海角大神

Two days of Iran nuclear talks in Kazakhstan have exposed the depth of division and scale of mismatched expectations between Iran and six world powers, as they spar over ways to limit Iran鈥檚 most sensitive nuclear work.

The talks were unprecedented in both their intensity and depth, say officials from both sides, and even included a direct 30- to 40-minute exchange between the top American and top Iranian diplomats across the negotiating table.

Yet instead of narrowing a chasm that has bedeviled five rounds of talks in a year between Iran and the P5+1 group (the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France, and Germany), this round appeared to illustrate as never before the magnitude of the diplomatic challenge ahead.

The P5+1 demands that Iran give up enriching uranium to 20 percent 鈥� a few technical steps away from bomb-grade 鈥� and disable one deeply buried facility, in exchange for a partial lifting of crippling sanctions. That proposal would be a first step toward a broader deal to ensure Iran will never make a nuclear bomb.

Iran says it needs to know that final deal will guarantee its 鈥渞ight鈥� to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes and an end to sanctions; Iranian officials indicated that they counterproposed exchanging 20 percent enrichment for a lifting of all unilateral sanctions.

Mutual misperceptions

That disconnect and 鈥渕utual misperceptions鈥� now risk damaging the diplomatic process, says Ali Vaez, the senior Iran analyst for the International Crisis Group (ICG), who spoke to delegates on both sides at the talks in the Kazakh city of Almaty.

鈥淭he P5+1 expected instant gratification of its meaningful 鈥� but modest 鈥� offer of sanctions relief, while Iran saw an opportunity to devise a road map toward recognition of its rights to enrichment,鈥� says Mr. Vaez.

Differences now remain 鈥渁s wide as the distance between the first step and the end game,鈥� says Vaez. 鈥淪till, there is a real cost in declaring failure and as prospects of a deal narrow, the temptation of more coercive alternatives grows. The ironic end result of years of mutual escalation is that both parties are now loath to use the leverage they have sacrificed so much to acquire.鈥�

Stern words were exchanged by diplomats in public, as each side sought to portray the other as needing to go home and recalibrate their thinking. No date was set for the next round of talks, but decisions on how to proceed could come within days.

鈥淭here may not have been a breakthrough, but there was also not a breakdown,鈥� said a senior US official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

"It is fair to say that Iran is only prepared to take very minimal steps with respect to constraints on its nuclear program while expecting very significant rewards in return [which is] not a realistic basis for progress,"聽said the US official.聽鈥淭his was such a detailed, such an intense, and such a complex 48 hours, we ourselves are just absorbing all that we heard and all that was discussed 鈥� we all really need to absorb and digest what we鈥檝e聽heard.鈥�

During the first day of talks,聽Iranian diplomats announced their need for an agreed framework on the 鈥渄imensions鈥� and 鈥渇inal outcome鈥� of the process before they could take initial steps, concerned that P5+1 demands could mount 鈥撀爄ncluding a requirement to stop all enrichment 鈥撀爓ith only marginal sanctions relief.

The current P5+1 offer, which has been seen by the Monitor, envisions Iran having to eventually take unspecified 鈥渁dditional significant steps鈥� before key sanctions could be lifted.

A Western diplomat said the P5+1 had been 鈥渟omewhat puzzled鈥� by the Iranian response.

Iran's negotiator

Iran鈥檚 chief negotiator, Saeed Jalili, told the Monitor in an interview after the Almaty talks that Iran had 鈥渁lways鈥� told the P5+1 that such a framework agreement was necessary to 鈥渇oster cooperation.鈥�

鈥淚 like to think that we tried our very best to take as many questions as was possible to us,鈥� Mr. Jalili told the Monitor. 鈥淲e took a lot of time, taking those questions, providing responses, explaining our positions, our ideas, in great detail. This was so thorough that finally the members of [the P5+1] were asked, 鈥楧o you have any remaining questions?鈥� and nobody had any questions.鈥�

Iran鈥檚 concluding statement used several positive phrases. Iran had put forward a 鈥減lan of action鈥� that incorporated the P5+1 proposal, Jalili said, and he mentioned 鈥渇orward movement鈥� and that the 鈥渘ew conditions鈥� of Iran鈥檚 initiative were meant to propel talks in a 鈥渃onstructive fashion.鈥�

