After more than 15 hours of expert-level talks, the United States and other major world powers agreed with Iran early Wednesday to move toward resumption of full negotiations to ensure that Iran’s nuclear fuel enrichment does not turn into a nuclear weapons program, a European participant at the talks said.
The meeting, in Istanbul’s upscale Conrad hotel, began Tuesday amid doubts that talks would resume after they stalled last month.
But as of early Wednesday, the participants reached agreement to implement the ”œMoscow plan,” a process that would start with a mid-level meeting between senior European Union official, Helga Schmidt, and her Iranian counterpart, Ali Bagheri.
The outcome of those talks would determine whether full-scale negotiations will follow, a European diplomat attending the talks told McClatchy. The diplomat spoke anonymously because the discussions are ongoing.
Shortly after 1 a.m., the Iranian delegation left the talks without commenting. But one member, as he departed the hotel, told a reporter, ”œWe are smiling, and that says it all.”
Cheryl and I have been having an email discussion recently about the how a difference in cultural paradigms – one faction coming at the traditional format of diplomatic negotiations with a “buyer pays the list price” or “poker player” cultural paradigm, another with a haggling one – might effect outcomes in these talks. It’s a subtle effect, most likely – all parties know how the process is supposed to go, but cultural expectations will still have a background infuence. Eventually, these ruminations might turn into a post or two.
There are plenty of reasons that both sides want some sort of settlement. And both sides have plenty of bargaining chips to give up. The problem has been getting away from the public posturing, which has started with these talks.
And that last remark makes me smile. Sounds genuine.
Yes, Steve and I are working through the moves and countermoves and how that might work. Can’t guarantee a post, but it’s likely to inform my other commentary.
1. The British & the French have different expectations in negotiations. It might explain 1,000 years of war in addition to fighting over a limited resource (land).
2. You might want to reflect on environmental effects in negotiating style. There is a significant difference between norther European negotiating and tropical cultures, possibly based on the relative lengths of the growing season.
…around negotiation – though that will a) play something of a role, and b) will be played up by both sides as a tactic. One of the things that struck me recently reading through Ray Takeyh’s edited volume on the Iranian nuclear issue was this:
This sounds reasonable, in that it realizes that it is impossible to eliminate the option, but what worries me is whether it actually frames things wrongly for this negotiation. This framing means that we need to proceed very directly to reducing or eliminating high levels of enrichment in order for negotiations to be considered a success. I’m not sure that’s correct – we actually want to arrive at a situation where Iran chooses not to weaponize and can’t do it without us knowing about it. If all we were to get out of this was the cessation of 20% enrichment (which is really hard to get to on the required timescale) without the implementation of an enhanced monitoring regime, that actually wouldn’t be sufficient. This puts us in the unenviable position – if Takeyh’s quote reflects the thought process – of potentially aiming at something that’s both too much and not enough for effective negotiation.
“Everything around you that you call life was made up by people that were no smarter than you and you can change it, you can influence it, you can build your own things that other people can use.” ~ Steve Jobs