May 23rd, a Turning Point in Iran-West Talks
This time it’s Baghdad that’s hosting Iran and P5+1talks. After Istanbul meeting that was full of diplomatic gestures and optimism, now most commentators are eying Baghdad talks, looking for tangible achievements this time. As we get closer to the talks the number of visits made by western officials and of course Israeli politicians has soared. Head of Israel’s Intelligence Corps, Aviv Kochavi, has traveled to Washington. He is to be accompanied by the Zionist regime’s Defense Minister, Ehud Barak. This comes as IAEA Director General, Ukiya Amano traveled to Tehran to hold talks with Iranian officials. This was his first visit since taking office in 2009. Analysts have described the visit a good omen for Baghdad talks. The question now is what impact the Zionist regime is leaving on the talks. Compromise between Iran and the West is the last part of the scenario that consists Tel Aviv's nightmare.
Davoud Hermidas Bavand, Iranian University Professor and international relations analyst says P5+1 countries act cautiously with the Zionist regime. This is what he thinks about Baghdad talks:
We should remember that 5+1 have responsibilities, too, at the international level. They are credited with 4 resolutions. This is while Israel has a different attitude. And Britain, France and the US behave reservedly concerning Israel.
The Israeli officials, meanwhile, have different opinions. Some say a peaceful solution through diplomatic talks is needed; while some support hardware and military solutions. But as Perez in a meeting with Carry said Israelis are on the belief that it’s the US which should take the responsibility. In other words the Israelis emphasize that the United States should settle the case and buy the consequences. This is while Israel, individually threatens Iran, but in my opinion Israel’s final goal is that if hardware action is to be done against Iran, this should be committed by the Americans.
Concerning the extent to which Israel can affect the US on Iran’s case, different factors are determining in the US Congress. In order to win the election, the Republicans try to adopt a critical stance against the Obama administration in various arenas, including Iran. On the other hand, there exists Israel’s lobby that tries hard to impose its opinion on the Americans. But I don’t think under current situation that the European and American economy is in critical condition, the Americans can have any interest to make use of a hardware strategy. So they would prefer to reach a relative agreement and as proofs indicate certain agreements have been achieved. Thereby if 5+1 can manage to reach an agreement with Iran, this will be to Obama’s benefit in the upcoming presidential election, because this will neutralize the Republicans’ stance and pacify Israel to some extent. So Obama is looking for settlement of Iran case prior to the US presidential election. And so far both sides have expressed signs of good will and success.
Some analysts have interpreted the cabinet change in Israel as a war cabinet being formed. The rumor also has it that Israel is after a unilateral move against Iran. To me the case is the opposite. Once the Kadima party gets into a coalition with the Likud, which it has actually done so, we will witness a more balanced stance because Kadima is moderate and the Israel Bitna party which was in coalition with Likud, is a hardliner. So it seems in adopting such stances Israelis are after financial and military benefits. The Americans have no choice but control, calm down, curb or satisfy those that beat the drum of war. This is why it has become Israel's way to beat the drum of war and in return receive advanced weapons or financial aids. In fact Israel is constantly blackmailing the US in order to compromise for the time being. But its final goal is if something is to be done, it's the US that should do it.
There seem to be positive signs in the atmosphere of Iran-5+1talks. But beside these signs there are certain warnings. Those who think there appear to be some positive signs in the horizon don’t assert it emphatically, because there are also resolutions approved by the UN Security Council and the Governing Board. On the other side there are some ambiguous statements made. So there is no transparency in foreign policy. But the positive point in the horizon is that the Americans said they have accepted below 5% enrichment and Iran, too, has announced it has conducted the 20% enrichment merely for supplying Tehran University reactor and are not willing to do that now. Iran and the IAEA, in their post-meeting statements have behaved positively. These are only signs. The expectation is that such an atmosphere will lead to a primary agreement. Baghdad talks will be a turning point in Iran's nuclear case. If the talks are hopeless, there will be alarming consequences, but if a preliminary agreement is made, there will be hope for the two sides to launch new trust building measures. Further talks may be ahead, but these talks, once successful, will lead to a basic agreement.