ArmsControlWonk.com

Reuters and AP obtained the full-text summary of the recent Iran-EU3 negotiations.

The press coverage focuses on the underlying pessimism of the document, which notes:

The Iranian position is obviously guided by the goal of maintaining the fuel cycle. Without being more specific, they only saw scope for some additional assurances, inter alia, increased verification and certain restrictions on the level and extent of the uranium enrichment programme.

EU3/EU made clear that the outlined approach was unacceptable and that Iran missed the point with this presentation. Iran has to recognise that the fuel cycle programme is the core of the problem and to be more precise in defining its proposal for objective guarantees.

It isn’t clear to me that this is news. We always knew the Iranians want to access to the complete fuel cycle, while the West would rather Tehran not. That’s why we are negotiating.

I wonder why the summary was leaked. To undermine the talks? To pressure the Iranians?

When European officials have names, they’ve been saying positive things. EU external relations commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner , for example, told the German Bild am Sonntag newspaper, “Negotiations will be difficult, but I firmly believe that diplomatic efforts will be successful.”

The Sunday Times (London) reports that UK Foreign Secretary “Jack Straw has drawn up a dossier [right] putting the case against a military attack on Iran amid fears that President George W Bush’s administration may seek Britain’s backing for a new conflict.”

The dossier, entitled Iran’s Nuclear Programme, is a compendium of 22 documents, including the full text of the Paris Accord. The analytic portion amounts to a single paragraph in the introduction, signed by Straw, stating:

A negotiated solution, in which both sides have a feeling of ownership, is in the best interests of Iran and of the international community. It gives stronger guarantees of future behaviour than an imposed solution, and is more likely to build the long-term confidence and trust which can enable the broader relationship to develop positively. We have worked hard to achieve agreement with Iran on the way in which this issue is handled, to give the international community the reassurance which we seek whilst safeguarding Iran’s right to the peaceful use of nuclear technology.

The Sunday Times can, perhaps, be forgiven for its description of the dossier. “British officials are increasingly concerned,” according to the Times, “that months of patient European-led diplomacy may explode in a torrent of bunker-busting attacks by US stealth bombers.” After recent statements by Vice-President Cheney and the head of Israel’s Mossad , who can blame the Brits?

Straw is expected to make that point in a meeting with Condoleeza Rice today.

Remember a couple of weeks ago when Iran nearly scuppered its accord with the EU-3 over its continued production of uranium tetraflouride (UF-4), which may have been considered “feed material” for highly enriched uranium? (No? Read my post dated 10 November 2004)

Anyway, after some wrangling the Europeans got “basically … a full suspension,” a diplomat told AP. “It’s what the Europeans were looking for.” (ACW, 14 November 2004).

Basically.

Although the accord required Iran to freeze all enrichment activity by November 22, it allowed Iran to complete some uranium conversion work begun before the suspension took effect.

Now Iran says that work, to convert 37 tons of yellowcake undergoing “testing” at Isfahan, will take until February.

Reaction to the timetable was not positive. Working into February “would certainly violate the spirit of the agreement,” a Western diplomat told Reuters. “Iran has a legal basis for doing it, but it will not inspire much confidence in them,” another diplomat said.

Iran and the EU-3, meeting in Brussels, agreed to a new round of negotiations, Reuters reports.

The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office has a statement by British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.

“We are now able to move forward to a next phase,” Straw said, leading to “a longer-term arrangement to provide objective guarantees that Iran’s nuclear program can only be used for civilian purposes.”

IRNA focused on the broader import of the negotiations for Iran-EU relations.

The fact that follow-on working grouple meetings occurred in the Iranian Embassy may imperil the “Paris Negotiations” header.
“We’ll always have Paris, Hassan.”

The IAEA Board of Governors has passed a resolution welcoming the Iran-EU3 accord.

Crucially, and in line with Iranian demands, the resolution described the freeze as a voluntary, confidence-building measure and not a legally binding commitment.

Its passage meant that Tehran, which denies seeking the bomb, had achieved its immediate objective of avoiding being hauled before the Security Council for possible sanctions. [Reuters]

The operative paragraph reads:

[The Board of Governors] requests the Director General to continue verifying that the suspension remains in place and to inform Board members should the suspension not be fully sustained, or should the Agency be prevented from verifying all elements of the suspension, for as long as the suspension is in force;

The wording resolves one of two disputes that had threatend to derail the Iran-EU3 accord.

