Shayan Ghajar

Responding to an invitation to continue nuclear talks from EU High Representative Catherine Ashton in mid-June, Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili responded early July 7 in a letter to the EU representative agreeing to open the possibility for renewed discussions starting September 1.

Jalili’s letter, excerpts of which are available here, delineates specific requirements set out by the Iranian government before any dialogue may begin, and harshly criticizes the current dual-track approach of pressure and negotiations currently pursued by the P5+1. The Security Council’s efforts at using pressure via sanctions as an incentive for Iran to engage in negotiations, Jalili said, has made Iran highly suspicious as to whether or not the P5+1 actually desire discussions to succeed in reaching a compromise.

“It is very interesting that in spite of efforts made by Brazilian and Turkish foreign ministers for resumption of talks, you have been reluctant [to negotiate] in the past three months, but, immediately after passing the resolution 1229 at the Security Council against Iran, you have voiced readiness to resume talks,” Jalili complained. Jalili termed the use of sanctions on Iran after the fuel swap agreement to be signs of a “dictatorship,” in which the escalation of pressure is intended to coerce Iran into cooperation.

Regarding altering Iran’s behavior or increasing the motivation for dialogue, sanctions seem to have achieved the opposite effect. On June 28, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared a freeze on all nuclear talks for two months in retaliation for the passage of United Nations sanctions on Iran, and threatened to retaliate if any Iranian ships are boarded for inspection. U.N. sanctions even appear to have angered prominent opposition leader Mir Hossein Moussavi, the de facto leader of the Green Movement, who called them “oppressive,” and described them as a move against the Iranian nation which would harm all Iranians rather than exclusively the government.

Furthermore, Iran listed three contentious questions in Jalili’s letter that must be answered prior to the resumption of dialogue in September. First, Jalili asks, will the tenor of the meetings be one of mutual distrust and antagonism, or “cooperation and working towards mutual understanding?” Second, the letter inquires as to whether or not the nations involved commit to dialogue without the threat of punitive actions against Iran. And finally, and the requirement most likely to prove problematic, Jalili demands all nations involved in negotiations to inform Iran as to their specific policies regarding Israel’s “stockpiling of nuclear weapons.”

In response, Ashton offered qualified hopes for the dialogues, insisting that dialogues are an absolute imperative but that Iran must show additional signs of goodwill to encourage substantive progress by freezing its uranium enrichment activities and becoming more transparent to the IAEA. Meanwhile, the European Union will continue to move forward with sanctions this month, a measure Ashton described as intended “to say, ‘We’re serious, we need to talk,’” according to the New York Times–apparently in spite of Iran’s clear statement that any more such sanctions will be viewed as a sign of the futility of negotiations in what they feel is an unalterably hostile environment.

Meanwhile, Iran has no intention of halting its enrichment activities, according to Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast. According to the Iranian spokesman, any negotiations in September will be from the basis of the Tehran Declaration, brokered by Brazil and Russia and announced in May. Under the Tehran Declaration, Iran retains its right to enrich uranium to meet its domestic needs but will swap low enriched uranium in Turkey with uranium enriched to higher levels by an approved third party, eventually negating the need for Iran to enrich its own materials. Iran has the right to enrich uranium under the Non-Proliferation Treaty; however, its refusal to stop enrichment activities has caused Western nations question its goodwill in future discussions.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, seeking to end the impasse resulting from the strong mutual distrust prevalent between Iran and the P5+1, stated that the best way to move forward was to give Iran’s proposals and perspective the Security Council’s full attention. Ryabkov emphasized “we believe the Iranian proposals [...] should not be evaded,” according to Russian news service RIA Novosti. He continued, “everything proposed by both sides should be discussed.”

Until High Representative Ashton’s response to Jalili’s letter is delivered, it remains to be seen how the EU will address Iran’s preconditions for dialogue, which will present the first obstacle to any dialogue between the Security Council and Iran.