Iran Tests U.S. Resolve In Stalled Nuclear Talks
The U.S. Says Zero Enrichment. Iran Says No Deal.
A fifth round of talks has been held in Rome between the United States and Iran over Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
Has there been progress? Probably not. Enrichment remains the sticking point between the two sides.
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei this week criticized Washington’s position that has called for an apparent ban on all uranium enrichment in Iran and suggested a deal may not be possible.
Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi struck a similar tone last night in a post on X.
The US negotiating posture on enrichment has been clear from the beginning: Iran should not enrich uranium, period, not even for civilian purposes in energy production, a stance driven in large measure by Iran’s history of non-compliance with its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations and non-cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency with respect to the NPT.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Tuesday that the U.S. is attempting to form a deal that would enable Iran to have a civil nuclear energy program that does not include enriched uranium, though he admitted that this "will not be easy".
"Washington's insistence on zero enrichment, I think, is the only sober, sane, non-proliferation approach you can take [with] the Islamic Republic of Iran, which has not stopped enriching uranium at various levels since April 2006 when this entire crisis really was kicked off," Behnam Ben Taleblu, Iran expert and senior fellow with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies told Fox News Digital.
As I have noted previously, Article II and Article III of the NPT obligates ratifying nations not to work to acquire nuclear weapons and to cooperate with the IAEA to ensure and verify compliance with treaty obligations.
If Iran refuses to work with the IAEA, then there is little room for even a notionally “civilian” enrichment program, which would enrich uranium to 3-5% fissile material.
There has been reporting that Iran is engaging in these talks only to assess the US stance on Iran under Donald Trump, and that there really is no deal likely to get done.
Two Iranian sources have told CNN the talks seem unlikely to lead to an agreement, with the US insisting that Tehran dismantles its uranium enrichment program – a demand Iranian officials say would cause the nuclear negotiations to collapse.
The sources said Iran’s participation in the Rome talks is solely to gauge Washington’s latest stance rather than pursue a potential breakthrough.
If that is Tehran’s position, it is probably useful to have Israel and Netanyahu as a quasi-wild-card for the Trump team. If Iran is not pursuing meaningful talks on nuclear weapons, Israel has far fewer reasons not to refrain fro pre-emptive strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.
At the same time, just as it remains possible that the US intel leak of Israel planning a strike on Iran as a way to bring pressure to bear on Iran, it remains equally possible that Tehran is seeking to employ a pressure tactic of its own by threatening to walk away from the talks.
This is always the high-wire act behind such acts of brinksmanship. Iran might be bluffing, and if the US calls Iran’s bluff then Iran will be talking again before the first Israel warplane can take to the sky.
If the US and Israel is bluffing, Israeli warplanes won’t even leave the hangar when Iran walks away from negotiations.
If neither side is bluffing, Iran walking away from negotiations is sure to invite a military response at least from Israel.
Can Iran be trusted to enrich uranium only to the 3-5% level requisite for civilian use?
Or will any enrichment technology allow Iran to enrich uranium beyond 3-5% without creating significant NPT headaches?
Prevailing non-proliferation voices are a firm “no” on enrichment for Iran.
The question is whether those voices will prevail over Iran’s insistence on a “yes”.
Can Iran be trusted to enrich uranium only to levels necessary for civilian purposes?
Leave a comment below, or sound off in chat and share your thoughts on a potential nuclear weapons agreement with Iran.
Call their bluff with regard to their claims of only wanting to produce fuel for nuclear power plants. Tell them they are welcome to build Thorium reactors. Maybe we could even offer to help finance the effort. And, as they don't have to deal with all those pesky environmental nut jobs insisting on endless safety studies, and environmental impact studies, they could make some progress where we can't.
Israel is the Stick, but what’s the Carrot? The classic negotiation tactic is to start immovable - no enrichment at all - then give in a little with an inducement of some kind. The Carrot is the lure and the reward. If Trump plays to form, at some point he will offer something of value to Iran, allowing them to save face and feel as though they have at least partially “won”. I just don’t know what Trump can offer that is big enough to compensate for “no enrichment “. Maybe there is something that would pair nicely with 3% enrichment (but no more than that).