A New Opportunity in Almaty

After an almost 8 month hiatus, the next round of Iran and P5+1 talks will begin today in Almaty, Kazakhstan. While a new opportunity exists, the prospect for a successful outcome of the talks is not very promising. Western officials have said that their proposal for the upcoming talks will not differ much from their proposal raised during the last round of talks in Moscow, though some news agencies have quoted unnamed Western officials as saying that they would put forward new ideas in Almaty. For its part, Iran while emphasizing its rights under the NPT, has said that in Kazakhstan it will mostly listen to its interlocutors on its proposal taken up in Moscow. 

In the meantime, the new US administration has taken a two-track policy with regard to its Iran policy. On the one hand, American officials have been trying to pretend that the new administration has decided to be more open to a dialogue with Iran and on the other hand, they have explicitly stated their determination to continue punishing Iran with further “crippling" sanctions.

 In this context, consideration of the following is in order:

- During the Munich Security Conference on February 2, 2013, the US Vice President, Joseph Biden, said that the US would hold direct talks with Iran whenever the Iranian leadership was serious. In the same conference, he also employed threatening language against Iran and said: "There is still time, there is still space for diplomacy backed by pressure to succeed."
- Four days following Biden's speech in Munich, the US government announced new sanctions against Iran. The Obama administration blacklisted Iran's broadcasting company and a major electronic producer. Furthermore, the US Treasury Department announced the tightening of restrictions on Iran's ability to receive earnings from the sale of oil in hard currency.
- One day after the announcement of the new sanctions, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, questioned the sincerity of American officials when they offered Iran to hold bilateral talks. "The Iranian nation will not negotiate under pressure," he said in response to the traditional US “carrot and stick” policy on Iran. He further said: "The US is pointing a gun at Iran and wants us to talk to them. The Iranian nation will not be intimidated by these actions."
- On February 16, 2013, the supreme leader elaborated again on the recent US proposal for direct talks and said: "If the Americans show, in words and actions, that they are not irrational. If they show that they respect the rights of the Iranian people and do not interfere in Iran's internal affairs, then they will see that the Islamic Republic and the people of Iran are well-wishing, reasonable and cooperative."
He further stressed: "The only way to establish relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran is this, and if such a thing happens, the American government will receive an appropriate response."

Close examination of the comments made by leaders of both countries on the state of relations between the two countries and the recent developments regarding the nuclear issue reveals the following:

a) There exists a deep mistrust between Iran and US. On the one hand, Iran accuses America of following a deceitful policy towards Iran because the US applies the most comprehensive sanctions against Iran and simultaneously calls for dialogue. On the other hand, the US accuses Iran of non-transparent nuclear activities and of not cooperating with IAEA inspectors; hence the need for continued unilateral and multilateral sanctions against Iran.
b) The US dual approach towards Iran has been interpreted by Tehran as an insincere policy designed to change the regime or to change Iran's behavior and policies to those more in line with Washington's in the region. In this context, the US administration's new language is perceived in Iran as an attempt to show to the Iranian people and the international community that it is Iran which is not interested in dialogue and a peaceful resolution of the nuclear issue. The fact of the matter is that Iran considers the dialogue and pressure as mutually exclusive, thus rejecting the US proposed dialogue as long as the gun is pointed at Iran. As Vali Nasr writes in his new book to be published soon, “Engagement was a cover for a coercive campaign of sabotage, economic pressure and cyber warfare. Pressure has become an end in itself.” Moreover, Iran believes that the current sanctions and pressure are directed at the Iranian people in order to force them to rise up against the government; hence there is no real value in the recent US overture towards Iran. 
c) Despite its traditional criticism of certain aspects of Iranian nuclear activities (which Iran considers beyond its NPT obligations), the recent IAEA report on Iran once more states clearly that after many years of inspections there has been no diversion in nuclear activities to military purposes.
d) Ayatollah Khamenei's comments on the recent American position on dialogue with Iran were interpreted in the West as Iran's opposition to dialogue. However, what the supreme leader spoke against was the acceptance of talks while the US attempts to impose paradoxical policies on Iran. Tehran believes talks can only be successful when they are held on an equal footing and under a tranquil atmosphere where the two sides treat each other with friendship and honesty; otherwise talks will doom to failure.

Under these circumstances, what can be done to allay the concerns of both sides while promoting a peaceful resolution of Iran's nuclear file? In my opinion, the following steps may be considered:

1.  Both sides should enter the talks in good faith and with open minds. They should realize that practices of the past few years have not borne fruit. Neither the continued sanctions, nor the lack of seriousness in negotiations and the readiness to compromise have forced the protagonists to change their positions. Moreover, neither side will benefit from the passage of time. The same is true with the lack of progress in the talks, which may have adverse consequences complicating the overall situation in the region.
2. Both sides should lower their rhetoric, at least during the negotiations. In many instances, harsh criticism of the other side is aired for domestic consumption. Instead of public censure of one another, which benefits no one, the two sides should concentrate on finding an amicable solution acceptable to both.
3. Iran has a legitimate demand that its rights under the NPT, including the right to enrichment, are recognized. It should not be very difficult for P5+1 countries to accept such a demand, which is a given right under a treaty recognized by many countries. Recognition of this right in the Almaty talks will open the door for steps to be taken by Iran, which can alleviate the concerns of the other side.
4. As for the possibility of US-Iran talks, both countries should prepare the ground for such an eventuality. Under the current circumstances, with the continued US sanctions against Iran, one cannot expect to see a resumption of dialogue between Tehran and Washington in the near future. Fresh ideas should be put forward for the preparation of talks so that both countries will feel satisfied without compromising their principles. One possibility, which can pave the way for direct talks, is to suspend unilateral US sanctions during the course of the talks. By so doing, the US will show its good will to convince Iran that it has no ulterior motive in its approach towards Iran. By the same token, the suspension of the US sanctions will be a good opportunity for Iran to do its part and engage in genuine and serious negotiations with the aim of resolving outstanding issues between the two countries.

The Almaty talks will present a good opportunity for Iran and the P5+1 to prove that they are determined to find a peaceful solution to Iran's nuclear issue. Both sides should seize this opportunity and move away from their traditional positions, which have only proved to be destructive to the whole process.