Iran had objected to draft language directing DG ElBaradei to “monitor the implementation of” the suspension and “report immediately to the Board should the agency encounter evidence that the suspension is not fully implemented, or be prevented from monitoring all elements of the suspension for as long as the suspension is in force.” Washington also objected to the language, arguing for automatic referral to the U.N. Security Counci should Iran not comply.

The second dispute—regarding Iran’s insistance that it be allowed to operate 20 centrifuges for research purposes—disapeared after Iran withdrew the demand.

• “Deal Imperiled as Iran Hesitates” (Washington Post)
• “Iranians Refuse to Terminate Nuclear Plans” (New York Times)
• “Iran: Nuclear resolution unacceptable” (CNN)
• “Iran says European position at nuclear talks still unacceptable” (AFP)
• “Diplomats Say Iran Uranium Deal Salvaged” (AP)
• “EU Stands Firm on Nuclear Freeze, Iran Backs Down” (Reuters)

Confusing, huh?

The Washington Post and New York Times stories are behind the news cycle. But they capture the essence of the disagreement: Tehran has demanded an exemption to operate 20 enrichment centrifuges for research purposes.

//Update: Mike Levi says the Post was ready to “write a story about how the Iranians had made the ‘monitor but don’t seal’ offer. But things became such a mess by the evening that [Dafna Linzer] wrote a simpler story.” Fair enough.//

The CNN and AFP reports are based on comments made by Iranian FM Kharrazi, reported by IRNA. Kharrazi simply repeated Iran’s position that “the 20 centrifuges be allowed to continue operating.”

Diplomats in Vienna, however, are telling AP and Reuters. that a deal has been worked out:

One of the diplomats told The Associated Press that under the compromise, Iran would give up its insistence that 20 centrifuges be exempted from a total freeze of all uranium enrichment activities.

But instead of accepting seals from the International Atomic Energy Agency on the equipment, the centrifuges would be monitored for inactivity by IAEA cameras, said the diplomat, who is familiar with Iran’s nuclear dossier and who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The question is whether this will go too far for the United States. Anyway, this all has to wait for Monday.

Until then, Global Security Newswire has a good summary.

Both Washington and Tehran are both balking at the EU’s draft IAEA resoution. The resolution hints that the IAEA will refer Iran to the Security Council if it resumes uranium enrichment. That goes too far for Tehran and not far enough for Washington.

I expect Washington to back down, having no leverage—but we’ll see.

Global Security Newswire has the round-up if you want the gory details.

The IAEA report on Iran concludes that “All the declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for, and therefore such material is not diverted to prohibited activities.”

Calling the report a “qualified acquittal,” a Western diplomat told Reuters that “the U.S. doesn’t stand a chance” of having Iran referred to the Security Council on November 25.

David Albright made a comment that captured the skepticism that many people feel. He suggested that any suspension would be short lived because Iran had “not taken a strategic decision to abandon its pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability.”

Albright is missing the point. Negotiating an agreement is forcing Tehran to make a strategic decision.

The impact that an agreement may have on the Iranian program is precisely why conservative MPs are trying to undermine it. Reuters carried a story on the conservative backlash, quoting one MP as having said that the agreement “is undoubtedly an indefinite suspension of uranium enrichment which was previously rejected by Iran. As a representative of the Iranian nation, I express my deepest regret for accepting such an agreement.”

Iran has agreed to suspend enrichment.

Tehran still must inform the IAEA. “A deal for a full suspension is done but the IAEA has not received a letter confirming it,” a diplomat told Reuters. “That’s also important that they would have a look at that and see what they signed on to.”

No UF4 poduction, I assume.

IRNA reports that IAEA inspectors are already in Iran, having arrived on Saturday.

Note: The BBC claimed Tehran had “told news agencies” but I see only a Rueters story.

Update: AP now has the story . “Basically it’s a full suspension,” a diplomat told AP. “It’s what the Europeans were looking for.” CNN piles on, too.

Well, looks like the IAEA is holding up its report until Iran comes up with an answer. “I know for a fact that the people responsible for the report had all they have to say a few days ago,” a Western diplomat told Reuters. Missing, he said, was a paragraph stating that Iran had agreed to suspend its uranium enrichment program as demanded by an IAEA resolution passed in September.

That answer was coming in hours according to Iranian state TV. Or not, since that was on Thursday.

AFP implies the hold-up remains the question of whether or not Iran can continue to produce UF-4. Summarizing the delay, one diplomat told AFP that “whether it’s a day or two late is not that important.”

I love Europe.