The expected 20 July final settlement of the Iranian nuclear issue did not take place. Iran’s negotiations with the “six” (five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany) are extended until November 24. The proposal to pause was made by the United States, Britain, France and Germany, who this time sent their foreign ministers to Vienna. The leaders of the foreign affairs agencies of China and Russia did not come to Vienna, having sent their deputies, however, taking into account the Iranian consent for a break, Moscow and Beijing did not object. In the comments on the extension of the negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program for 4, the tone is different. To general optimism, perhaps, can be attributed to the confidence of all parties that the next meeting should take place in August. The place, exact date and format of the next stage of negotiations have not yet been agreed.
The break in negotiations cannot solve problems by itself. It is unlikely that it will be one year since the adoption of a joint action plan of the parties in Geneva, guaranteeing the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of international sanctions from the Islamic Republic, the positions of the parties will be able to radically change. We can not exclude the ineffective conclusion of the negotiations. First, the document is valid no more than a year from the date of signing, which means that the agreement must be worked out no later than November 24 of 2014. It is obvious that negotiations cannot continue indefinitely, the remaining four months have already been declared “last chance.” Secondly, the Western participants of the “six” themselves hinder progress, relying on the continuing distrust of Iran. Secretary of State Kerry, despite the six rounds of talks held since November last year, continues to insist on the need to “make sure that Iran is not going to create a nuclear weapon". German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier also voiced a similar position: “Before the expiry of the plan’s term, Iran must prove the peaceful nature of its nuclear development.” On what grounds do the United States and the European Union express such a distrust of Tehran, they do not explain.
The head of the Russian delegation at the talks, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, disagrees with his Western colleagues and notes that “the original Geneva action plan is being implemented without criticism by all parties. The Iranians are fully ensuring the implementation of those provisions that, as they say, are written down behind them. ” The head of the foreign ministry of Iran also assesses the situation differently than the representatives of the United States. Javad Zarif stated that "the most serious disagreements concern the plan for the lifting of sanctions against Tehran." The US-Iranian bargaining remains the core of the entire negotiation process, going to an unprecedented concession for the Islamic regime, Tehran at the end of the tunnel sees the complete lifting of sanctions while recognizing its right to enrich uranium. The spiritual leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran Ali Khamenei firmly defends his position: “... the research in the field of nuclear technologies conducted by Iran will not cease under any circumstances. Iran must be ready for battles with hostile states. " Ali Khamenei made this principled statement after unsuccessful negotiations between Iran and the countries of the Six and in connection with the postponement of holding subsequent meetings.
Iran is not for nothing that fears that America and its allies are using a breather to tighten the parameters of the final deal. The proposals made by Tehran seem to the West insufficient, because Tehran does not give up its legitimate right to enrich uranium on its own, agreeing to tighten international control over its nuclear facilities. The US would like the agreement with Iran to be similar to the agreement with Syria on the destruction of chemical weapons and include the dismantling of all facilities with uranium enrichment capabilities. The text of the current agreement allows Tehran to produce and enrich uranium "under control", but the West doubts that such control under the conditions of a closed Iranian society can be effective. In this, Washington agrees with the approach of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: "Any agreement providing that Iran will have the right to enrich uranium will be a disaster for the United States and others." Netanyahu warns the Americans: "We can not allow the regime of Ayatollah appeared atomic bomb." True, a nuclear-armed Israel seems to be not so much afraid of the Iranian atomic bomb, as it seeks to prevent the growth of Tehran’s economic power from being inevitable after the lifting of sanctions.
On the lifting of sanctions, however, there is no question. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said that “the United States and the EU have carried out activities related to the suspension of the buildup of the sanctions burden, with some relief from this pressure on individual components. This, too, can not be denied. Yes, since the start of negotiations last fall, the West has refrained from imposing new sanctions against Iran, but firmly adheres to all the restrictions imposed earlier. The oil embargo is in effect, Iranian banks remain isolated from the international financial system and everything else. The West has unblocked 2,8 billion more dollars of Iranian assets frozen during the imposition of sanctions. But this is the Iranian money received by the Iranians in the calculations for the export of oil, which still does not exceed half of the volumes that were before the introduction of the ban on the import of oil from Iran. Now the Americans have become so “good” that they agreed to allow Tehran to withdraw monthly from their multibillion-dollar accounts for 500 million.
Sanctions were not considered by the West as capable of stopping Iran’s nuclear program, and are only indirectly related to the outcome of the negotiations. They are nothing more than an instrument of pressure and dictatorship, with the help of which Iran unscrew its arms. Washington needs a completely different Iran: docile and supportive of American strategy in the Middle East. Specifically, you can call Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and the Gulf region. Without the slightest exaggeration, you can talk about the desire of the White House to drive a wedge in relations between Tehran and Moscow. The Iranian nuclear issue has always been unreasonably politicized, Washington will not give up the dream of changing the Islamic regime. And now, delaying the decision to lift the sanctions, the Americans are undermining public confidence in the new Iranian leadership led by President Hassan Rouhani, driving his team of negotiators into a corner, giving additional chances to its internal opponents who do not give up hopes to abandon the diplomatic solution to Iran’s nuclear problem . Such American diplomacy has lasted for more than 30 years, and, by the way, “paralyzes” not only the economy of Iran, it causes enormous damage to the Americans themselves.
The US economy for 18 years due to missed opportunities in the field of exports as a result of economic sanctions against Iran has received less 175,3 billion dollars, the report says the National Iranian-American Council (NIAC). This non-profit organization based in Washington and advocating for the lifting of sanctions, calculated that in the period from 1995 to 2012, as a result of the ban on the sale of US goods to Iran, the US economy lost from 51 thousand to 66 thousand jobs per year. These studies were provided exclusively for the Wall Street Journal. At the same time, the White House always insisted that sanctions against Tehran should be imposed in concert with the EU for maximum effect. Apparently, the losses of Europe from the support of the American rejection of the Islamic Republic are also considerable. Soft sanctions are not effective, and strong ones always lead to mutual losses. However, US Treasury Secretary Jack Liu, who was obliged to rely on public accounting, followed Kerry openly, saying that the US would not rush to lift sanctions against Iran, as economic sanctions against Tehran "put the country's economy in a difficult position" and "were an effective tool in dialogue with Tehran. ” Again, in the US foreign policy culture is nothing new. If we conduct a dialogue, it is only from the standpoint of force, direct dictation and threats. President Obama’s widely publicized diplomatic efforts to get out of the confrontation with Tehran again follow the same rut: Iran is not expected to compromise, but surrender.