After the Istanbul talks on April 14th, described as a step forward both by Iran and the P5+1 group, the negotiations are to be continued on May 3rd in Baghdad. Presently, it seems differences between the two sides have come to the surface, so that Iran has officially announced that it will not give up its right to enrich uranium on its soil. While the US has consistently announced it won't refrain from its stance wanting Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment. On the other hand a number of Iranian officials have considered lifting anti-Iran sanctions as a precondition for resuming the talks, while western countries believe sanctions will remain unless Iran takes a step in line with the international community's demands.
Having all this in mind, Dr. Mehdi Motaharnia, a university professor and expert at international affairs, put emphasis on the point that Iran's nuclear case has been on the edge of the conflict between this country and the west for the last decade. He also added among the main sources of conflict between these two sides, we have been witnessing the alleged harboring terrorism by Iran, the Arab-Israeli issue, and the use of unconventional weapons with Iran's nuclear case at the center.
Dr. Motaharnia went on to say, bearing all this in mind the west is focusing on their ability to make Iran an acceptable country according to the international system.
The university professor, meanwhile, said the multi layer crisis concerning Iran's nuclear case has resulted in a complex situation creating conflict between the two sides.
He added these layers consist of vocabulary-based dialogue crisis. In other words, the vocabulary used by Iran and the west may be common, but basically there exist uncommon or even opposite definitions to that language. As he continued, despite the fact that Iran and the west sit down for talks with common vocabulary, there are definitions for the vocabulary from operational point of view. At the current stage, the step by step project is considered important by Iran and the west. But there is a great difference in practice between definitions of the project in the west and the one in Iran. We are witnessing the consequences of that difference in the political dialogue dominating the nuclear case. The international affairs expert went on to say that this vocabulary crisis is turned into a second crisis that is the dialogue crisis. That means in the west there is one superior dialogue with its source being the United States. Although the P5+1 group consist of the great powers' will, such a will takes effect from a macro dialogue that is the United States. The will is manifested in two fronts of west and east being tactically and technically different from the US.
As he added 5+1 is a transfer tunnel of the US's will in the nuclear case. Passing this tunnel the US sets its main stances on the path of pressure on Iran. Motaharnia added the rate of weakness and strength of such coordination (the coordination between Washington and the P5+1 group) is different, but in general it's distinct. This comes as the Russians and the Chinese join the Americans with delay.
This is while, as Dr. Motaharnia explained, Iran, on its part, enjoys a macro-dialogue stand in the Middle East within the framework of the existing resistance against the US policies. Therefor, considering the conflict existing between these two macro-dialogues in the Persian Gulf and Iran's highland, we are witnessing a kind of dialogue-based crisis between Iran and the P5+1 countries, the consequences of which can be seen in the Syria, Yemen, and Bahrain crises. Thereby, as he added, within this framework, the existing dialogue crisis coupled with vocabulary crisis, both are preparing ground for upper crises existing in Iran's nuclear case. The upper crisis has as its target the political conflict in the Tehran-Washington ties. He went on to say if the vocabulary and the dialogue crises form the lower layers of the conflict, the upper layer includes the existing crisis related to the Iran-US ties which will aggravate the nuclear case related issues. So if we want to lead the crises inside from outside we must say that first the vocabulary-based and the dialogue-based crises should be solved which will create an ideological cavity for Iran and a power cavity for the US. And in this regard the issue seems to be hard. While, as Dr. Motaharnia added, if we want to lead the crises from outside to inside we should first give the priority to Iran-US ties, since if this issue is not resolved it will be reflected in the nuclear issue and solving it through an external way will lead to a critical dilemma that is a political cracking in ideological approach. So as he pointed out resolving Iran's nuclear case within the framework of such talks is not easily possible.
Asked on the outlook of Baghdad talks Dr. Motaharnia said "in short term, the expectation of the outcome of Baghdad talks is overshadowed by the language used after the Istanbul talks. The atmosphere dominating the language used by Iranian and the P5+1delegations was peaceful aiming to settle Iran's nuclear issue. Both sides, therefore, called the talks constructive and for the first time both Iranian and western media used a common literature describing the talks. However, considering the crisis layers both in short term and long term, solving Iran's nuclear case cannot be done so easily.