Trump’s Iran gamble now enters its hardest phase

As Washington and Tehran begin detailed nuclear negotiations, expert Anton Khlopkov assesses uranium dilution, Russia’s role and the prospects for a deal The United States and Iran have entered a new phase of negotiations over Tehran’s nuclear program, but the most difficult questions have only been postponed. High-level delegations from the two countries have been meeting in Switzerland, with Pakistan and Qatar acting as mediators, after the signing of the US-Iranian Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding. The framework document has created a fragile diplomatic opening, but leaves the central nuclear issues to be settled within 60 days. At the heart of the dispute is whether Iran will retain any right to enrich uranium, how its stockpile of highly enriched material will be handled, and whether Washington can offer enough guarantees to keep Tehran inside the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Read more Undefeated: Here’s how Iran sees the outcome of its war with the US Anton Khlopkov, director of Moscow’s Center for Energy and Security, says the prospects for a quick agreement are uncertain. In an interview with Kommersant’s Elena Chernenko, he discussed the limits of the memorandum, the technical problems surrounding uranium dilution, the possible role of Russia and the IAEA, and why Washington’s demand for rapid Iranian concessions is unlikely to succeed. Elena Chernenko: US President Donald Trump has repeatedly criticized the 2015 ‘Iran nuclear deal’ (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, JCPOA), concluded under Barack Obama, as ‘very bad’ from the US perspective. Judging by the memorandum of understanding signed recently by the US and Iran, is Washington on the verge of securing a more favorable deal on Iran’s nuclear program? Anton Khlopkov: In the Islamabad memorandum you mentioned, only two of the 14 points touch on nuclear issues, and these, like the document as a whole, are of a framework nature.

According to the document, detailed nuclear arrangements are yet to be worked out within 60 days of the memorandum’s signing, that is, by August 16. Consequently, at this stage it is too early to compare the JCPOA with the nuclear dimension of the new agreement, as there is currently nothing to compare it with. What can be assumed with a high degree of certainty at this stage is that, in terms of its length and level of technical detail, the new document will be considerably more concise than the original JCPOA, which, together with its annexes, ran to over 100 pages. The Trump administration is not inclined (some might say incapable) of concluding lengthy agreements packed with technical details; moreover, such a large-scale document cannot be drawn up within the allotted time. We may be looking at something more concise. Director of Moscow’s Center for Energy and Security Anton Khlopkov © Sputnik / Nina Zotina That said, on the whole, the negotiating parties took the sensible decision to postpone the resolution of the complex nuclear issue for the time being, focusing in the first phase on matters on which agreement could be reached ‘here and now’. As a result, a fragile peace has been achieved, which creates better opportunities for the start of substantive nuclear negotiations. Chernenko: Previously, Donald Trump and his negotiators had insisted adamantly that Iran should not engage in uranium enrichment at all, even though the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) allows countries to do so for peaceful purposes. Can we conclude from the memorandum that the US has changed its position? What does this mean for Iran? Read more No war, no peace – just Hormuz holding the world hostage Khlopkov: Once again, a careful examination of the Islamabad Memorandum doesn’t provide a clear-cut answer to this question; its wording is to