists and have zero influence and are openly derided
I think that the pereguisite for any agreement is that, the US (West) must describe a deadline for an expiration of any limitations of Iranian rights....related to that agreement
DeleteIt cannot be another " Guantanamo agreement", which waives Iranian rights forever.
A-F
Contrary to the wishful thinking and hype on these out of touch blogs based in the US, there is less than ZERO chance of any meaningful talks with US as long as the Zionists and AIPAC control US foreign policy. The nuclear issue is a mere sideshow, the real agenda is to remove Iran as an independent and credible deterrent to US/Zionist delusions of regional hegemony. The terror war against Syria is also linked to the same goal, however, they will fail. Iran's only realistic option is to test and nuke and buy immortality like the DPRK, India and Pakistan.
ReplyDelete