A solution to Iran's nuclear issue remains elusive after the high-level talks in Geneva on Saturday between six major powers and Iran achieved only "insufficient" progress.
Significant progress is unlikely unless the key parties involved in the issue are ready to show more flexibility and make substantial compromise, analysts say.
NO MAJOR POLICY SHIFT
The United States has indeed injected some hope of progress at the nuclear talks by sending U.S. Undersecretary of State William Burns to the one-day meeting in Geneva, which was also attended by Iran's top nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili and senior diplomats from China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany.
Even though Burns' meeting with Jalili on Saturday was the highest-level contact between the two nations since 1979, it did not signal a significant shift in Washington's policy toward Iran.
The White House has reiterated that Washington would not join full-blown talks unless Iran gave up uranium enrichment activities.
But analysts added that the U.S. decision to send the third highest ranking official in the State Department to the meeting shows that the Washington remains convinced that diplomatic talks rather than military action are still the best way to seek a solution to Iran's nuclear issue.
As the U.S. troops are bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, Washington is keen to see some progress in efforts to solve Iran's nuclear issue, especially before President George W. Bush leaves office in January. And a peaceful resolution of the crisis could be seen as a big achievement for Bush's presidency.
White House spokesperson Dana Perino said before the talks that the U.S. official would not be in Geneva to negotiate, and more sanctions were still possible if Iran rejected the incentives.
"We will be there to listen, (and) we are not there to negotiate," she said.
"Nothing has changed," Perino said. "If they do not accept this offer (of suspending uranium enrichment first), one, there will not be negotiations and two, there will be additional sanctions," she said.
IRAN STICKS TO HARDLINE POSITION?
Despite Burns' presence at the meeting, Iran gave no clear answer to the package of incentives for suspending its nuclear program, though the country is expected to make a response within two weeks.
Under the incentives, presented last month by the five U.N. Security Council permanent members plus Germany, Iran could get a temporary reprieve from economic and financial sanctions in exchange for freezing its enrichment activities.
Preliminary negotiations over a permanent halt could then begin, although the United States would not join them until after Iran agrees to fully suspend uranium enrichment.
Iran had previously refused to suspend its nuclear programs, which it insisted were used only for civil purposes, such as generating electricity.
According to Jalili, Iran has also presented its own package of proposals for solving the nuclear issue, and the package contains "a number of opportunities that should not be lost."
The Iranian nuclear negotiator noted that Iran's package and that of the six countries had a lot of common ground, and that Iran was at present only willing to hold further talks on the basis of the common ground between the two proposals.
Diplomats were kept guessing whether Iran's seemingly hardline approach were mere diplomatic tactics designed to win more concessions from its rivals in future talks. After all, Iran has agreed to further talks aimed at finding a solution to its nuclear issue.
HARD DECISION
Iran's response to the incentives by the six countries, which some analysts described as the last chance for Iran to show its flexibility, would be considered vital to the future development of the nuclear issue.
U.S. spokesman Sean McCormack warned after the talks that Iran should either accept the incentives by the six powers, or face "further isolation."
"We hope the Iranian people understand that their leaders need to make a choice between cooperation, which would bring benefits to all, and confrontation, which can only lead to further isolation," McCormack said in a statement.
International pressure on Iran is also mounting, as the package was agreed upon by all the six countries, which means a no-answer from Iran could eventually drive the country into real "isolation," as the McCormack put it.
And Iran's rejection of the package could also offer the United States an excuse to take further actions.
However, Iran is not the one who would face a difficult decision. The United States would be hard-pressed to decide what to do next should Iran say no.
Military actions would obviously further burden already overstretched U.S. forces and more economic sanctions would not work neither, as earlier sanctions have so far failed to change Iran's hardline position, not to mention that the United States will have difficulty obtaining full support from the other five countries in this regard, analysts said.
More flexibility will be needed on the part of both the United States and Iran and diplomatic negotiations will remain the best means to seek a solution to the Iranian nuclear issue, they said.
Source:Xinhua
|
Comment
Tell A Friend
Print Format
Save Article