U.S. and Iran press nuclear dialogue

Leaders struggle for progress as talks, other issues compete

Share with others:

Print Email Read Later

VIENNA — The top U.S. and Ira­nian dip­lo­mats searched Mon­day for a break­through in nu­clear talks, their ef­forts com­pli­cated by cri­ses across the Mid­dle East and be­yond that have Wash­ing­ton and Te­hran aligned in some places, but of­ten op­posed.

The state of U.S.-Ira­nian re­la­tions was add­ing a new wrin­kle to the long ne­go­ti­a­tion aimed at curb­ing the Islamic Re­pub­lic’s ura­nium and plu­to­nium pro­grams. While the two sides are ar­gu­ably fight­ing proxy wars in Is­rael, Gaza and Syria, they’re talk­ing co­op­er­a­tion in Iraq and Af­ghan­istan. And, per­haps in a first, the nu­clear mat­ter is bat­tling for full at­ten­tion.

John Kerry, U.S. sec­re­tary of state, and Mo­ham­med Ja­vad Zarif, Ira­nian for­eign min­is­ter, spoke for about two hours around mid­day Mon­day, the sec­ond day of talks in Vi­enna. They gath­ered again in the af­ter­noon, hop­ing to make prog­ress be­fore next Sun­day’s ini­tial dead­line for a com­pre­hen­sive nu­clear agree­ment. An ex­ten­sion of the dead­line is pos­si­ble, though there are foes of that idea on both sides.

“We are in the mid­dle of talks about nu­clear pro­lif­er­a­tion and rein­ing in Iran’s pro­gram,” Mr. Kerry told U.S. Em­bassy staff in Vi­enna dur­ing a break in the con­ver­sa­tions. “It is a re­ally tough ne­go­ti­a­tion.”

But other mat­ters were be­ing dis­cussed, too, in­clud­ing Af­ghan­istan, where Mr. Kerry vis­ited be­fore Vi­enna to bro­ker a power-shar­ing agree­ment be­tween ri­val pres­i­den­tial can­di­dates and a full au­dit of their con­tested elec­tion.

As the two dip­lo­mats sat down Sun­day, Mr. Zarif called Mr. Kerry’s Af­ghan me­di­a­tion “ex­tremely im­por­tant” for the Af­ghan peo­ple and echoed the need “to en­sure the na­tional unity of Af­ghan­istan and pre­vent its breakup.”

“We agree,” Mr. Kerry said. “And it’s good to be­gin with an agree­ment.”

But even as the United States and Iran have re­cently found in­creas­ing ar­eas for co­op­er­a­tion, such as stem­ming a flow of Sunni ex­trem­ists into Iraq, they re­main di­a­met­ri­cally op­posed else­where.

The U.S-Ira­nian re­gional di­vide was un­der­scored Mon­day, as the Is­raeli mil­i­tary downed a drone launched by Gaza mil­i­tants — the first such un­manned air­craft en­coun­tered since the start of the Jew­ish state’s of­fen­sive last week. Iran is Ha­mas’ pri­mary ben­e­fac­tor and the pre­sumed source of its new­found drone ca­pac­ity. Wash­ing­ton pro­vides bil­lions in aid each year to Is­rael.

The State Depart­ment didn’t say whether Mr. Kerry and Mr. Zarif broached the es­ca­lat­ing Is­raeli-Pal­es­tin­ian vi­o­lence or the civil war in neigh­bor­ing Syria, where the United States is pro­vid­ing po­lit­i­cal and mil­i­tary sup­port to mod­er­ate reb­els fight­ing Pres­i­dent Bashar As­sad’s Ira­nian-backed gov­ern­ment.

But one change ap­peared clear in this week’s talks. Un­like in years past, where U.S.-Ira­nian in­ter­ac­tion ap­peared largely lim­ited to nu­clear mat­ters, the two coun­tries’ in­ter­ests now crisscross at mul­ti­ple lev­els, and their dis­cus­sions are broader.

Mon­day’s talks came a day af­ter Mr. Kerry and the for­eign min­is­ters of Brit­ain, France and Ger­many failed to reach a break­through with Iran on ura­nium en­rich­ment and other is­sues stand­ing in the way of a deal that would curb Iran’s nu­clear pro­gram in ex­change for the end of nu­clear-re­lated sanc­tions on Te­hran. Each of­fi­cial cited sig­nifi­cant gaps.

Iran says it needs to ex­pand en­rich­ment to make re­ac­tor fuel and in­sists that it does not want atomic arms. But the United States and oth­ers fear that Te­hran could steer the ac­tiv­ity to­ward man­u­fac­tur­ing the core of nu­clear mis­siles. Wash­ing­ton is lead­ing the in­sis­tence on deep en­rich­ment cuts.

Even if their in­ter­ests in con­tin­u­ing nu­clear talks align, both face dif­fi­cult in­ter­nal pres­sures against a deal — or an ex­ten­sion for that mat­ter.

Ira­nian hard­liners op­pose al­most any con­ces­sion by Pres­i­dent Has­san Rou­hani’s gov­ern­ment.

In the United States, some law­mak­ers have threat­ened to scut­tle any emerg­ing agree­ment if it would al­low Iran to main­tain some en­rich­ment ca­pac­ity.

A let­ter be­ing cir­cu­lated in Con­gress by Sens. Bob Menen­dez, D-N.J., and Lind­sey Graham, R-S.C., em­pha­sizes that a less­en­ing of U.S. sanc­tions should be con­di­tional on the nu­clear agree­ment mak­ing tough de­mands on Iran.

syria - afghanistan - iran - israel - United States - North America - East Asia - Asia - United States military - United States government - Middle East - Europe - Barack Obama - Western Europe - District of Columbia - Central Asia - U.S. Department of State - Iraq - John Kerry - Palestinian territories - Robert Menendez - Bashar Assad - Lindsey Graham - Austria - Josh Earnest - Gaza Strip - Iran government - Tehran - Vienna - Hassan Rouhani


You have 2 remaining free articles this month

Try unlimited digital access

If you are an existing subscriber,
link your account for free access. Start here

You’ve reached the limit of free articles this month.

To continue unlimited reading

If you are an existing subscriber,
link your account for free access. Start here