Talks in Vienna between six world powers and Iran aimed at limiting Iran’s nuclear ambitions are reaching another self-imposed deadline Tuesday that’s likely to slip by just as others have done.
Negotiators could reach a deal by then, but it isn’t likely, because serious differences remain. Nor is it likely they’ll walk away, though Secretary of State John Kerry insisted Sunday that remains a possibility. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, meanwhile, said last week: “We have never been closer to a lasting outcome.”
The “Goldilocks” option — one that’s neither too hot to handle like the remaining differences, nor too cold, like diplomats turning their backs when a years-long goal is in sight — is to keep talking, whether for a few days or longer.
RELATED: Iran’s cheating casts shadow over nuclear talks
Meanwhile, negotiators could also announce another framework, like the one released April 2, containing commitments each side would begin to meet while details continue to be worked out. This kind of stall helped President Obama hold off a fight with Congress in the spring over new sanctions, and could allow him to put off a contentious debate over any deal while the two sides engage in confidence-building measures designed to bolster support for an agreement, such as Iran meeting longstanding U.N. Security Council demands that it account for past nuclear weapons work.
Here’s the state of play for all three options:
1. Deal: Negotiators were optimistic after marathon talks Monday, and were planning to work through the day Tuesday to close remaining gaps between Iran and the P5+1 countries — the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China. If they can do that, they may sign a deal before the latest deadline expires.
One reason this isn’t likely: News emerged Monday that Iran has demanded that the U.N. arms embargo be lifted as part of any deal, along with sanctions aimed at the country’s ballistic missile program. Negotiators from the United States have told reporters in Vienna that this is a deal-killer, and lawmakers in Washington made it clear they would see it that way as well.
“Tehran is seeking to negotiate a license to kill,” House Foreign Affairs Chairman Ed Royce said Monday. “The supreme leader’s negotiators have clearly been emboldened by the administration’s concessions across the board. I can only hope that this is one line that U.S. negotiators aren’t willing to erase.”
Another reason: Officials from both sides are hinting to reporters that they need more time. “July 7, July 8 or July 9 — we do not consider these dates as one in which we have to finish the job,” an unnamed Iranian diplomat was quoted as saying in Vienna.
“Even if our job is not done by July 9, it would not be the end of the world. We need to reach a good agreement.”
Or, as State Department spokesman John Kirby put it Monday when asked about Tuesday’s deadline: “It’s not a deadline.”
2. Delay: The most likely option is for negotiators to either simply push on or agree to set a new deadline while a November 2013 interim agreement remains in effect. Which option they choose depends on how far apart they are at the end of the day Tuesday.
If they’re close, they may announce some kind of tentative framework like the one reached April 2 that may include measures designed to build confidence and change political perceptions that Tehran has most, if not all, the leverage in the talks.
A spokesman for the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran said Monday that talks with officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency had reached an understanding on how and when Iran would answer the agency’s questions regarding its past nuclear work.
“Iran and the IAEA have taken an important stride in resolving the remaining issues by achieving a general understanding on timetable of joint cooperation,” Behrouz Kamalvandi told the official Islamic Republic News Agency.
Iran has so far failed to comply with U.N. Security Council resolutions requiring it to cooperate with the IAEA and come clean about any past nuclear weapons program. This failure is one of the remaining issues shadowing the talks, and experts say no deal could be verifiable without Iran giving a full accounting of its past work.
Iran’s willingness to cooperate with the IAEA, perhaps in exchange for limited sanctions relief, could help Obama with skeptical lawmakers in Congress.
Under a law enacted this year, Congress gets to review the agreement and vote on it before Obama can lift any U.S. sanctions on Iran. And though the process is weighted in favor of approval, concessions already made to Iran in the negotiating process suggest the possibility of a veto-proof majority for disapproval as even Democrats who support the talks are wondering if they still can meet the goal of preventing Tehran’s ruling Shiite Muslim theocracy from having a nuclear weapon.
RELATED: 5 ways Obama has already caved to Iran
U.S. negotiators have been facing the pressure of another own deadline — the time limit for Congress to review any deal goes from 30 days to 60 days if it’s not submitted by Thursday. But if they miss that date, there’s incentive to wait longer. If a final agreement goes to Congress after Sept. 8, the time limit slips back to 30 days again.
3. Walk Away: Kerry indicated Sunday that giving up on the talks remains an option. “If we don’t get a deal, if we don’t have a deal, if there’s absolute intransigence, if there’s an unwillingness to move on the things that are important, President Obama has always said we’ll be prepared to walk away,” he said.
But almost no one believes that Obama would allow U.S. negotiators to walk away from what he sees as his signature foreign policy achievement. Not only has the president risked immense political capital on the outcome of the talks, but his allies already are mounting a lobbying campaign to build political support for an agreement.
And Tehran stands to gain more than $100 billion in relief from international sanctions in exchange for agreeing simply to freeze its existing nuclear program for at least 10 years.