It was 鈥渘ow up to the P5+1 to demonstrate its willingness and sincerity to take proportionate confidence building steps,鈥� said Jalili. 鈥淐reating confidence is a two-way street, and today after many measures taken by the Islamic Republic of Iran to provide additional confidence, now [the P5+1] must work to gain the confidence of the Iranian people.鈥�

He said that enriching uranium up to 20 percent was the 鈥渞ight of the Iranian people,鈥� but added 鈥撀爓ithout being specific 鈥� that 鈥渢his can be an issue to help create further confidence.鈥�

P5+1 perspective

The P5+1 saw Iran鈥檚 diplomatic moves in a very different and dimmer light.

鈥淸Iran] responded to our proposal with some ideas that were a minimal response [that] not only had very, very tiny steps, in our view, but wanted a lot of return for those tiny steps,鈥� said the senior US official. 鈥淭he gulf between their current position and ours is quite great.鈥�

Those differences were made clear in the long direct conversation (through interpreters) between Jalili and the head of the American delegation, US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman. That was one of several, diplomats said, between Jalili and individual P5+1 negotiators.

Still, such unprecedented exchanges do not replace making progress on substantive issues, said the senior US official.

鈥淲e do see the world differently,鈥� said the US official. 鈥淲e come from different cultures, different backgrounds, and different ways of solving problems. And so it takes a lot of time to understand each other and to understand what each other is saying 鈥� the devil is truly in the details.鈥�

Details of dispute

Among those details are how to handle Iran鈥檚 growing stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium. Iran says it needs it to fuel a research reactor in Tehran, and has converted some 40 percent of that stockpile into oxide for fuel use 鈥撀爎endering that portion virtually unusable for further enrichment to bomb-grade levels of 90 percent.

Past fuel swap deals have failed; the current P5+1 proposal would enable Iran to purchase that fuel and medical isotopes.

鈥淲hat we are insisting on is our right to enrich,鈥� Jalili told the Monitor. 鈥淭his is equally true for 5 percent or 20 percent. You know well that 20 percent enriched uranium is used for medical purposes. One million Iranian patients are using these isotopes.鈥�

Jalili added: 鈥淭oday the fuel is exclusively used for humanitarian matters, medical purposes, exclusively peaceful purposes.鈥�

Another hurdle was not overcome in Almaty. Several United Nations Security Council resolutions require Iran to halt all enrichment, at all levels,聽until it has resolved remaining questions about possible past weapons-related work with the UN鈥檚 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Iranian officials say they reject nuclear weapons as un-Islamic, but also that they will never halt enrichment, which they consider an 鈥渋nalienable right,鈥� as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). That is why Iran says it聽wants to know now that it will still be able to enrich when the process is over, before any initial steps.

P5+1 officials themselves have variable interpretations, with Russia in the past stating that Iran should have that 鈥渞ight鈥� to enrich recognized. Moscow called this round of talks in Almaty a 鈥渟tep forward.鈥� 聽

鈥淲hat we are talking about is full compliance with the Security Council resolutions and [Iran鈥檚] responsibilities under the NPT,鈥� said the senior US official. 鈥淎nd we have always said that when they meet [those], then they can see their way to a truly peaceful, civil, nuclear program under the NPT, and all sanctions can be lifted. So there is no mystery here about what the end of the story is.鈥�

That point in some ways returns the current diplomatic process full circle, to the earlier, maximalist proposals laid down by both sides last spring.

鈥淭he irony is that the more the two sides understand their respective positions, the more they realize how far apart and entrenched they are,鈥� says Vaez, the ICG Iran analyst.

Still, P5+1 diplomats said they had never seen such an open exchange with Iran.

Catherine Ashton, the European Union foreign-policy chief who leads negotiations on behalf of the P5+1, stated that the two sides remained 鈥渇ar apart on the substance鈥� of the talks, but added: 鈥淔or the first time that I鈥檝e seen, [there was] a real back and forth between us, where we are able to discuss details, to pose questions, and to get answers directly.鈥�

* Follow Scott Peterson on Twitter at @peterson__scott