Low expectations met

The P5+1 (permanent five members of the UN Security Council plus Germany) finally met in Istanbul today with Iran and brought forth the squeak of a mouse.  According to EU High Representative Katherine Ashton:

We have agreed that the non-proliferation treaty forms a key basis for what must be serious engagement to ensure all the obligations under the treaty are met by Iran while fully respecting Iran’s right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

Saeed Jalili, the chief Iranian negotiator, put it this way:

We expect that we should enjoy our rights in parallel with our obligations (toward the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty).

At least there is overlap in those two statements about what little happened.  They also agreed to meet again in Baghdad May 23, with some expert meetings likely in the meanwhile.

For those with low expectations, consider them met.  But if you are feeling urgency for a clear and unequivocal Iranian commitment not to pursue nuclear weapons, or to come clean on their past activities, or to end uranium enrichment, or stop enrichment at 5% (or at 20%), or to dismantle the underground enrichment facility at Fordo, you’ll need to wait longer.  None of those things seem to have been discussed, despite their salience in Washington.

If the Europeans think that proceeding in this ambiguous way at an excruciatingly slow pace will somehow keep the dogs of war at bay, I’ve got bad news for them.  Delay is surely one of Tehran’s objectives.  Unless there is a good deal more agreed than the parties have acknowledged in public, the Iranians will likely get their delay, but have to suffer the consequences of impending sanctions as well.   If they also continue to enrich, in defiance of the UN Security Council, it seems to me likely that someone will try to stop them.

The Europeans prefer to call these meetings “E3+3”  rather than P5+1.  I guess that’s three Europeans plus three unidentified also-rans (U.S., China and Russia).  I’d be the first to claim that the Europeans have in the past played a useful moderating role vis-a-vis Iran.  But I expect it won’t be long before the Americans or the Iranians, or both, decide that they need to try to settle the matter without three European countries that are supposed to have a common foreign policy and whose instincts call for misty generality rather than solid specificity.  It was reported and denied that the Americans sought a bilateral meeting in Istanbul that the Iranians refused.

Yes, the Istanbul meeting has to be counted a “constructive” step forward, but the Europeans are kidding themselves if they think they can “manage” this conflict as they do their own disputes or those in the Balkans.  They need to pick up the pace and meet far higher expectations if they are going to succeed in avoiding a sad end to this worthy initiative.

 

Daniel Serwer

Share
Published by
Daniel Serwer

Recent Posts

The long, difficult road ahead

The Israelis are the victors for now. With authority comes responsibility. They need to make…

1 day ago

How do we get out of here?

Only people can force the P5 leaders to undertake the way out of the catastrophic…

1 week ago

Round peg won’t fit square hole

A lot of people could get killed in a peace operation of this difficulty. The…

2 weeks ago

We are going to unknown places

Trump's America is a place where freedom of speech is in doubt, right-wing violence is…

2 weeks ago

Will Hamas surrender, fight, or evaporate?

The Trump Administration's 20-point peace plan for Gaza calls for the unconditional surrender, disarmament and…

2 weeks ago

How experts prevail

They can and sometimes do, provided they organize well and rely on expertise to develop…

2 months ago